Kaley,

If you ever want to use that song, like sign it to a publisher or anything like that, you are going to have to talk to an entertainment attorney to sort it out, because what transpired is a complicated thing, and how the courts view it has changed over the years.

Keeping in mind I am not an attorney, so I am not giving legal advice, and what I say should not be relied on in decision making, the way it's generally viewed nowdays is that if two people get together and write a song, and one person provides the lyrics and one person the melody (so we are putting together two distinct entities that are copyrightable in and of themselves), in the absence of any other agreements (such as a songwriting agreement), this is considered a joint work. With a joint work, each author is considered to to be half owner of the ENTIRE work. You, as the melody writer, are half-owner of the melody AND half-owner of the lyric. The same is true of the lyric writer. They are half owner of the melody, and half-owner of the lyrics. In my mind, the fact you helped co-write the lyrics just strengthens your ownership of them, but practically, because they were put to a joint work with you as the other owner means you half-own them anyway.

With a joint work, it is also allowed that any owner can make all the non-exclusive agreements they want without the other owner(s) permissions, as long as the other owner(s) is/are paid their share of the proceeds. In practice, permissions from all owners are usually obtained in writing before any agreements are executed.

Also, although every situation is different, and in the long run only a court could decide, the factors you mentioned surrounding the original song, such as a recording was made of it, and the lyric writer loved it, it was posted as a song with both of you as writers, etc. makes a pretty strong case that the intent was there for the lyrics to be merged as a joint work. There is a point in joint work co-writing where it can be abandoned, but that point is very tricky to figure out, and the fact a recording was made and all the other factors you mentioned, to my mind weigh heavily in your favor. Plus, you have the other issue of you actually helped co-write the lyrics.

So, my position would be, you now own half the original song, so there is no "other song" unless you are paid and given credit for 50% of it. Because any song now made from the original is a derivative, even if it just takes the lyrics, and you own 50% of it. And you *may* even have a say in ANYTHING done with this derivative song. And I don't see any way ethically this "other song" could be shopped or signed to significate agreements without your permission, because of the legal issues involved. But, you are in the same boat with the original, I don't see how you could execute any agreements without express permisson from the lyric writer, not because you don't have a right to, but because there is now a legal cloud around it.

In short, in my opinion, your co-writer is full of it if they think they can just take you off the song and make another. The both of you are stuck with each other now and anything made of the original (even if it just uses the lyrics) is a derivative, in which you own 50%.


[This message has been edited by Liszt Laughing (edited 12-16-2005).]

Boo...my name is Doug