One of our readers, Ev, came up with the suggestion to have a section devoted to newbie questions regarding music libraries, music licensing, copyright, music publishing etc. There a lot of experienced people on this site and many are happy to share their wisdom. So, if you are a newbie (or not), and have a question, try leaving it here.
Of course many questions have already been answered here. First try searching in the search bar in the upper right hand corner. Also Google is your friend! I have found one of the best ways to search a site is use site specific criteria at Google’s web site. In other words, to search for a specific keyword, say “contracts”, type it in at Google like this “contracts site:musiclibraryreport.com”. Do not use the quotes.
If you still can’t find your answer then leave a comment here and someone will most likely come to your rescue!
RE NON EXCLUSIVE PUBLISHERS/WORK REGISTRATION
Am new to using non-exclusive publishers that retitle
Have just joined BMI and wondering whether I need to register my own works if I am just planning on sticking with non-exclusive retitle type libraries.
eg. If I have a set of songs with a library/libraries and they are registering them (retitled with their prefix) with ascap/bmi is there any need/benefit of me going through the process of registering those track names (without the library prefixes) as well?
Any help appreciated.
Can I still offer a song as Exclusive to a library if its been getting local radio play? I want to keep the song for an exclusive library but I also want to offer it up to the local radio station.
No you can’t. If it’s exclusively with a library and contracted as such, no, you can’t go touting the same piece of music around yourself. The Radio station in question would need to license it from the library, to use it.
To nuance this discussion, I think it depends on the contract. For instance, a library that asks for exclusive sync-to-picture rights but still allows the composer to sell it on itunes, offer it for internet use, radio broadcast or whatever.
To further nuance the discussion. I infer from the original post that you mean to offer it to local radio for “listening” purposes, not for its commercial use in advertising.
If the piece actually got some legs on radio, that might enhance its licensing appeal.
I’m not sure how interested an exclusive library would be in a single cue, especially if it’s a song. However, you might want to send it to a non-exclusive, like Audiosocket or Crucial and if one of them accepts its, treat the deal as if it is exclusive — i.e., only let one company have it.
It depends completely on the library and the contract.
Many exclusive music libraries are exclusive only as far as film/TV/video, etc. Some of exclusive only as far as other music libraries but not direct pitch. Others have all encompassing publishing contracts.
If a library is interested in your tracks, just be open and honest upfront and ask them if there is an issue. Then, of course, make sure the contract reinforces that.
🙂
well, again, I’m coming from the point of dealing with Exclusive Uk libraries, and they do expect across the board exclusivity. In fact the PRS statement I just received had several tracks showing radio usage, presumably for ads of some kind either for the radio station or for commercials on the station.
And again the deals I have also grant rights for the libraries to sell via i-tunes as well if they wish.
As ever, depends on what kind of contract you sign.
Okay thanks everyone for the comments. I was going to offer the song up to the local radio station first for listening purposes only, and then also plug it on a cd with other songs to a few exclusive libraries. I think ill hold the radio idea for the moment until i do a bit of research on the Ex library contracts. Thanks. But i like what michael was saying about enhancing the songs licensing appeal by getting some radio play. It might be worth taking that kind of different approach for once, and seeing what happens.
How do you guys label cds you send in for demos? Do you use lightscribe or is permanent marker on cd adequate?
If it’s a new contact I’d make it look as nice as possible. If an existing relationship it might not matter. Then again, many submissions are by upload these days.
Thankfully, we send less and less CDs these days.
BUT if you DO send a CD demo, always send a professionally labeled one & NEVER one with just marker writing. That screams “amateur”!
Either pick up some CD labels and use any number of free programs to write on the label -or- use a CD printer- one that prints directly on CDs. For the latter, you need to buy the right kind of CDs.
Given how we don’t send CDs that often anymore, I probably wouldn’t invest in a CD printer. That is, unless your situation is different and you mail out a lot of CDs.
CD labeling does not have to be fancy, just neat and readable. Dark print against a light background with no graphics is fine. Music sups don’t want the text obscured by fancy graphics and generally are not impressed by that anyway.
Send the CD in a FULL SIZE jewel case. You can buy blank case inserts and generally use the same software as for the label to write on the insert. Make sure the spine of the CD case identifies you and the genre of the music. Music sups like to keep CDs on bookshelves for future reference. As with the label, nothing too fancy– your name and contact info, style, and most important– track list!! It MUST be on the case.
