LEGAL definition of a song?

[brouhaha]

Hi all. Please forgive my ignorance but I'm hoping some more knowledgeable folks may be so kind as to shed some light on the following...

What legally constitutes a "song"? Lyrics with melody? What harmony parts, guitar solos, etc?

Example: A songwriter/musician writes lyrics and an accompanying melody. They send the sheet music and/or a very rough demo into the copyright office (form SR or PA) claiming sole authorship in the music/lyrics (song), the sound recording, etc.. Perhaps they even register it with their performing rights society, claiming one hundred percent ownership as a writer member.

Later, this same person assembles a group of musicians, and brings the piece in. The others add instantly recognizable, killer guitar parts and solos, a memorable bass line, brilliant harmony and synth parts etc.. However, the lyrics and original melody are unchanged.

Who is the writer of the legal item termed "the song" now?
Are the others LEGALLY and AUTOMATICALLY co-writers, or can similar legal inference be drawn in a dispute? If so why, or why not?
Can the original writer still legally claim to be the sole author?
Conversely, are there now two distinct, unique songs?

Would a contract need to be entered into by all involved parties specifying in absolutely no uncertain terms who gets what for what prior to anything being done?

In the above example, is it legally possible for the other musicians to be claimed to have been "working for hire", assuming they signed appropriate contracts and are paid in full for their time and services. But isn't the legal definition of a "work for hire" situation one where people are actually employees of a bona fide company (INC, LLC, etc.) and are paid W2 wages by same, i.e, staff writers, musicians? Example: Paul Schaffer's "Late Show Theme" may have been written by him, but the work itself belongs to Letterman's company and/or CBS as he is a "staff employee".

Lots of grist for the mill I know, so answers, suggestions, or pointers to other sites, case law, and people would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

BTW, the above questions-scenarios are meant to refer to U.S. law...

 

[FlyingRon]

Making a derivative work doesn't change the ownership of the underlying original song.

The derivative work is not a seperate unique work. It is a work that includes the original work (and is hence subject to the copyright of the original work) as well as new, potentially also subject to copyright protection by others.

However, simple new arrangements of copyright protected works aren't enough to stand on their own and not protectable other than through the underlying owner's copyright.

An agreement by all who might claim rights would certainly be advisable.

No, a work for hire does not need to have the workers be employees. That's not the definition. By default, works done in the course of employment are considered works for hire. Works done under freelance are not, unless an agreement to that effect is in place.