- This topic has 8 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
So I’m considering joining an exclusive library, and one of the stipulations of the agreement is that they will control all rights to the music, including copyright, in perpetuity.
First question: What does it actually mean to give up copyright when the library is already exclusive and in perp? How does this differ from a library that does not ask for copyright but is also exclusive and in perp?
Secondly: Let’s say I am able to negotiate a reversion clause into the agreement. How is the copyright affected by any songs that revert back to me?
And lastly: When they say all rights, that also includes mechanical rights. What does this mean for my mechanical royalties? In other words, if they sell an album with my song on it, will I still get mechanical royalties as the writer? Or does it mean they somehow decide whether I get mechanical royalties or not?
Thanks in advance for your input!
Bump!
Hey Danny,
You could go exclusive and still control the copyright. You just can’t have the track represented by another library or publisher during the term of the deal.
I could be wrong but This type of deal sounds like there would be no reversion clause. Once you sign over the copyright you no longer own the rights to the track unless stated otherwise.
Best to check with the library to be sure. I submit certain tracks to an exclusive library that has this type of deal even though it doesn’t seem all that attractive from the composer’s end but it’s part of my diversification and the company has a strong track record of placing on cable & network channels so it’s a chance I take.
So I’m considering joining an exclusive library, and one of the stipulations of the agreement is that they will control all rights to the music, including copyright, in perpetuity.
Hi Danny,
Unfortunately, people have really muddied up the term “exclusive.” It can mean many things now.
What you are describing sounds like a typical work for hire (WFH) contract, where you sign everything over. Generally, there is no possibility of revision in a WFH contract.
In the “old days” WFH was pretty much all there was. You wrote a track, got paid, and transferred your copyright. That is still how some of the high-end libraries that pay upfront money work. It’s the standard way of doing things. You, of course, retain your writer’s share of PRO royalties.
Now, people define “exclusive” as any library to which you hand over your music for exclusive representation, rather than actually getting paid for your work.
That said, there is at least one library that I am aware of where the transfer of copyright is triggered by an event, specifically, if they place your track. My understanding is that if they do not place your track within a certain time frame (a number of years), the copyright is not transferred, and the track reverts to you. But, during that initial time frame, you give the library the exclusive right to represent your track.
If you can’t get paid for your work, the last example is one of the more fair options out there right now. At least you get the track back after a number of years if, they don’t place it.
Secondly: Let’s say I am able to negotiate a reversion clause into the agreement. How is the copyright affected by any songs that revert back to me?
That is highly unlikely in a situation in which you have transferred your copyright. But, it is possible in the example where transfer is trigger by an event, if the event does not occur.
Mechanical royalties for physical copies, like CDs, are 9.1 cents per copy manufactured. Digital downloads and streaming are fractions of a penny. 1,000 CDs might be with $91, but 1,000 downloads, $.91, or a lot less.
My experience with libraries is that they don’t pay mechanicals on manufactured goods, because the CDS aren’t for sale. But who makes CD today anyway?
Danny,
Not sure that is something someone can answer for you. Most composers would probably shy away from that type of deal & tell you not to do it. I would say go with your gut. If the library is well known for placing music in the genre(s) you work in and you have a collection of tracks that you are comfortable parting ways with for good then decide if it is a chance worth taking.
Based on my own experience (very short as this is my 2nd year) A majority of my tracks have been with NE however I have submitted to a couple of exclusives to diversify. One with a two year reversion if no placements are made & another with this same type of deal you are encountering.
These days it seems like many of these libraries & publishers that specialize in placing music on tv are going more EX vs. NE which seems to be an industry shift. It almost forces you to opt into these types of deals if you are looking for tv placements. I am sure there are exceptions out there but just what I’ve encountered in a short period of time of doing this.
Personally I have reserved what I feel are my stronger tracks for NE and 2nd tier tracks for EX. Whether or not that strategy will pay off is yet to be seen but I can tell you the tracks I have signed away EX I am not losing sleep if I can’t pitch them elsewhere or. I just keep moving & keep creating.
(Let’s say they are well known for getting lots of cable placements.)
Not very good money…in most cases, and NO money in some cases.
The way to make money from backend cable placements is to have a large quantity of music to license. You can find non-exclusive licensing and exclusive licensing agreements that can help you to achieve the same goal. Even with most exclusive deals, you are able to keep your copyright and remove your music after a certain time period.
I’d say pass on the deal that you were offered. Companies love to sell the “backend dream” to composers these days. For the most part, the backend income doesn’t justify giving up the copyright and not receiving any upfront payment or synchronization license fees.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.