- This topic has 16 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
So I contacted a library and they’ve sent me a contract to peruse.
Would anyone mind if I posted it here for feedback?
I think the company work on the basis of keeping 100% of the sync fee so I would only get 50% of the PRS payment.
Could anyone tell me how common this is?
Thanks
Have you talked with the library first?
Hey Minkus,
Could anyone tell me how common this is?
My experience (and seems to be similar to others on the forum) is 50/50 split on sync and 50/50 split on royalties (100% writer share to you and 100% publishing share to library).
Not sharing sync with you seems greedy on their part.
Paul
I don’t know about that. The contract should be reviewed by an attorney if you have real concerns. Posting it on the Internet may not be the best course of action.
If you cannot afford an attorney and the deal does not feel right, then do not sign the deal. Just walk away from this one.
Hi Minkus
No, don’t post the contract here. Posting a company’s intellectual property on a public internet forum is very inappropriate, maybe worse. The percentages you describe are pretty much the standard. If you have other concerns about the contract, see if an experienced composer and you can connect offline from here and discuss it. The experienced composer would be doing that as a NON-LAWYER and it would not be legal advice. However, composers who have been through many library deals are usually very familiar with these types of contracts, the language, and the terms.Yes, the other alternative is to discuss it with a qualified entertainment attorney. If you go that route, just makes sure it IS an entertainment attorney and one who understands the music library business. Not all do.
Good luck!
🙂Advice,
Minkus said (s)he thinks the company keeps 100% of the sync fee. That’s not standard. That’s greed.
—————-
Minkus, if you like, send the contract to me via info[at]cyphertm[.]com – remove the brackets – and I’ll be happy to give you a non-legal opinion of it. I’ve signed plenty and recently had my own drawn up so I have a fairly reasonable feel for them.
At the end of the day though, if you are likely to be heavily involved with this company, then paying for a legal opinion would be the best way to go.
I think the company work on the basis of keeping 100% of the sync fee so I would only get 50% of the PRS payment.
This type of deal is very typical of ‘work-for-hire’ contracts. That’s where you’re getting a fee for each piece of music written, and the library gets to keep any future licensing income.
I think this type of upfront paid deal is ok if:
1) you’re getting a healthy payment – ideally US$800 or more per track
2) the music is destined for mostly TV use (where licensing is less common these days), and the library’s main focus is performance royalties.
I apologize for missing what Minkus said in his original post but he did say that he ***thinks*** the company gets 100% of sync. We have no way if he’s interpreting the contract correctly. It’s rare that a library takes 100% of sync, unless it’s a work for hire or buyout.
I’ve seen a lot of folks have trouble understanding contracts and what the percentages mean (e.g. the writers and publishers share 200% pie). So it could be a misunderstanding.
But I agree that *IF* this was a standard library deal with no money upfront and the library wanted 100% of sync, that would be a bad deal.
Rob, I hope you help him sort it out!
Advice,
I hope I didn’t come across as ‘having a go at you’ because I’m not. 🙂
I’ve just seen way too many ‘take it or leave it’, taking advantage of the composer type situations lately. They make me mad. >:-<
Course, without seeing the contract, we don’t really know if that’s the case here yet, I agree.
People post contracts all the time on the internet in job forums and dare I say it music forums. Sound on Sound for example – obviously with the details removed. It is good to get informed advice from people in the know.
Advice’s advice to not post the contract so that the original poster cannot get advice is a bit puerile.
100% of sync fee is not standard and if offered that I would tell them where to stick it and run a mile.
“People post contracts all the time on the internet in job forums and dare I say it music forums. Sound on Sound for example – obviously with the details removed. It is good to get informed advice from people in the know.”
People do a lot of things. That doesn’t make it right or the best thing to do. People also rant at publishers and libraries on public forums using their real names. That does not make it advisable professional behavior IMHO. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone did post a contract here, if Art would remove it. I don’t think he’d want the liability or just plain hassle.
“Advice’s advice to not post the contract so that the original poster cannot get advice is a bit puerile.”
So I guess you would have no problem if someone else posted your song or lyrics on a public forum without your permission. In a former life I was a music publisher. I spent money having an excellent entertainment attorney develop my contract. Whenever I presented the contract, I always let that person know they were very welcome to review it with their attorney before signing. However, if I had found that they posted my contract on a public forum without my permission, I would have asked them to take it down and possibly even refuse to work with them. As musicians who want OUR intellectual property (e.g. copyrights) protected, we should have just as much respect for other’s I.P.
“100% of sync fee is not standard and if offered that I would tell them where to stick it and run a mile.”
As I wrote it my post, it wasn’t clear to me that 100% sync truly was the deal. Minkus has since provided some more info on that.
PS Len… Thank you for helping me learn a new word today!! Puerile! 😉 Always great to get a chance to expand one’s vocabulary.
People post contracts all the time on the internet in job forums and dare I say it music forums. Sound on Sound for example – obviously with the details removed. It is good to get informed advice from people in the know.
Advice’s advice to not post the contract so that the original poster cannot get advice is a bit puerile.
General discussion of common contract terms and standard industry practices is fine. But, individual contracts are something that should remain confidential between the parties.
1) Some libraries openly post the terms of their contracts on their websites. If they do not, you can assume that it contains proprietary information and is not a public document to be shared on an open forum.
2) Other composers with the same library might have different terms in their contracts, which are the result of negotiation, and unique to them.
3) Doing so is very unprofessional and communicates to everyone, including the contracting library that you are unwilling or unable to hire a lawyer, which weakens your own position in negotiation.
4) The library might not want other library owners to see the terms of its contract.
5) Other composers (most of the time) are not lawyers and any “legal” advice that they may offer is likely to be incorrect or half true.
If I were representing the library, and a composer posted their contract on the Internet I would consider it a breach of confidence, and suggest that the contract offer be withdrawn.
This type of deal is very typical of ‘work-for-hire’ contracts. That’s where you’re getting a fee for each piece of music written, and the library gets to keep any future licensing income.
I think this type of upfront paid deal is ok if:
1) you’re getting a healthy payment – ideally US$800 or more per track
2) the music is destined for mostly TV use (where licensing is less common these days), and the library’s main focus is performance royalties.
+1
Typical work for hire arrangement. If there’s no money, or very little money, upfront it’s not a great deal, unless there is significant potential for backend income. I would want to see proof of that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.