- May 16, 2012 at 5:08 am #5482
Been pondering some thoughts recently… we are UK based PRS members who have been commissioned write a collection of RF music for backround venues wishing to avoid PRS fees. All of the music we include and write for the collections clearly should not be pro registered, so all good so far we all know how RF works! Interesting though that our client has asked that we work under a psuedonym as the PRS regularly checks their collections for artists who are PRS members as the PRS recently told our client that when an artist becomes a member of theirs they hand over to them ownership of all their music whether or not it appears in their repertoire and as well as existing tracks, this also includes all works created in the future, whether submitted to their repertoire or not.
Maybe this goes some way to explaining why some RF libs are refusing to work with composers who are PRO registered, at least it seems they are not trying to take revenue away from the composer, more that they are protecting themselves against legal issues. Now I don’t know if things are the same stateside but the PRS are certainly taking a defiant stance here in the UK and I think it will effect future library practices here in the UK as well as other territories
Is this just a UK issue because the PRS have the monopoly here and they are losing customers, Thoughts anyone…May 16, 2012 at 6:36 am #5485
Writer agreements with US PROs are non-exclusive. They have no “ownership” in your music. US writers may circumvent their PRO and enter into direct license agreements.