MI7®

The most common area of debate and arguments in the creation of music is how to share the money from the writing of a song or piece of music.

 When songs are written by a musician and a lyricist, sitting in a room together its pretty easy - the lyrics get 50% and the music gets 50%. Most publishers and collection societies will split the money this way unless they are specifically told to do otherwise.

 Once bands are formed, and new songs start being written, the waters get murkier. Some songs just would not be the same without the drummer doing what he does. A hook line can come from a guitar or keyboard that makes a hit out of something uninteresting. A clever musician can interpret the song on his instrument and turn it into something special. Even producers sometimes want a songwriting credit for knocking a song into shape in the studio (although any producer on a contract will be required to waive any songwriting interest his work may create, which he will unless he is important and powerful enough to agree something else).

  Most of the time, these issues get sorted out with written agreements that set out exactly who gets what. If a musician or band has a publisher, the publisher will insist that this is done at an early stage. Indeed the publishing contract will punish the writer for not doing so.

There is no right way of doing this - some bands do it by splitting the money equally between the members of the band. Some give the main songwriter a bigger share and split the rest equally between the members. The main songwriter sometimes insists he keeps it all, which is often the biggest source of arguments and band splits, particularly when the publishing money starts rolling in.

Just before Christmas the decision was given in a UK court (nb using UK law) on a long running dispute over the songwriting splits for "A Whiter Shade of Pale" by Procul Harem. The lyrics were not disputed but Matthew Fisher (who played the organ on the recording) was claiming a share of the music. Gary Brooker, who wrote the original music (and sang the song) denied that Fisher had done any writing, but had simply played an interpretation of an existing tune written by Brooker, and heard in demo form by many prior to Fisher even joining the band.

There was also the issue of the organ part in question (we all know it) sounding remarkably like a couple of Bach pieces - most people hear it as "Air on a G String", but its like another Bach piece as well in the same vein. For someone to claim a copyright interest they must show that what they did was original  in the first place. I think it would be hard for most people to say that the organ part was original. There is an instrumental cover version of the song at the start of the film "Withnail and I" without Fishers organ part and there is no doubt which song it is from the moment it starts...

 Anyway, the judge found in favour of Fisher and awarded him 40% of the music copyright (20% of the whole song). He did not award this for all the money arising since 1968, but from the time Fisher launched his action. Its still quite a lot of money for Brooker to hand over.

 Personally, I am bothered by the decision because it could result in hundreds of similar cases. I would have prefered the judge to have told Fisher that he should have got something in writing from the outset from the original songwriters, which would have encouraged good practice in the industry. I also dont think that what Fisher did was original. But these are personal views. The judge certainly thought differently.

The moral of the story is - agree songwriting splits early and get them in writing signed by all participants. 

As this is an international web community, I dont think anyone outside the UK should look at this judgement as being definitive for their country, and I would be very interested to hear views from anyone on this case and the issues it raises, and how similar cases have gone in other countries.

No one should rely on the above as legal advice, either from me or mi7. You should get that from a real life lawyer.  One thing this case definitely highlights, is that lawyers in courtrooms cost a heck of a lot more than when they draw up a simple agreement.