After re-reading it, what he's envisioning is something literally nobody in the industry gets.

I was wondering if that was the case.

It's not. Maybe he'll come in and correct me again if I'm wrong, but what he seems to be asking for is that game composers get the same benefits and protections as composers in other industries.

Well, it depends what you mean by "the industry".

Perhaps he wants game composers to get something game composers currently don't get, but film composers (some of them) do get.

Somebody has to be first.

On the other hand, if we don't actually know what game composers and film composers do and don't get, it's hard to even comment on it.

I expect the publishers would (and probably have) strong objections to it, but I do wonder if the fastest route to that sort of change is unionization.

I'm going to game sound con with a friend who did audio work for Sega for many years, so I'll be sure to tell you all about Marty's talk.

After re-reading it, what he's envisioning is something literally nobody in the industry gets.

I was wondering if that was the case.

It's not. Maybe he'll come in and correct me again if I'm wrong, but what he seems to be asking for is that game composers get the same benefits and protections as composers in other industries.

Well, it depends what you mean by "the industry".

Perhaps he wants game composers to get something game composers currently don't get, but film composers (some of them) do get.

Somebody has to be first.

On the other hand, if we don't actually know what game composers and film composers do and don't get, it's hard to even comment on it.

I expect the publishers would (and probably have) strong objections to it, but I do wonder if the fastest route to that sort of change is unionization.

After re-reading it, what he's envisioning is something literally nobody in the industry gets.

I was wondering if that was the case.

It's not. Maybe he'll come in and correct me again if I'm wrong, but what he seems to be asking for is that game composers get the same benefits and protections as composers in other industries.

After re-reading it, what he's envisioning is something literally nobody in the industry gets.

I was wondering if that was the case.

Maybe he meant this (bottom paragraph of the article):

"The GameSoundCon game music and sound design conference runs October 7-8 at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles. More details are available at the event's official website."

You could make that one at least, right?

Definitely!

"The GameSoundCon game music and sound design conference runs October 7-8 at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles. More details are available at the event's official website."

You could make that one at least, right?

You'd think that given that the Halo series is now Microsoft's intellectual property, this would also include the theme tune to the Halo games that Marty composed, but they elected not to re-use it in Halo 4

But they did :-)

It's subtle, but it plays during one of the cutscenes in the level Composer.

Cody, you actually know a lot, but surprisingly not everything. Come to my talk, I just want to get a discussion started for the benefit of all the people who contribute to a project.
My point is that not all work-for-hire deals are identical. In some industries, there are some better protections for the artist than in other industries.

This is definitely a topic that's going to be important in the coming years, not just for game composers but others in the game industry as well. I think they all DO need better protections.

Are you referring to your Pax Prime composer panel? I would, but it's sold out. Get me in, and I'll totally go, but I guess I'll just have to watch the video.

"When you're really expecting a group of people to work toward a common vision, but you're also depending on the individual artistic visions of the people you're hiring, I think it makes sense to not only allow some of those people to be credited for sure, but also maybe to benefit in the success of what happens in the future."

There are different ways of handling work-for-hire contracts. Yes, almost all film composers are work-for-hire but they have performing rights organizations and most of the time royalties on soundtracks. Also they are usually protected against the "owner" simply taking the "owned" music and selling it to someone else's film project, or putting it in a commercially available music library.

Cody, you actually know a lot, but surprisingly not everything. Come to my talk, I just want to get a discussion started for the benefit of all the people who contribute to a project.

My point is that not all work-for-hire deals are identical. In some industries, there are some better protections for the artist than in other industries.

This was not intended to be the definitive article on the subject. That comes later. ;-)

A lot of people who are making their way up the ladder in a creative role, or one related to video game production seem to come through DBO. I can't speak to the latter exactly, but for whatever it's worth I'd say that whilst ‘work-for-hire’ might feel dirty and wrong, it's potentially the path to something better: the freedom to be creative in the way you want, and get rewarded for it.

