BMI vs ASCAP on royalties

[MichaelL]

Do cue sheets have a field for sync fee paid?

No.

[wilx2]

The PROS and PMA member libraries are fighting to protect royalty rates. Hopefully, they will be successful.

Indeed.

And let’s hope that basing royalties off sync fees would be too complicated to even implement.

[music_pro]

MichaelL, dont you think that when the internet will become the main resource for those shows and media content that are now broadcasted mainly on TV then BMI and ASCAP will get more in licence fees from the internet sites at the same rate that now is being paid by TV networks? Internet royalty rate are low because it’s not the main thing, there is still tv channels around that are attracting a lot of viewers, when it will end then the internet site will be required to pay their fees like the TV networks did, if they are attracting the same amount of viewers and generating the same amount of revenue as a result.

[MichaelL]

And let’s hope that basing royalties off sync fees would be too complicated to even implement.

I think you’re missing the point. There is already a connection between sync fees and royalty rates. This is not something new for the future. But, as gratis licensing increases, the aggregate amount of sync fees decreases. As such, the royalty rate may decrease,for broadcast.
Remember, there’s two sides to every equation. On one side you have the PROS and PMA members fighting to keep royalty rates up. On the other side you have broadcasters arguing that they should pay less, because the amount that they pay in sync fees is going down.
As I said to music pro, if internet royalties are tied to internet sync fees, like TV rates, its not a rosey picture.

[MichaelL]

MichaelL, dont you think that when the internet will become the main resource for those shows and media content that are now broadcasted mainly on TV then BMI and ASCAP will get more in licence fees from the internet sites at the same rate that now is being paid by TV networks? Internet royalty rate are low because it’s not the main thing, there is still tv channels around that are attracting a lot of viewers, when it will end then the internet site will be required to pay their fees like the TV networks did, if they are attracting the same amount of viewers and generating the same amount of revenue as a result.

In short, no. I think that is wishful thinking. If the tribunal bases internet royalty rates on what internet users pay for sync licenses, like they do for TV, the picture isn’t rosey. What are internet sync fees now, compared to TV sync fees? The internet is a cheap medium.

[soundspot]

when you say “self-published” do you mean that you have a publishing company, or that you just assign the publishing to yourself?

1) I had an ASCAP publishing company. Its election date was two quarters different than my writer election date. As such, the windows for notifying ASCAP that I was switching my writer membership and moving my catalog were six months apart. That really complicated things.

2) Except for RF libraries, where I own the publishing, I have only written for 7 or 8 money-upfront exclusive libraries. I have not, and do not, retitle, so I cannot answer your questions regarding that.

3) I left all of my older library cues at ASCAP. But…a lot of library music has a “best when used by” date on it. Most of those cues are more than 10 years old and have really run their course.

Thanks Michael. Correct, I assign publishing to myself for non-exclusives that don’t retitle.

(Although recently, after talking with a company who runs a library that is connected to a post-facility in NYC I’m strongly considering moving away from retitling as much as I can in the future. The guy I spoke with owned the library and said some really insightful things from the perspective of the music supervisor that has made me reconsider it as being as “harmless” as libraries will have you believe…)

Anyway, it sounds like the way to go is to leave all works behind that have been retitled (including my original registrations which I assigned my own publishing to…)

I guess what’s not clear to me is this:

I know they’ll continue to pay you your writers share for titles left behind.

So, Assuming I ALSO leave the titles behind that I assigned my own publishing to, will they continue to pay the publishing share as well?

Thanks again!

[wilx2]

the aggregate amount of sync fees

Got it – Now I see the point. Thanks.

[MichaelL]

Soundspot, I really can’t say for sure. I was a writer member AND a publisher member. I publish my works and the works of others.

If you only assign publishing to yourself, and did not have a separate publisher membership, it may be that those works leave the ASCAP catalog with you. If you are not a publisher member, there is no member in interest remaining with ASCAP. I would contact ASCAP about that. In that case you would not get paid for publishing.

[soundspot]

Agreed, this really is a question for ASCAP… was just hoping you might know…
Thanks for your help, you’re a huge asset to everyone here.

Cheers!

And I’ll post what I find out in case anyone else needs to know …

[MichaelL]

Thanks for the kind words soundspot.

Cheers,
Michael

[soundspot]

Sure thing Michael,

And for anyone else that might be wondering this in the future I checked with ASCAP.

As long as you have your own separate publishing membership (which I do,) if you leave your works behind when resigning you will still collect both shares …

for retitled works, or works owned by a separate publisher, you will of course only receive your writers share.

Either way I’m glad to know I won’t bleed money too severely while making the switch, other than the 9 month window BMI has on backend…

[markholden]

Greetings to Art and all– my first time posting at MLR.

There are some quirks in resigning ASCAP “with rights,” aka leaving your writer catalog where it is. You would be designated as a “member-in-interest.” Speaking from experience, your works will no longer show-up from a search of your name on ACE, the ASCAP public database. Bear in mind, the works are still searchable by title – but from a search of you as an author – no matches will show. Poof! The disappearing writer.

I find this to be particularly punitive when a producer or supervisor searches ACE to confirm my resume credits only to find nothing, even though ASCAP administrates the performing right for hundreds of my titles remaining at ASCAP.

Another aspect for a migrating writer is lack of access to online statements or any other account documents pertaining to your works via the ASCAP website. All this appears to be policy, but if anyone has info to the contrary, please speak up. To anyone considering resignation – is ASCAP disclosing these factors to you?

There are other things that can go funky whether you leave your catalog or take it with you. Foreign PROs can be pretty slow on the uptake and your earnings may be sent to your former OR new PRO. Worse case, none of the above should your royalties go into suspense. Make certain of the responsibility dates of the old and new PROs if your catalog migrates with you. Preferably in writing. This is just business.

Hope this helps!

Mark Holden

[MichaelL]

I switched to BMI from ASCAP on January 1, 2012.
I just accessed my account, and read my July 2013 statement online.
Maybe you should contact ASCAP. Could be just a quirk.

Cheers,
Michael

[markholden]

Thanks, Michael – it might be a quirk – but I’ve been denied online account access via my ASCAP member ID or any other designation. I don’t recall the exact screen message but it equated to ‘ineligible, not a member.’

But I’ll investigate further. Thanks again!

Mark

[Advice]

Everyone I know who does mainly vocal songs and switched from ASCAP to BMI has been glad they did. With cues, YMMV depending on what channels, what shows, track length, phase of the moon, etc.

[Author]

Posts