- This topic has 29 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Hi All –
I know several composers that have made the switch from ASCAP to BMI but I’m wondering if anyone here has made the switch from ASCAP to SESAC and, if you have, how was the transition? I’d also be interested in knowing how many SESAC affiliated composers are lurking around MLR and, in general, what your experience has been…?
Thanks! – B
I know of one very successful composer (with a very large catalog) who made the switch from ASCAP to SESAC. He’s very happy and his wallet is fatter because of it.
Question on that, Art… My understanding is that US publishers (e.g. libraries taking publisher’s share) need to have publishing companies set up for the PRO’s their writers are affiliated with, usually ASCAP or BMI. I know most publishers have both an ASCAP and BMI publishing entity. But do most also have one for SESAC? And if not, can they work with SESAC writers? Has anyone encountered a problem because of this?
Thanks 🙂
1) @bradymusico…have you checked whether or not you can get into SESAC?
It used to be a fairly exclusive club, for writers with large or high value catalogs.
2) Make sure you know your ASCAP affiliation date. It controls when you can leave ASCAP.
3) Generally works that have another ASCAP member in interest stay with ASCAP, unless that interested party agrees to move your works to the other PRO. Moving their interest is also controlled by the date of their affiliation with ASCAP. It can be complex and time consuming.
I moved from ASCAP to BMI. I only moved works for which I am also the publisher. A friend recently moved from ASCAP to BMI. Most of his works that have other publishers, or co-writers affiliated with ASCAP are staying there. Some of his cues were published by my ASCAP company and I was able to move those to one of my new BMI companies. Other that that, he’s informed all of his other libraries that he’s now a BMI member, and is starting fresh going forward.
We both continue to get paid by ASCAP for the works that remain its catalog.
And if not, can they work with SESAC writers? Has anyone encountered a problem because of this?
Not that I know of but I have a writer, I occasionally work with, in SESCA and I don’t think it’s an issue. I’m not the last word on the subject though.
Not that I know of but I have a writer, I occasionally work with, in SESCA and I don’t think it’s an issue. I’m not the last word on the subject though.
Who is the publisher for the other writer?
Who is the publisher for the other writer?
He has his own SESAC publishing company.
One question… So with library tracks that you are not the publisher, for example, ASCAP still pays you for the writer’s share because you have left those with them due to the interested parties? Did you contact any libraries to have certain tracks moved over to BMI…?
I’m in eight exclusive (WFH) libraries. I did not ask them to move cues from ASCAP to BMI. Yes, ASCAP still pays for those cues.
I’ve never dealt with libraries like JP and SK, etc, so I can’t say if they would be willing to move your cues.
The cues that I did move from ASCAP to BMI are for my own publishing company and library. With respect to new WFH cues. I just finished a collection for a long-standing client. Those cues and anything else going forward will be registered with BMI.
I am going through the interview process right now,
Like I said…not everyone gets into SESAC.
Best of luck wherever you land!
Michael
So in this case do you still have the normal online membership access where you can see new cue sheets etc?
Yes. I can still view my ASCAP accounts online.
When it comes to pro payment accuracy in the world of domestic (US) TV, it’s not even close. SESAC is the most accurate by far. BMI is second and ASCAP is a distant third. Also, SESAC is by far the most helpful when there is a payment problem. ASCAP and BMI have a “explain it away” policy that will always be used first when presented with a payment issue. SESAC will actually look into the problem and try to find a result without the BS you get with the other two.
When it comes to pro payment accuracy in the world of domestic (US) TV, it’s not even close. SESAC is the most accurate by far. BMI is second and ASCAP is a distant third. Also, SESAC is by far the most helpful when there is a payment problem. ASCAP and BMI have a “explain it away” policy that will always be used first when presented with a payment issue. SESAC will actually look into the problem and try to find a result without the BS you get with the other two.
That’s pretty much my experience regarding ASCAP, a distant third. When I left ASCAP, I chose BMI for the convenience of some other parties. Otherwise, I may well have gone with SESAC. If those relationships change, I may still end up at SESAC.
That said, I’ve found BMI to be far more accurate in detecting performances, and very helpful when it comes to making adjustments, and have not encountered the “policy” argument.
Hi All –
I don’t really know how exclusive SESAC is these days but I was offered affiliation with them. I only have about 500 or so registered titles with ASCAP so certainly not as much to deal with as many others here at MLR but will be happy to provide info on my overall experience with SESAC and the migration. Here’s to better/more accurate future payouts! – B
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.