Tagged: cue sheets
June 14, 2014 at 7:01 pm #16798sbGuest
Well i had a problem with Bet who’s was extremely late(over a year), luckily i had a friend who was an exec there and it got rectified.. The second part of the ordeal was that the person who was in charge of the cue sheet submissions at bet contacted a higher up in the royalty dept at BMI.. I was given the contact and info, spoke with her she told me that the cue sheet was submitted and that the back royalties will be rolled over into the next distribution date.. She told me if i didn’t get it call her immediately.. So i will know next week..June 15, 2014 at 6:14 am #16803P-9Guest
Just a few facts
ASCAP, BMI and SESAC does not have a survey system. All 3 use a third party company called T.M.S (used to be called Tvdata). This is a paid service which lists all channels and everything they air all over the world. Tunesat also uses this service.
Cue sheets are not generated automatically with Rapidcue. Rapidcue is a proprietary system created by BMI and adopted by ASCAP that nobody likes at the production company level as it is poorly created and cumbersome to use.
The 9 month threshold for filing a claim is subjective to the circumstances.
If a cue sheet is submitted 2 years late you can (not will, but can) be paid for it with all airings going back to the first if the person at the PRO does a thorough job of matching the cue sheet to all TMS airing data.
There are people/companies like Don Jasko and Barry Massarsky who audit the PROs as a business and they have had success for many years. You can do the same, if you can get your cue sheets, by comparing PRO statement information to what is listed on the cuesheet. By the way, what is listed in your member access at ASCAP is fraught with mistakes. If you were to compare the original cuesheet with what ASCAP has you would find major differences.
hope this helps a bitJune 15, 2014 at 7:29 am #16805Art MunsonKeymaster
Thanks P-9, great info that everyone should be aware of.
To everyone reading this. I can personally vouch for P-9. He’s been in the biz a long time and knows what he’s talking about.June 15, 2014 at 8:26 am #16807
To everyone reading this. I can personally vouch for P-9. He’s been in the biz a long time and knows what he’s talking about.
+1June 15, 2014 at 8:46 am #16808MusicmattersParticipant
Thank you P-9, that really is very very useful information. If all these three PRO’s use TMS, how would you compare them in terms of accuracy and fairness of their reporting. It has been claimed many times in this forum that BMI has a better payout than ASCAP, would you agree with that ? Thank you 🙂June 15, 2014 at 8:54 am #16809Desire_InspiresParticipant
I haven’t fought to get any royalties. In the past, I just relied on ASCAP and the production companies to do their job and get cue sheets filed correctly. I didn’t know or wonder about it until a year ago.
I do have the free version of Tunesat which has shown me placements. To listed with my PRO. But I haven’t chased anything down yet.June 15, 2014 at 12:52 pm #16810P-9Guest
SESAC is the most accurate followed by BMI with ASCAP a distant third.
SESAC is also the most willing to listen and help as apposed to trying to explain away problems.
All 3 PROs are way under-staffed when it comes to royalty distrubution.
There is not an evil boogy man trying to keep our money, but the system used to pay royalties is old and held together with chicken wire and duct tape.June 15, 2014 at 1:24 pm #16811
There is not an evil boogy man trying to keep our money, but the system used to pay royalties is old and held together with chicken wire and duct tape.
Yes, lagging far behind technology, and the way business is being conducted.
If you think the PROs are behind /understaffed…the copyright office is in the stone age, held together with chewing gum and rubber bands.
If you want to register copyrights electronically, their preferred browsers are Explorer and Netscape!?!?!
They can’t handle Safari or Chrome!
Technology changes at a far more rapid pace than these bureaucracies can keep up with.June 17, 2014 at 8:59 am #16814SteveGuest
@MichaelL is right, copyright.gov is a joke. The eCO website operates as if it is currently 1997. Tech support on that site is also a joke. I submitted a ticket with a clear, concise question and got a response from them that said I needed to call their office. I called, was on hold for a long time and was eventually told (basically) “yes, that’s just the way it is, it’s very confusing, we get that question all the time.”
If PRO’s are understaffed and behind the times, as I am certain is the case, that’s the fault of the PRO’s, unless I’m misunderstanding something. What can be done to fix that?June 17, 2014 at 1:41 pm #16815