There are business realities that make work-for-hire much more desirable. For instance, with a film, there is so much to clear legally with regards to music rights in all the different countries you distribute in, television, DVD, VOD, and Digital download, that if you don't own the score it's going to be a huge pain.

There's problems all the time with licensed music. For instance, there's still no DVD release of The Wonder years, in part because of issues with the music licensing. It's finally been resolved, but it took YEARS.

Do you think MS or Sony is going to want to go through that when they offer an Anniversary, or special retro edition of Halo?

In the film industry I believe composers at least get, if not rights control

They don't. It's all work for hire.

The bottom line is that if you're writing something for someone else, it's going to be a work for hire situation. There's no way around it. Elfman's and Williams' efforts are work for hire. They may get a right to issue direct licenses, but ultimately the work is not owned by them.

I can't say this is true in every single situation, but I don't know of any counterexamples. I don't think you could even do that. Try to simply license your work to the producer, and the studio or network will simply require direct license of the performing rights be included in the licensing deal. That means you don't get royalties.

Soundtracks and scores are not like writing a Beatles record. A Beatles song is not meant to supplement another work. Mr. McCartney can write and self publish if he wishes. Marty can too, but then it's not in a game or movie.

What about "Live and Let Die"? That's the first thing I thought of when I heard the McCartney quote. The song was the theme for a James Bond film. I wonder if that was work for hire? Someone like McCartney, though, probably has all the leverage in such a situation and can retain whatever rights he wants.

I wasn't offended by the McCartney comment, but it is a luxury to be able to stay true to your artistic muse first and foremost. I think that's less likely when your work is merely an element that contributes to the larger whole.

Soundtracks and scores are not like writing a Beatles record. A Beatles song is not meant to supplement another work. Mr. McCartney can write and self publish if he wishes. Marty can too, but then it's not in a game or movie.

This sort of answers a question I'd love to put to Marty: what kind of work he'd look to get involved in next. An aversion to work-for-hire would suggest that movies and other video games are out of the question (but maybe they're not that out of the question) and maybe he's going to look at composing works that exist in their own right.

After re-reading it, what he's envisioning is something literally nobody in the industry gets.

I'm wondering if there isn't some loophole way around this. Lots of musicians have their works included in video games; they just write and produce them independently beforehand, then their publisher licenses them to the game publisher. If that can work, maybe there's a route available? But then again maybe not; these artists’ work tends to already be well known (although I can think of one example where less well-known licensed music was included in a game: the WipeOut series).

In the film industry I believe composers at least get, if not rights control

They don't. It's all work for hire.

The bottom line is that if you're writing something for someone else, it's going to be a work for hire situation. There's no way around it. Elfman's and Williams' efforts are work for hire. They may get a right to issue direct licenses, but ultimately the work is not owned by them.

I can't say this is true in every single situation, but I don't know of any counterexamples. I don't think you could even do that. Try to simply license your work to the producer, and the studio or network will simply require direct license of the performing rights be included in the licensing deal. That means you don't get royalties.

Soundtracks and scores are not like writing a Beatles record. A Beatles song is not meant to supplement another work. Mr. McCartney can write and self publish if he wishes. Marty can too, but then it's not in a game or movie.

After re-reading it, what he's envisioning is something literally nobody in the industry gets.

I've always found it interesting that for game tie-ins of major movie IPs like Star Wars and Harry Potter tend to go one of two routes: they either use the exact music from the films (e.g. X-Wing: Alliance, which had snippets from the whole series on the game disc) or they hire another composer entirely to create a thematically-similar but most definitely entirely new soundtrack (Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, for example). But maybe that was because the main theme ‘belongs’ to John Williams? Is there a similar situation with Marty?

Feel free to chime in here, by the way Marty :)

I'm not mad about any of it though, because getting the experience of working beside good developers and understanding the depth of ineptitude of some common corporate structures was well worth it. And I'm not quite at a level where I can dictate what work I will and won't do. Until then, I'll be your software trick, baby.

