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!
Thanks Rob (Cruciform)
Re: Contract MASTERS ” Writer shall re-record the applicable musical compositions until the masters are delivered to company in a form commercially technically satisfactory, as determined in company’s sole discretion”
GENERAL RELEASE “The hereby waives any claim to authorship in respect of each and every musical composition written, recorded, performed or otherwise controlled.”
MUSICIAN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 1. ” Employer here engages musician to perform, without limitation, at rehearsal sessions and recording sesssions for the purpose of creating master recordings….
2. employer shall not compensate musicican….
they’re re-title. It looks like they want authorship. (Sorry if I’m saying the obvious)
It doesn’t sound like the kind of agreement I should sign? My songs are finished and I wouldn’t want to re-record them. Should I contact them regarding my reservations?
What are the potential risks(if any) involved if the library contract is “in perpetuity”
Tom, so far as I can see with respect to “in perpetuity”…..
1) if the contract is over a retitle, the risk is you’ll never be able to sign the underlying work to an exclusive representation deal – but you would still be free to shop it through other non-exclusive libraries, so that risk isn’t significant
2) if the contract is exclusive over the underlying work, the risk is that library won’t market the work very well and it earns little or no income and you have no recourse to withdraw it and sign it elsewhere
Maybe others can think of more.
@ MichaelL, You seem to understand where I am coming from. Being hard on myself is a great asset. I believe that we all should be a little harder on ourselves. When I take an honest assessment of my works, I sometimes realize that my songs are not marketable. That does not mean that they are the worst songs made. But it is detrimental as a composer to continue to market unmarketable songs.
I have grown in confidence by being bold and taking on risk. If I get stuck in a comfort zone, I will be stuck in a very bad place. I think that once composers learn to deal with rejection and take risks, they will grow into stronger people and better composers. Composing is not hard at all. But what separates the good from the bad is the instinct and smarts to take risks, fail, and start again.
Also, I disagree with not deleting songs. More composers should try it! I keep mp3s of songs that are quirky but unmarketable. Those songs are just for my own enjoyment. But I do not regret getting rid of the master files and wav files of tracks that are unsuccessful. It sounds insane that a composer would throw away a song. A song has infinite potential to make money. But unless that song is put to use, the potential is unimportant.
I also deleted some sound libraries and VSTs that I used. The sounds were dated and the VSTs were free or demo programs that I didn’t get any use from. One of the VSTs I deleted was a program that I paid a few hundred bucks for. But what is the use of keeping it around if it is not going to help? What would I do if I lost all of my equipment? After initial frustration, I would rebuild. Since I would still have the skills to compose, losing some songs or equipment would not be totally devastating.
Hopefully we will all take some time to get ourselves together. I love sharing my thoughts with people here. Even the arguments and cat fighting is good at times. It humbles us and reminds us to keep working hard and getting better.
Best of luck!!!
Hey all,
I was wondering if anyone could impart some advice regarding a conflict between membership of the musician’s union and submission to music libraries? I’m a newbie so I need it explained like I’m a 5 year old 😉
In brief, I had some interest from a library in the US (I’m based in the UK) but their contract stated that they could not use anything if I was a member of a musician’s union…..on the basis that it stopped the library from potentially being able to fully exploit my music.
The mu contract advisory service outlined how they would always look to secure maximum remuneration for re-use rights etc and to protect my interests, fair enough, but that has left me wondering whether or not I’m seriously missing out.
Generally I write US orientated rock music and there’s rarely much call for that in the UK so I’m now in a position where I’m questioning my membership of the mu.
Does anyone have experience with similar concerns that they may be able to impart a few gems of wisdom? Any advice would be appreciated.
Regards
dboy
“In brief, I had some interest from a library in the US (I’m based in the UK) but their contract stated that they could not use anything if I was a member of a musician’s union” – dboy
Never saw that in a contract. The library owner must be the president of his local musician’s union. 😀
Heh, heh, it crossed my mind John.
The library owner is a musician……and I’m as confused as hell 😉
It’s pretty much standard that most libraries do not want any part of union musicians on the tracks they publish. The broadcast residual fees can be crippling to a library who will often come back to the owner of the master recording to pay.
Don’t understand that Frank. Usually the musicians are paid at the recording sessions and then have to sign release forms. I’m with a dozen libraries and not one of their contracts mentions anything about union musicians.
I doubt musicians signing a release form would let them off the hook with the union, if they are union members.
Anytime a recording session is filed with the union, all the musicians are entitled to residuals for any broadcast use. A release form does not negate that ruling. All the release form basically does for you is prevent the musicians from claiming co-writer credits for anything they performed (i.e., an improvisation or a unique bass line, etc.) If a track is broadcast on a network show and the paperwork is filed with the union (common with big shows) the union will come after someone to pay the residuals. I recently had a situation where I had to have tracks pulled from a library because they had union musicians and the sessions were filed under union guidelines. It’s a real bugaboo for libraries and if they take a chance with union filed tracks they could be in some really hot water unless they’re willing to pay what could be an enormous sum of money in re-use fees.
Hmm… I never came across this in all my dealings with music libraries. Interesting.
