Can usages on cue sheets be changed?

[euca]

I had a cue sheet that was submitted to ASCAP and the usage was feature. I was paid for the 3rd quarter for the cue as a feature. Today I got my statement from Ascap, that show had a repeat in the 4th quarter, however the usage is now background.

Is this normal with a repeat? It was from The CW network. All my other placements on cable repeats look the same as last quarter. Hmmm………..

Anyone have a similar experience? Maybe the original cue sheet was a mistake?

[Greg]

It may be a result of ascap’s change in distribution formula.

 

New ASCAP TV Distribution Formulas

 

ASCAP Improves Fairness of TV Distribution Formula

The ASCAP Board of Directors recently approved changes to the Weighting Formula used to determine royalties for television and all other audio/visual performances of ASCAP members’ works, including performances on the Internet. These changes are designed to ensure the continuing fairness of the distribution system as ASCAP keeps pace with changes in the way music is used in television programs.

Effective with the 2012 June publishers’ and July writers’ distributions, all Background Performances will now be treated the same, with no difference in payment between Background Vocal and Background Instrumental performances. This change recognizes the fact that in today’s TV landscape, Background Vocal and Background Instrumental performances largely are used in the same way. The length of feature performances – those performances that are considered the center of audience attention – will have a greater effect on their value. Longer performances will be awarded a greater value than they have in the past. Performances of music in Infomercials or Paid Programming will receive 40% of the value of regular programming.

ASCAP President Paul Williams commented: “As a member-owned organization, ASCAP strives for a distribution system that is fair and transparent to its members. As music use grows and evolves in the marketplace, ASCAP must periodically review the payment system to ensure continued fairness. These changes were led by the Board of ASCAP as they bring more fairness to the distribution system.”

Composer and Board member Richard Bellis added: “ASCAP’s distribution should always reflect the value a performance represents to our licensing negotiations. These changes not only represent fairness and objectivity but bring our distribution system more closely in alignment with our licensing efforts.”

Added Board member and composer Bruce Broughton: “Those of us on the Board who are also members of the film composing community advocated for these changes to improve the fairness of TV payments and we are gratified that the Board of ASCAP approved them after careful consideration. This is a perfect example of how a member-owned and governed organization like ASCAP best serves the needs of the composing community.”

[Advice]

It also could have been a cue sheet error that was corrected… Hard to say. I don’t think ASCAP’s new payment distribution formulas would cause the category on the cue sheet to change- just the associated payment.  That’s my strong guess… Not Gospel… 🙂

[MichaelL]

I think that the key phrase is here:

“…all Background Performances will now be treated the same, with no difference in payment between Background Vocal and Background Instrumental performances…The length of feature performances – those performances that are considered the center of audience attention – will have a greater effect on their value.

Before, vocal music was paid at a feature rate no matter how it was used, simply because it contains vocals. Now, all music, vocal or instrumental, must meet the above criteria and be the “center” of attention to qualify as a feature performance. This change is a result of the ubiquitous use of songs as background music, in the same manner which instrumental music was previously used.

There was a long campaign by instrumental composers for the change. Mark Northam, of the Film Music Network was a strong advocate for instrumental composers on this issue.

With respect to euca’s cue, it is quite possible that it was reclassified as a background performance, under the new standard.

@euca…was your song the “center of audience attention?”

[Michael Nickolas]

It sure would have been nice if to even things out BI went up instead of BV going down….

[Blind]

I agree that it would be nice if BI went up rather than staying the same. Why would someone like the FMN guy campaign for the change if the BI wasn’t going to go up? I don’t quite get his motivation otherwise…

[MichaelL]

>I agree that it would be nice if BI went up rather than staying the same. Why would someone like the FMN guy campaign for the change if the BI wasn’t going to go up? I don’t quite get his motivation otherwise…<

I can’t speak for him. But I believe that he did not see any rationale for ASCAP to pay more for vocal music. Perhaps, he thought that BI would rise.

 

[Michael Nickolas]

Yeah, could have been a case of “careful what you ask for”…

[euca]

Thanks for all the input guys! It would have been nice if they would have raised the BI up to the BV rate!

@MichaelL, it’s a fine line….. The cue used is not over the dialogue but is still prominent in the scene and the lyrics in the song pertain to the scene. They probably changed the perf. type since their is dialogue in the scene, had it been just the song playing it may have stayed as feature. Now that I re-read that key phrase it makes sense how they are treating a feature performance, regardless of having vocals or not.

Oh well….at least I got one nice payout from it before this change went into effect and the show it was on should be going into syndication next year so at least I may get some more miles out of it.

Thanks again, you learn something new everyday!

[MichaelL]

Yes, I would guess that the presence of dialogue will classify any cue as BG from now on.

[TAEMusic]

BI and BV will now be paid the same, which is literally what it says. Fine.  BUT… “ASCAP Improves Fairness of TV Distribution Formula” infers, to me, (fairness) that the extra money formerly paid out to BV would now be redistributed so everyone, BI and BV, would now receive a higher rate as a result of leveling the playing field, however, it does not say that. Thoughts?

[Advice]

Unfortunately, from what I’ve read, instead of the BI rate going up, the BV rate came down. 🙁

[Author]

Posts