Do not put the track list only on the CD label (if you put it there at all). Folks want to be able to look at the track list while listening and CD labels are kinda hard to read when the CD is in the player ;)… A lot of listening is done in the car.
Every single item you include should have your name and contact info– CD, case, letter, lyric sheets (if included), etc… Things get separated all the time.
HTH
🙂
Regarding the PRS, again…
Why are they so poor at dealing with queries and questions? They go on and on about their online help center (obviously to cut costs so that writer members don’t need to speak to a real human, who would be getting paid), but it only has about 20 FAQs for writers anyway. I’ve sent decent questions which just go unanswered. Then, when I finally get through to someone they clearly do not have a proper understanding of how the system works. If they did, they’d be able to explain it, but they can’t!
Why can’t they just have a section where it explains all the terms as well?! I mean, how hard would that be? Like when they say, your track is an “unnotified work”, it took me 2 weeks just to find out what that meant – apparently it was broadcast but they didn’t have it registered beforehand.
They are nice guys in person, at least from the times I’ve met them, but the system they have is so unclear it makes my mind boggle. I almost feel like just giving this whole thing up – that’s how unconfident I am in getting paid the correct royalties, and how depressing it is to have to spend large amounts of time chasing down performances or works or publishers. Library music is a full time office job for one. Everyone should be warned of that before they begin. Well, there is one other option: just make so much music that eventually you get a decent return because you’re everywhere. I think I’d rather do that than the headache of administration. Apologies for the rant!
Hi
can anyone tell me if i will run into any prob with this idea.
nameing a track say ‘ track funky beats ‘ on a stock site priced at x
and then
renaming it ‘ track super beats ‘ on another website.priced at xxx
are there any potential problems i am going to run into doing this ?
at the moment i would like to do it and cant see a problem, is there one ?
thanks all.
It’s what I do. Can’t see a problem with it.
Just the obvious one….you can only do this for non-exclusive libraries.
What if the stock site {lower priced} has the PRO option ? – would that confuse things down the road, or do you just add that title as an alternate title @ your PRO ?
i’ve been wondering about this as well – john
Did I answer my own question here ? {alternate titles} – can anyone enlighten me on this one –
I’m no expert, but I would suggest you register each alternate title as a new track with your PRO. This way, not only will you not miss any royalties (hopefully), but also as an added bonus over time you will be able to see which music library is getting you more broadcast placements! (Since you’ll be able to measure the royalties from one title versus the other, even though it’s the same track).
Thanks Anon – that was the answer I was looking for –
So how important is it join more than one PRO? I am an ASCAP member but received this email from a publisher in the UK:
“When we checked your name / works on UK and German databases we could not find you.
Foreign PRO’s do transfer money but only where they can see the correct data. Lost income stays with the PRO and is therefore lost to the writer
Secondly you appear to have no Mechanical copyright registrations which create difficulties for those who wish to use your work.
For example if you assign publishing to a proper publishing co in the UK both Mechanical and Performance registrations would automatically be added to the world database to enable collections for disc, radio airplay, synch etc.”
So I took some advice and filled out an application for PRS. Now what I am being told is that I need a letter from ASCAP releasing the territory. I do have music signed with a number of libraries in the UK and Europe so my question is do I need to be with both ASCAP and PRS or will ASCAP collect all of my royalties worldwide?
Thanks!!
Eb
Hi, could someone help me with this part of a contract? a library, wants to exploit my masters as follows, is this right?
“”manufacture, reproduce, sell, lease, perform, publicize, transmit, promote, advertise,
licence and/or distribute one or more sound track records, compilation records or other
records (including both audio only and audio-visual records) of any kind or length
embodying any or all of the Masters, by any and all means and in any and all formats
and configurations and in any and all media and fields of use now or hereafter known,
including, without limitation, by means of retail sale, internet sales or electronic
distribution;”””
To me that means they could basically publish my own music and keep the publishing rights for themselves, yes?
I would appreciate an illuminated view on this, thank you!
>To me that means they could basically publish my own music and keep the publishing rights for themselves, yes?
Presumably there’s a clause on your contract regarding percentages – the what you get and what they get deal ?
Otherwise the rest of the wording looks pretty standard for an exclusive deal.
