Dare to question?

[SteveW]

I was wondering what experiences people have of questioning agreements?

I’ve never licensed anything exclusively before but recently had a bit of interest in some tracks I did with a singer a few years ago – which have basically just been gathering dust for years!

Anyway, getting to the point. I’ve been offered a couple of exclusive agreements for these tracks over the past couple of months. Each time I’ve politely questioned a couple of things, like lack of reversion clause, and each time it’s been the end of the conversation. I’d understand if I was trying to play hardball and making demands, but my tone was far from that.

Is this a familiar story?

Great site, Art. Been very informative and often entertaining for me over the past few months of lurking 🙂

[MichaelL]

Hi Steve,

Welcome.

I am an attorney. I’ve negotiated settlements in hundreds of cases. It is not a good sign when one party refuses to negotiate.

It could be that they believe you need them, more than they need you, and that they simply don’t want to be bothered. That’s a problem musicians face in a saturated market.

On the other hand, I’m always suspicious when conversations are more or less one sided and end, as yours did. There is, however, not point in speculating what their reason is.

Were you offered money upfront? In that case there would usually be no reversion. Is the “library” one of the more well know licensing agents?

Best,

Michael

[SteveW]

Thanks for replying, Michael. Both these agreements came from well established publishers/labels who are very active in music placement. There was no upfront money offered.

The first agreement had no reversion at all, which obviously I questioned. The second agreement, which was for a single song, stated it could be reverted if the composition was not “commercially recorded” within 3 years. My question to them was whether the wording could be changed slightly to include ANY use, like TV, film etc.

But as you say, in a saturated market this is obviously just too much bother for these lovely people 🙂

Steve

[Art Munson]

I’ve managed to get some changes a few times but it’s difficult unless you have some clout. I don’t pretend I have any clout it’s just in my instances they were new companies and willing.

[MichaelL]

I’m a little confused Steve.

Are you talking about an exclusive licensing deal with a music library OR a standard writer / publisher agreement with a publishing company / label, where the publishing company will pitch your songs to other artists for the purpose of having them recorded?

That latter is a completely different set of circumstances from the “library” business.

My question to them was whether the wording could be changed slightly to include ANY use, like TV, film etc.

That would make no sense in a writer / publisher agreement where the publishing company is pitching your songs to other artists for the purpose of having them recorded. If they aren’t in the licensing business, you are placing an additional burden upon them to have the song licensed, not just commercially recorded.

So, suppose they get artist “A” to record your song (which is their job), but no one licenses it (which is not their job). They don’t want you to have the ability ask for a reversion, after they’ve have succeeded at getting your song commercially recorded.

It sounds like you just aren’t on the same page.

[SteveW]

Yes Michael, it’s the latter. Their angle was that they thought the tracks would be great for TV/film, which was the main reason I was interested.

So are you saying that questioning a library’s agreement might generally have a different result to questioning a publisher/label’s agreement?

Sorry if I’m asking silly questions. My involvement so far in music licensing is getting a few tracks a year licensed through Pump/Getty. I’m trying to branch out and take it a bit more seriously this year though.

[MichaelL]

So are you saying that questioning a library’s agreement might generally have a different result to questioning a publisher/label’s agreement?

I can’t predict what the result would be in questioning a library agreement. That will vary from library to library. Some of those agreements have revisions built in.

A publisher/label agreement is completely different. Their obligation to you is to get the song commercially recorded. Licensing for TV is something that could happen down the road, but it’s not their obligation.

You are experiencing the down side of not having an attorney or an agent represent you to the publisher / label. They want to deal with someone who speaks their language and understands the business. My guess is that’s why they shut things down, when you asked for the TV licensing revision.

[SteveW]

Yeah, that does make a lot of sense, Michael. Especially what you were saying about their main thing being to get the track commercially recorded not licensed. I wasn’t really looking at it that way since the conversations before the agreements appeared seemed, in both cases, to be focused on the licensing potential of the tracks.

Thanks for taking the time to explain things. I’ve learned some more today 🙂

[Art Munson]

So are you saying that questioning a library’s agreement might generally have a different result to questioning a publisher/label’s agreement?

Questioning any contract’s details is certainly your right. I’ve had success with both libraries and publishers but, as I mentioned, the more clout you have the better your results.

[MichaelL]

QQuestioning any contract’s details is certainly your right. I’ve had success with both libraries and publishers but, as I mentioned, the more clout you have the better your results.

Absolutely!

“Clout” is sometimes where representation comes in. It separates you from the 900,000 other writers who have submitted cues to that publisher, gives you a professional “aura,” and gives you someone to negotiate on your behalf, which may be more effective.

[SteveW]

Thanks again chaps, for your wise words. I shall endeavour to gain some “clout”. Might take a week or two though 🙂

[Author]

Posts