I’m sure the publisher, who incidentally also has to be paid, didn’t just let this slide by. There was probably some “legal” mumbo jumbo in the contract to use the portion of the song Albert wrote that allowed them to do what they did. After all, they didn’t use an entire song, just a portion. Perhaps there was/is a legality that says no compensation is needed. Or perhaps they paid a one time fee with no royalties. Who knows? I doubt we’ll see the contract to review it or that any of us will be hiring our own attorney to do so. It’s done now. I appreciated hearing the story, Chris!I suppose that I'm ignorant on the ins and outs of music publishing rights and royalties, but it still seems like a bookkeeping measure as to whether Albert Hammond would get his royalties from the song. On the very first original LP - I have promo copies - the credit is given:
On the rear of the jacket, and the stunningly lovely label:
I Need To Be In Love 3:47
(Richard Carpenter & John Bettis, Albert Hammond) Almo Music
Corp./Sweet Harmony Music/Hammer & Nails Music/
Landers-Roberts Music, ASCAP
On the innersleeve:
Music: Richard Carpenter
Lyrics: John Bettis & Albert Hammond
©Copyright 1976 Almo Music Corp., Sweet Harmony
Music, Hammer & Nails Music, and
Landers-Roberts Music. (ASCAP)
Landers-Roberts Music appears to be the publishing company for Albert Hammond's compositions. So did this album fly under the radar when it came time to divvy up the profits? Was Lander-Roberts Music ignored? More importantly, why didn't Mr. Hammond simply step up and ask where his share of the royalties were?
As I said, I'm totally ignorant on all of these processes. I've only ever written one song, and it's never been published.