Hi, I have a question about performance royalties. Before you switch off, let me say that I have not been able to get a clear answer about this from anyone at all, and I’ve been asking the employees of my PRO here in the UK, the PRS. It’s the kind of question I would expect to be able to get answered by an employee of the PRS:
Let’s say I am a PRS member in the UK. My publisher is in the US. They take 50%, I take 50%. They register all my tracks with ASCAP and put me in as the writer with my CAE number (for the PRS). They tell me NOT to register any tracks with the PRS or there will be duplicate entries. Ok, so I understand now that my track, if played on TV in the US, will be reported to ASCAP (hopefully) and they will eventually send my 50% to the PRS (12-18 months later).
However, let’s say my track is played on TV in Germany. Let’s say the person who submitted the cue sheet (the production company) didn’t know where the track was registered (entirely possible if they bought it from some random music library), they just know my name and the track title. My question is: what, exactly, is the process that takes place for that performance to be reported (if at all)? I mean, how could the German PRO possibly know that I am with the PRS in the UK? How could they know it’s registered with ASCAP in the US? Does each PRO have a database they share with every other PRO in the major countries, each reporting period?
Depending on who I speak to at the PRS I get these answers:
“Sub-publisher takes care of it” – I don’t think my publisher even has a sub-publisher
“That’s just how it works”
“It’s a really clever system based on reciprocal agreements between royalty collecting societies worldwide, it just works”
“It’s been like this for ages, it works don’t worry”
Maybe that’s alright for some people, but it makes me seriously uncomfortable not understanding the process clearly! “It just works” does not make me feel better.
If you have experience and/or understanding of this kind of situation, I would be enormously grateful to hear it… I’m sure I’ve gone wrong somewhere in my example above (like maybe when they buy it from the music library they’re told about the ASCAP registration automatically, who knows)
You’re publisher wants that $ just as much as you do so they’re going to get it for you both. If you’re music is in an American Music Library and used in Germany, the German production company that used the music will report a cue sheet back to the library.
I don’t get what you mean by this….. “Let’s say the person who submitted the cue sheet (the production company) didn’t know where the track was registered (entirely possible if they bought it from some random music library), they just know my name and the track title.”
When a production company licenses from a music library they are provided with all of the writer/publisher info. If you’re with a company that doesn’t provide the info and track cue sheets, then I think you’re with the wrong kind of company.
If you’re talking about a “royalty free” site, I’d only expect half (if you’re lucky) of any uses to ever be reported. The name royalty free is so deceiving. So many people think they can just use the music however they want without reporting it simply b/c the company uses the term “royalty free”.
In the case of a “royalty free” or “stock music ” website you may have to administrate your own publishing ie followup with the licensee and if it is a usage that qualifies for performance royalties you would have to monitor their filing if a cue sheet. Some royalty free companies will give you the option of administrating your own coppyright in which case you would get the writer AND publisher share. Or they will do it for you and they will get the publishers share.
I agree, it’s all about the library / publisher providing that info. It’s also not difficult for someone in a production company to check the databases at ASCAP and BMI.
You’d think that royalty free sites wouldn’t involve any performance royalties, but I am actually dealing with a situation right now where someone bought a bunch of tracks of mine off of a royalty free site that specifically says their customers don’t have to report the usage to PROs. As you probably know, professionally produced films and TV shows (the ones that will actually go to air) require the cue sheets to be filled out as part of the deliverables. The lawyers on both sides won’t let the production air until all the paperwork is squared away – they don’t want any unauthorized music being used.
Anyway, back to the situation with the royalty free library – this customer who bought my tracks is now filling out the cue sheets according to what they see listed on the royalty free website, which in many cases is not complete or even correct writers and publishers information (basically to save space).
BMI and ASCAP have contacted me several times now to ask which info is correct – that which is registered with them, or that which has been listed on the cue sheets.
Moral of the story is yes, you can actually make performance royalties from royalty free libraries, so make sure you list the exact writers and publishers info!
Hi Matt,
Your situation is a perfect example of the misunderstanding of the term Royalty Free.
As many readers of this forum know by now, in addition to being a composer I am a lawyer.
Let me state this clearly: THERE IS NO SUCH THING ROYALTY FREE. The term in it’s practical usage means that the buyer gets a permanent non-exclusive license and does not have to pay any additional SYNC FEES.
SNYC FEES AND ROYALTIES ARE DIFFERENT. Sync fees are paid directly to the licensor (the library and/or you) by the licensee (the producer). ROYALTIES ARE PAID BY THE BROADCASTER — the networks, cable companies, etc., that actually broadcast the program containing music, NOT THE PRODUCER.
