Do I own copyright in a recording I just made? I am a freelance recording engineer in Australia. I was engaged to make a recording in the expectation I would be paid for my services. After the job, the producer indicated that the job was pro-bono and would not be paying for my services. They had already passed the material onto the client. In this situation, who owns the recording copyright in the material? My reading of section 97 of the 1968 Copyright Act (Cth) is that as the "maker" of the recording and the absence of any "Valuable Consideration" that I am owner of the copyright in the recording until such time as I "release" the copyright to a third party, or I receive "valuable consideration" for the services involved in making the recording. The producer contests that there was a verbal agreement to make the recording for free and yet I have a hard and fast policy on doing work for free. I don't do it. If it had even been mentioned in passing, it would have been shut down immediately.
The law does indeed say that "the maker of a sound recording is the owner of any copyright subsisting in the recording by virtue of this Part", with the exception of when a "person makes, for valuable consideration, an agreement with another person for the making of a sound recording by the other person", and the recording is pursuant to that agreement. The law does not impose a burden on the engineer to secure copyright in the recording, it imposes a burden on the person hoping to override the engineer's copyright. If there is no agreement, or if there is no consideration, then the engineer would retain copyright. However, "consideration" need not be money: it could also be publicity, e.g. a line on the album cover saying "Sound engineer: Mark Jones". In which case, the question that would have to be resolved in court is whether there was such an agreement. The other side would have to establish that there was such an agreement.
Copyright in the US is usually a civil matter. Meaning that the copyright owner can sue (typically for money damages or injunctive relief) an infringer. The criminal laws that we have are aimed at the reproducer and/or distributor. In other words, chances are that you won't get in any criminal trouble for accessing academic articles of dubious origin. But never say never. RIP Aaron Schwartz.
You don't need to &quot;publish&quot; your song to obtain copyright protection. Original works are protected by copyright at the instant they are fixed in a tangible medium. This means that if you type the lyrics, write an arrangement of notes, or record yourself playing the song, the song is copyrighted.
Alice has been developing her own enhancements, and they're pretty similar to Bob's. Neither Alice nor Bob has copied the other's enhancements, so neither has violated the other's copyright in the enhancements. Whether that could be proved in court is another matter, of course, but since the original work is licensed under creative commons the question unlikely to arise in court. Would Alice be prevented from coming up with enhancements to her own game if other people could prove they thought of and released the idea first? No. Copyright does not protect ideas. It only protects a particular expression of those ideas from being copied. Theoretically, if two authors come up with identical 500-word descriptions of something and can establish that each did so independently, neither has a claim against the other. The practical problem there, of course, is that it would be impossible to prove such a thing. Could Alice outright claim Bob's "Adapted Material" because he developed it on her original work? Assuming that in publishing his adaptations Bob followed the terms of the creative commons license with respect to the original work, Alice's only claim would be that he copied her adaptations without following the terms of the license. If Bob can show that he did not do so, her claim would fail. In a comment, you wrote: Suppose Alice went ahead and intentionally, somehow provably ripped off Bob's "Adapted Material" because she liked the content so much, does Bob reserve any rights on his adaptation, or is Alice able to commercialize the work that Bob did in extending her original work? If we assume that Bob complied with the license of the original material, we know that he licensed his adaptations under "the identical terms," so Alice would be able to use Bob's adaptations under those terms for non-commercial purposes. Since the assumption here is that Alice provably copied something of Bob's, I think it is fairly clear that she would be liable for damages if she exploited that material commercially without paying royalties.
The lyricist and composers already have copyright. Copyright exists for the moment of creation: registration is not necessary to enforce copyright rights and to grant licences. Registration in the US is merely useful if you want to prove that you own the copyright which otherwise would require providing evidence of the date of creation, priority etc. Most countries do not have copyright registers. Similarly, you will have copyright in the derivative work of the soundtrack from the moment of its creation.
Their code, their rules A copyright holder is free to offer their work under none, one or many licences. They can, at the same time, use their own work however they see fit without regard to the licences they have given/sold to others (except, they can only give one person an exclusive licence). As an analogy, let’s say I own a fleet of cars. I can drive my cars anytime I want. I can let Jim drive my cars anytime he wants for free. I can let Mary drive a specific car on Thursdays and only within 10km of the depot. I can let Joe drive my cars providing he pays me $50 a day. And I’m not going to let Fred drive them at all because Fred’s a jerk. Each of those is a different licence.
A licence is your permission for others to use the work within the specific terms of the licence. You never license yourself, you license someone else or someone else license you. If you are the sole right holder of a work and you do not assign or transfer your copyright interests to others, you retain all rights regarding the work. Licensing your work under a CC licence does not make it impossible for yourself to use it commercially in the past, present or future. Of course, permissive licences like CC-BY might decrease the commercial value of your work since anyone else could reuse your work freely with minimum restrictions. But that does not prevent you legally from use your own work for commercial purposes. The exact choice depends on your wish on other aspects of using your work. For example, CC-BY-NC would require the licensee (essentially, anyone else not having another overriding agreement with you) to attribute/give you credits in order to use it non-commercially only, but they may remix and adapt your work as they wish as long as they credit you and the purpose is non commericial. You may also add an ShareAlike (SA) requirement where if the licensee creates an derivative work based on your work, they must license their derivative work using CC-BY-NC-SA as well. The last kind, CC-BY-NC-ND (NoDerivatives), would not only require credit when the licensee uses your work, but also prevent them from creating derivative works from your work.
Copyright in musical works extends to the composition itself, not just to the sheet music (as you notice, there may not even be any sheet music). If the musical work is protected by copyright then publishing a transcription of that work would be a potential violation of the copyright, subject to exceptions such as fair-use and fair dealing. If the piece is in the public domain, then you can publish your transcription.