- This topic has 17 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
This might be of interest to ASCAP members – from ASCAP News today:
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.”
————-
So now I am wondering if BV performances will be at the BI rate, vice versa, or if there is a brand new (average?) rate…?
From what I heard, they are dropping the BV down to the BI rate. Can’t say if it’s true or not, just what I heard.
I hope ASCAP get their act together. My experience with music on major syndicated show where I had Que sheets was to jerk me around and refuse to pay me. I can say ASCAP sucks cuz in my cast the do not pay even if you have proof.
Yeah, I bet they would have made a big deal of it in the press release if the BI rate was actually going up!
Michael Nickolas:
Yeah, I bet they would have made a big deal of it in the press release if the BI rate was actually going up!And we wonder..so where is all that extra money going?
Blind: Sounds like at least some of it is going to pay higher “featured” performance rates.
If that’s the case, I’m a happy camper.
Perhaps one of you with cues in syndication can lest us all know if you see a change in the rate you get for an airing?
Alan:
Perhaps one of you with cues in syndication can lest us all know if you see a change in the rate you get for an airing?Will do. But, I’m learning that there are “levels” of syndication, e.g., “first run syndication.” I’m not sure if the different levels pay differently. I’ll let you know if I figure it out.
Alan, we have many songwriters/composers that we know with cues in syndication. We have started a petition to ASCAP to do something about this change. It has affected backend royalty checks for songwriters with a decrease of 70-90%. Instrumental cues are not being paid more. This new payment system did not make anything more “fair”. We have spent the last two months talking to executives at ASCAP – and we weren’t really getting any good answers/ We are hoping that the petition will help us get some answers and hopefully some changes. This change was also retroactive so quarters before the decision was even made. No notice was given to members. If you have questions, I’m happy to answer and help .
Hey, all,
I posted some of this in another thread, but it pertains to this one as well, so pardon any duplication…
ASCAP used to automatically bump a song with vocals into a FEATURE designation. Songs coming out of juke boxes, etc. (background vocals) were given “featured” status when they were just background elements, yet instrumental pieces used in identical situations were ALWAYS noted as a background instrumentals. Very unfair. This has been the normal practice at ASCAP, songwriters have systematically been overpaid, and score composers have been bitching about it for years (score being paid at 20% of the vocal song rate).
So now, if a song/vocal is designated as a “background vocal”, it will receive background vocal status, instead of being arbitrarily and automatically bumped into a featured vocal status.
Unfortunately, this is not going to make any difference to the score composer, whose work is automatically given “background instrumental” status, EVEN if the instrumental score is over an important montage or other important, featured use (a song will still be allowed the “featured vocal” status for such a use). The only “bump” a composer has ever gotten is if the piece is considered a “theme” or is opening or end title music.
So songs will now be treated as a background element unless they are actually being used in featured positions — the way it always should have been.
Now, if ASCAP were to say that they planned to pay ALL music based on HOW it is used instead of what KIND of music is used, then I might be pulling out the pom poms, because then we’d have real parity.
The other PROs have treated background vocals as background uses — songs with vocals have not been automatically bumped to featured vocal status as ASCAP has been doing for years. Only when a song actually is a featured vocal and noted so on the cue sheet does it receive that designation, allowing it to be paid at a higher rate.
So… what is ASCAP going to do with all that extra money they will have lying around that is no longer being unfairly paid out to songwriters? (overpayments which, by the way, have always been at the score composers’ expense)
Songwriters have been running things at ASCAP for decades, which is why the payments have always been skewed in their favor, when they should NOT have been. So now, perhaps, there will be a push for TRUE fairness for ALL composers and songwriters (and maybe composers will finally stop putting in superfluous “want you, baby, ooh” vocals into primarily instrumental tracks, just to try and get featured status and more back-end).
And until such time as ASCAP comes into the 21st century, dumps their system of “surveys” instead of honoring cue sheets and other proof of airings, and realizes we can track such uses digitally, ASCAP writers (especially songwriters) who have minimal music out there to be picked up in their arbitrary surveys will remain at odds with the PRO. At least with BMI and SESAC, if you show proof of airing, or ad buys or whatever, they will make adjustments to your royalties in your next quarter’s payment. ASCAP digs their heels in and has a lassez-faire attitude of “you didn’t come up in OUR survey, so too bad, you don’t get paid, regardless of any proof you might have of your music’s use”.
Cheers!
Gael MacGregorP.S. I’m a songwriter who believes in parity for all composers and songwriters. I find it somewhat amusing, yet sad, that the powers-that-be are doing such a great job of having us bicker amongst ourselves instead of banding together to fight the real enemy — the corporate & PRO folks who have systematically cheapened the perceived value of our work, and have profited and pocketed so much of what should have been going to the CREATORS of those works.
+10000
I’ve been through 18 month of hell switching from ASCAP to BMI, but it was worth every gut-wrenching moment.
Because of ASCAP’s out-dated survey methodology I received 9X, yes nine times less for the exact same cues in the exact same shows as my co-publisher (BMI), who owns equal shares.
Gael speaks the absolute truth. Even when the shows’ producer provided ASCAP with cue sheets and air-date information multiple times, they made only minor adjustments. The survey rules, and ASCAP will not budge. I have been told more than once by ASCAP officials, including a board member, that they simply don’t trust the honesty of their members. Maybe I’ll tell the whole story…someday.
Cheers,
Michael
“I have been told more than once by ASCAP officials, including a board member, that they simply don’t trust the honesty of their members.”
I don’t know what distresses me more… that ASCAP is so corrupt they can’t believe the majority of their members are not *or* that they think composers are so stupid they don’t know how cue sheets are created and filed, and by whom.
So for all you “board members” who don’t trust your members, here’s how it goes most of the time (and you know this, but it bears repeating):
Cue sheets are prepared by music supervisors or coordinators, using information the music editor supplies, along with info from writers/publishers for any licensed works being used. Yes, some of the score cue info is supplied to the editor by the composer, but the music supervisor then verifies the accuracy by timing all the cues and noting how they are used (BV, BI, FV, Theme, etc.). Yes, a lot of us actually still sit with a stopwatch and make sure that a 1:30 cue isn’t noted as :30. We also take great care in placing the right designation for a cue. Once cue sheets are completed, they go to the production company, which then files the cue sheet with every PRO that has a writer or publisher noted on the cue sheet.
Most supervisors are pretty meticulous, because we know that peoples’ incomes and lives are affected by the accuracy of the information supplied to the PROs. If changes are made (such as bumping a background vocal to a featured vocal) that is done by the PRO, not us, and certainly not the composer. So exactly who deserves the lack of trust? Hmmm?
Piffle.
ASCAP is worried about the truthfulness of their members because their practices have been so unfair, and they have virtually no transparency (which leads to corruption), that they assume everyone else is a liar and a cheat.
A sad state of affairs.
Gael MacGregor
Ya know. When Paul first got elected as president of ASCAP I nudged him a bit on this (I’ve known him for years, toured and played on many of his albums). He said he knew of the problems and wanted to make things better. Doesn’t seem to have been much of a change from the stories I hear. Glad I stuck with BMI!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.