This money is being collected by the PROS — BMI and ASCAP at all times, regardless of whether a particular library “requires” their customers to file cue sheets. The LAW REQUIRES the library’s customers to file cue sheets, if what they are producing is going to be broadcast. The pie already exists. Cue sheets just tell the PROs how to slice it.
Not requiring customers to file cue sheets is a marketing gimmick. It is analogous to a car dealer telling its customers, “we don’t require that you drive the speed limit.” The car dealer does not have the power or authority to circumvent the law.
Why does this happen? It’s simply a marketing ploy directed at the ignorance of the consumer/producer, who does not understand that they are not the ones who pay royalties.
In the beginning of my career, I spent many years working for small non-broadcast producers, who did everything from corporate videos to government training films. The all had a fear of paying royalties, because the worked with micro-budgets AND because they simply didn’t understand who pays royalties and for what kinds of uses.
I’m sure that there are variations on this theme, like lazy producers who know that they don’t pay the royalties, but don’t want to be bothered by filing cue sheets. However, THE LIBRARY DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY to absolve the producer from that responsibility/duty under the law. It simply can’t be done.
So — the bottom-line is that libraries who use the term “royalty free” are using the terms “royalties” and “sync fees” interchangeably.
In a best case scenario the buyer small producer or in-house AV producer, using the music in a corporate video, wedding video or some other non-broadcast scenario and it doesn’t matter.
In a worst case scenario you end up in the your (Matt’s) situation, with lawyers fighting it out on both sides. I would be curious to know who is paying the legal fees — Matt, the producer OR the library that claimed it’s music was royalty free?
This situation could be avoided if royalty free libraries clearly explained the difference between SYNC FEES and ROYALTIES to its customers, and told them who is actually responsible for paying both AND stopped implying the power to circumvent the law.
The library needs to clearly explain to its customers that although they are not required to file cue sheets WITH THE LIBRARY (because the library is not acting as publisher) they are still required UNDER LAW to file cue sheets with the appropriate PRO, if the music is going to be broadcast on a medium that pays royalties.
The only truly royalty free situation for broadcast media is where the network enters into a direct license agreement with the composer for a buyout — the Scripps scenario — which is essentially a work for hire model AND another thread.
This post was meant to be informational. It is neithert an indictment of any particular library’s marketing strategy, nor is it legal advice to anyone.
However, the bottom-line is that Royalty Free is not royalty free.
Cheers,
Michael
What about direct licensing?
“The copyright owner of a piece of music retains the right to directly assign the rights to use their music to any individual or entity, through what is known as a Direct License.
This means that none of the performing rights organizations collect performance royalties for the performance of the work. “
Anon,
I’m not sure where you pulled the quote that you’re referencing.
Yes, there are court decisions that uphold a composer’s right to enter into a direct license, and bypass their PRO.
However, that does not necessarily negate the option of backend royalties, unless that is what the parties agree to — a complete buyout. That would only benefit a company like Scripps, that owns the network broadcasting the music and therefore would be the entity paying the royalties to the PRO.
On the other hand, you might directly license (not through a library) your music to a TV producer for little or no money upfront (no sync fees), knowing that you will definitely get significant money on the backend. I know a number of composers who submit hard drives full of tracks to networks, only for the backend money.
_Michael
Thank you everyone for the information you posted. I think I understand it now. Whenever a track is bought from the music library I’m with, if it is for broadcast the library requires a cue sheet to be filed with them, (as well as the network). As they’re the publisher they then know where to look out for it and have given the buyer the correct info to report to the network: e.g. composer name, CAE, publisher name, etc.
Out of curiosity, if a track was aired on TV in Germany for example, would the normal process be to send my 50% directly to me in the UK (PRS) and the 50% of my publisher to them in the US (ASCAP). Or would they send all of it to ASCAP, who then divides it up and passes on my share to the PRS? The second of these sounds like it could take a while..
Thanks again for the help.
oops. answered my own question.
This may be “crossing the lines” of the Music LIBRARY Report, but I have a couple of questions (while the site is till free :)) ….
Scenario: I have just written a new music cue, and I want to market it directly to some film/video producers.
Is it beneficial to offer this cue on an “exclusive use” basis? Buy Out? Work for Hire?
I’ve got a general idea of these terms, but not completely fluent in what rights I am giving up.
I am willing to give up the rights to re-sell, but not willing to give up copyright ownership.