This, so much. It's well worth throwing yourself into the deep end of a large organisation to find out how they tick (so long as you don't wear your colours too strongly). You come out of it stronger and with a broader perspective on which things truly matter, I think.

which often meant doing work that wasn't interesting, wasn't sensible (you could point out the potential problems but ultimately the client might tell you to just do it anyway)

This is my everyday pretty much. I worked for about a year consulting for a corporate madhouse. I made pretty good money to go in everyday, do little work, get sidetracked by their incompetence, and repeat. It was pay, but after a few months of being there and making no headway, it became really grating. That's the gamble in consulting/contracting client can be good or shit, the project can be good or shit, but usually the pay is the same. (Except in the times where incompetence pays the bills, then you paid more to slowly lose your sanity and semblance.)

I'm not mad about any of it though, because getting the experience of working beside good developers and understanding the depth of ineptitude of some common corporate structures was well worth it. And I'm not quite at a level where I can dictate what work I will and won't do. Until then, I'll be your software trick, baby.

That's an odd sore spot to have -- I thought one of Marty's claims to fame was that he was one of the very few video game composers who was *not* work-for-hire. That is, he was a long-term salaried employee, as opposed to the freelancers and contractors that do most VG music.

I think the distinction he makes in the article is not about how he is paid, but about who owns the final work.

Whether we're talking about Bungie hiring Total Audio as a third party studio, as they did in the Myth days, or Bungie hiring O'Donnell and Salvatori as employees in their own in-house audio department, if the owner of the final work is Bungie rather than Total Audio or the individuals, then the works produced are works for hire.

In the film industry I believe composers at least get, if not rights control, then at least additional compensation upon the publication of movie soundtracks. I actually thought O'Donnell already had that sort of deal, but if not then it appears that is what he is suggesting.

It is interesting, though, that hardly anybody talks about the same sort of rights being extended to concept artists, or environment artists, or level designers, or programmers, or any of the other creative professions that work in producing games and films. One can argue that soundtracks are just different, but I think it's something worth thinking about. For one thing, soundtracks can be purchased, consumed and experienced separately from the work they were created for, which is not true for most other related endeavors.

Of course, assuming that all the soundtracks are owned by Bungie, O'Donnell still gets a piece on the back end one way or another, given that he is also a shareholder. How to realize income from that asset is another question-- I don't think LLCs can pay dividends, put it is possible for them to share profits. It depends how Bungie LLC is structured.

As a freelance illustrator, I can definitely understand these feelings. "Work-for-hire" is an evil word to me, and yet it's the only work I can usually get in-industry.

I'm sure it varies from industry to industry, but I can certainly empathise with a lot of what both you and Marty have said there, based on my experience in web development. Somewhat ironically, though, as I've given up more control or say in what I build, my earnings have gone up.

At the earliest stage of my career, I worked in-house with different companies; I wasn't paid very well but I had more say in how I did things. At least, that's how it seemed on the surface: in actual fact I had less say than I thought, and that was frustrating when somebody else pulled the rug from under you. But you do what have to to make ends meet.

Eventually I became a contractor, the very definition of somebody who does ‘work-for-hire’ (interesting side note: I'd never come across the term before, but it was Paul McCartney, a fellow Brit, who used it in the conversation — I'm wondering if it's just because he's been immersed in so much American culture over the years, or if I've just been living under a rock? I digress.) which often meant doing work that wasn't interesting, wasn't sensible (you could point out the potential problems but ultimately the client might tell you to just do it anyway), but ultimately… was very well paid.

I suspect a big part of that is experience level. I'm sure Paul McCartney could receive some amazing offers to work-for-hire based just on who he is, but he chooses to ignore them because, well, he doesn't need them. I'm finally in a similar position where I don't need to take every contract that comes my way, so I'm able to be a bit more particular. I'm sure that will happen for you and every other person working in a creative vocation eventually.

A lot of people who are making their way up the ladder in a creative role, or one related to video game production seem to come through DBO. I can't speak to the latter exactly, but for whatever it's worth I'd say that whilst ‘work-for-hire’ might feel dirty and wrong, it's potentially the path to something better: the freedom to be creative in the way you want, and get rewarded for it.