Doesn’t Pump ask you to list all the musicians that played on your tracks?
I once heard a story about a session player who was in LA and he got asked to play a session in NYC for a commercial. This was in the old days, before the internet. He calculated the cost to fly to NYC and the cost of the potential residuals and chartered a plane.
May be an urban legend. Who knows?
I believe it. The residuals from playing record session and commercials back then were huge. I knew a lot of guys who were making way over 6 figures when the average wage in this country was around 20K. Now the union is half the size it was and the only areas where there’s any money left is the Broadway pit and the LA film sessions. And, of course, Dancing With the Stars…..
If you’ve never filed a session contract with the union there’s no problem. Many union musicians will work under the table and the union will not be the wiser. This issue only comes up when a contract is filed. It could be a session that happened 50 years ago and you’d still be responsible for the reuse fees, even if all the musicians were dead. The union keeps these records forever….they’re worse than the IRS 🙂
I was a studio musician for many years and I still get residuals and re-use fees for sessions I played on 40 years ago. It poses a huge problem for libraries.
Maybe I better re-join the musician’s union and start doing session work. Never even considered the residuals for musicians before. Thanks for the education guys.
What Frank said!
Thanks for all your input guys,
As I said, I’m new to this whole process and I feel like I’m discovering there are lots of, for want of a better phrase, conflicts of interest in simply trying to explore avenues for work.
I do minimal session work so am wondering if the union subs are actually worth it.
I can choose to register stuff with the PRS/MCPS over here……or not if I want to go the ‘royalty free’ route. Being new I want to try a few things and see what works best but the process is confusing.
Do any of you split your portfolio, assigning some work via your PRO and some for royalty-free sites? Or do your decisions depend on the sites you use or the genre you work in?
Again, any input would be appreciated.
@ Anonymous, I am the same guy who was arguing with Gael. But after reading my previous posts, I realized that I was making excuses for myself and other composers. Gael should be tough on composers. She does not have to be brutal, but sometimes tough love is needed.
Sometimes I get emotional and depressed. That is part of being human. But I have to get over that in order to be successful. Many of us spend so much time trying to justify our music to libraries and critics. But that time spent fighting is time that is wasted. If a company or person does not like my music, I need to assess if those comments are valid and make corrections.
I used to feel like it was the end of the world when I got rejected. But it really helps me when I get rejected. I get to figure out which songs are good and which are not. The bad ones get deleted and the good ones get sent to another library. It really doesn’t make sense to tell myself that every song I make is good. It is obvious that is not the case.
I think Gael and many others here are smart people. Even though everyone may not be hugely successful, many people here do add some good advice from time to time. The people who do not add good advice usually complain a lot. Composers that complain a lot usually have issues with self-esteem and insecurity.
I get insecure from time to time. But the best thing to do about those moments of weakness is to do something bold. Calling a library on the phone and talking to someone is a good way to test my nerve. I have started calling a few places just to see what response I get. Even if I get told that the company is not accepting music, it makes me feel better that I took some action. Doing something bold or “dangerous” helps to drive away those moments where you want to throw all of your songs away and crawl under a rock.
And throwing all of your songs away is another bold thing that is helpful. I deleted the master files of about 20 tracks last month. I have been trying to pitch these songs for over a year to no success. They were added to some royalty-free sites that generated no sales. I had to realize that continuing to pitch those songs was counterproductive. Getting rid of them allowed me to start all over again and make some new stuff.
Long post, but the moral is that giving in to weak thoughts will not yield success. If you really think quitting is best for you, you should quit for a while. You will either get the itch to create songs and come back stronger or you will be regretful and grow bitter.
Bets of luck!!!
Nameless you are really too hard on yourself. Yes, this is a really tough business. You are hypersensitive to your own insecurity. I think that you are way over thinking it.
You need a really thick skin to survive in this business. It’s not for the dreamers and the unrealistic.
If you really want to do it, I say hand in there, but stop beating yourself up. AND never again delete 20 tracks from your hard drive. Copy them and put them somewhere else.
@ state of psychosis: No one here knows which libraries are good and which are not. If you ask 5 people, you will get 5 different answers. I feel that the people who really do know what libraries are good will not tell others the complete truth.
Everyone here is your competition. People are not going to be honest when they are successful with a library. They will not even be honest when they are unsuccessful with a library. Getting rejected makes people bitter and distorts the truth a bit. This sounds cliche, but you have to read stories and make your own good judgement.
I have come to the following conclusions:
1. About 60% the libraries listed on this site will be out of business within 5 years.
2. Another 30% of libraries will not be able to make any money for you.
3. Another 8% will never make more than a few hundred dollars from your music.
4. The 2% that do have solid business practices reject a great deal ofmkusic that comes their way.
That means that the chances of having songs purchased or placed is very slim. Making a decent living from PRO royalties is almost a pipe dream. It is just very difficult for musicians to have long-term success from making money from music. This has nothing to do with talent or a lack of talent. Luck and determination are the greatest assets in this business.
A mediocre composer with good connections and 100 average songs can usually make more money than a great composer with no connections and 10 hit songs. The formula for success in this business involves constantly making songs, constantly pitching songs, and constantly monitoring companies that have your music in their catalog. The smallest of mistakes can delay the payment of royalties.