And what would be “the going rate” for such a deal?
Should I keep the writers share of the royalties and give publishing to the client? What if they aren’t a registered publisher?
Sorry about this post already! My mind is racing!
“I am willing to give up the rights to re-sell, but not willing to give up copyright ownership” – JD
What’s the difference JD? Is there any benefit in holding on to the copyright in a buy-out situation?
You are right. I guess it feels like more of a “I wrote that, and here’s the proof” feeling.
You just hate to completely “give away” your creation.
I know what’s coming next… “You’re in the wrong business if….” 🙂
Whether you give up the copyright or not you should still get music credits on the film JD. And if it gets played on TV you still get PRO royalties. You remain the writer regardless of who owns the copyright. Giving up a copyright doesn’t mean someone else can take the music credit.
Understood… kinda. This is turning into a very teachable moment for me!
It just feels like I am giving up that “legacy, something to leave my kids” kinda thing. It has nothing to do with my ego, otherwise I wouldn’t be submitting to libraries. 🙂
So let me understand, if I give up the copyright (Buy Out), I no longer receive any of the royalties, but keep the credit in the scroll.
Is there a way to keep the copyright, collect writers share, and still give the Producer publishing and exclusive rights?
“So let me understand, if I give up the copyright (Buy Out), I no longer receive any of the royalties, but keep the credit in the scroll” – JD
Yes, you certainly should be entitled to the writer’s PRO royalties. The contract you sign should spell out all the terms. I gave up my copyright on several tracks, but I’m entitled to PRO royalties and licensing fees. Also there is a two-year reversion clause where the track reverts back to me (including the copyright ownership). So your contract is the part that needs to be scrutinized.
John (the other John) says:
“Yes, you certainly should be entitled to the writer’s PRO royalties. The contract you sign should spell out all the terms. I gave up my copyright on several tracks, but I’m entitled to PRO royalties and licensing fees. Also there is a two-year reversion clause where the track reverts back to me (including the copyright ownership). So your contract is the part that needs to be scrutinized.”
OK! Now I’m getting somewhere! That sounds like it it is exactly the deal I’m trying to make!
I guess my next question is, where can I find/purchase a contract of this nature? I would like to read and try to understand it over the next 5 years! ha!
No, seriously, I would like to have something that I could customize (MS Word maybe?) and send to the Producer, since I am the one providing this opportunity.
It is very likely that there will be near zero “backend” on this project, but I want to make sure my bases are covered.
Don’t know where you can download a generic contract JD. Try Googling.
As far as payment, make sure you cover 1. licensing fees (based on gross receipts), 2. writer’s share of public performance income, and 3. licensing fees & mechanical royalties for CD & DVD releases.
Also make sure there’s a reversion clause (unless you’re getting money upfront).
John (the other John), You have been a tremendous help!
Thank you very much.
I will start my homework immediately!
Hi JD, send me an email – I have about 40 contract templates I can send you – one of them should suit your needs.
Emmett
JD,
An indie film producer should be satisfied with a non-exclusive license that enables him/her to use your cue in the specified film (and its trailer). You should retain the copyright and be free to market the cue to others, including placing it in a music library. If the film producer wanted some nature of exclusive on the cue, then agree not to market the cue to anyone else for an agreed period of time (one or two years, max). Get payment upfront. There never is a back end on indie films. The amount is highly negotiable. There is no set fee for music in the indie film world. A starting point is $100/minute of sound, but there are many film composers who will do this work for free. Composers with extensive film credits will ask for many, many times that amount. Also be sure that you get a composer’s credit in the film, plus the right to use the film poster and film name in your music business. Good luck, friend! Bren
Thanks Bren. You make some great points!
Truth be told, I’m looking for that “golden avenue” to provide something to a Producer that he/she can’t get from a library (besides the entire custom score). Something that would benefit us both.
The Producer gets exclusivity, and I get a fair lump sum which means I don’t have to spend he countless hours of shopping, submitting, duplicating, tracking cue sheets, etc. for said music cue.
I have sold just enough of my music too refuse to do anything for free or near free! I have earned the right to charge for my craft. But, I have no problem setting a price, of what I think covers my time, talent, and art, and be done with the whole process. I have made most of my income from custom projects, and after the horror stories (in my mind) of waiting and dealing with PRO’s that I’ve read, I just don’t know if it is worth the headaches. Unless Warner Brothers or NBC calls, of course. 🙂