If you are thinking of quitting, you should quit. You have to have the attitude that quitting is for losers. If not, you are wasting your time. You have to sacrifice antreat deal of money, time, and friendship innorder for things to work out in the long run. The music business is unforgiving and does not care about excuses or naivety. Get strong and get smart. That will put you above 90% of the competition!
Best of luck man!!!! You will need it!
@Nameless
Just curious, are you the same Nameless who said to Gael something along the lines of libraries crushing dreams and stepping on your neck?
Are you a songwriter or a media composer? What you do could affect your experiences as far as libraries go.
@ nameless
I’m not the type to quit.
I’ve been accepted to every single publishing company on this site
so I’m just going to add myself to every single one that’s non-exclusive, pays at least 50% PRO royalties, and never uses your music royalty free. (although I think that the “royalty free” yes or no column in the rating section of this site actually means whether or not you can use royalty free samples.. which would make sense because often times when sample are on the internet royalty free, the royalty free contract can end and you can end up having to pay for using them.)
Hard work trumps all
I am going to make 100 songs over the next 2 years
but make sure they’re a hundred hits
instead of making a huge pile of garbage like a lot of people are suggesting.
A song a week.
it’s not that big of a deal to me.
I synth so I can make a song in 2 days sometimes
anyways,
Music Dealers are at the top of the rating section
and they have “yes” under royalty free
so I asked them if it meant that they could use your music royalty free in certain mediums or if it meant that I could use royalty free samples
and they said it meant you could use your samples royalty free
which makes more sense seeing as they’re at the top of the list.
well see,
I’m going to try them out and see how it goes I guess.
thanks for the advice though
@stateofpsychosis: “I think that the “royalty free” yes or no column in the rating section of this site actually means whether or not you can use royalty free samples.”
No, that is NOT what it means and has nothing to do with whether you use royalty free samples. It does mean that the library sells the music on their site “royalty free”. That’s generally defined as the client paying a one time fee to use the song forever. It does not necessarily preclude you from collecting performance royalties from your PRO.
wow,
so that was a bold face lie from that publishing company
good thing I asked
I’m only going to sign up with ones that pay 50% pro royalties, are non-exclusive and do not do royalty free
I think I got it art
thanks a lot man
I really appreciate it
I doubt they were purposely lying. They also may have not understood it.
yea, they probably weren’t
but I sure am glad I asked though
no lump sum is ever worth giving away your royalties for
unless you really don’t care about that song and are just trying to make a quick buck off of it
“no lump sum is ever worth giving away your royalties for unless you really don’t care about that song and are just trying to make a quick buck off of it” – stateofpsychosis
Huh? 10 grand would purchase any one of my tracks free & clear. And believe me; I would care about a song I was getting 10 grand for. 😀
Well maybe for 10 grand
but I know a guy who gave away a song to the black eyed peas for 10 grand
and that song would have made him millions in royalties
so even the 10 grand can be a rip off sometimes
I guess it depends on the song
and what niche the artist is selling his/her music into
I took music business i college and one of the main things we were taught was that if you’re getting a lump sum, you are getting ripped off big time almost 90% of the time
so don’t take it’s not a worthy amount
I’m more of a long term investment kind of guy anyways
I guess it depends on that too
RE: Music publisher. The agreement is compicated. They’re Non Exclusive. Yet they write “The exclusive right in perpetuity to collect any and all income earned from the Re-titled composition”.
“Writer agrees that publisher shall have Exclusive right to collect and retain, for publisher and/or company’s sole benifit, the so-called “Publishers share” of public performance monies earned in connection with the composition”.(next is the section that scares me the most) “In the event that writer collects or otherwise recieves the publishers share of public performance monies, writer shall remit payment of all such monies to publisher”.
Whenever I see the words Exclusive in a Non-Exclusive agreement. Or in perpetuity. It makes me think twice before I sign.
I think the exclusive right only pertains to the re-titled track. Though, yes, I don’t particularly like the language either.
Important question:
when a music library is listed in your rankings section as yes to “royalty free”
does that mean I can use royalty free samples
or that they can use my material royalty free in certain mediums.
it can be taken either way
so please clarify
I’d really appreciate it
You can always use “cleared” samples on your tracks, if that’s what you mean.
thanks man
I wish somebody would make a perfect list of who is a reputable company and who is not,
because I’ve been accepted into all of them
and I want to put myself up on every non-exclusive library
but who knows which ones are going to shark you or not
and on top of all of that
everybody here seems to make movie scores
and I make club pumping catchy techno
where the hell to I go
who knows
In my opinion, non-exclusive libraries are equivalent to sub-publishers.
Hi, I have been offered a deal with a music publisher . It’s Non Exclusive, which I like.
What I want to know is, if I sign, can I still submit my songs to other Publishers. Or only other Libraries.
What is the difference between a library and music publishing.
Music Libraries ARE publishers. Non-exclusive means you can submit your songs to other non-exclusive publishers, though some have altered meanings of non-exclusive. Read your contracts carefully.