- This topic has 13 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 5 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Hi all. I joined BMI a while back as a songwriter and also created a fictitious publisher account. Is there any need for me to keep my publisher account if most/all of my music is being used by libraries where they become the publisher? Thanks.
Hi Dave,
There is no reason to not have your own publishing entity, if you already set it up (otherwise you can just assign the publishers share to yourself).
Are you putting most of your cues into non-exclusive libraries, including RF? Every once in a while, RF libraries do place music for broadcast. Assuming that you didn’t assign publishing admin to the RF library, you would be entitled to both the the writers and publishers shares.
The second answer to your question, might depend upon your business structure, whether you are a sole proprietor, LLC or corporation, and how you elect to handle income and expenses.
_Michael
Some of the tracks that are with NE libraries have been retitled and then they become the publisher.
They become the publisher of the retitled cue. You can still be the publisher of the original title.
I mostly do non-exclusive and some RF
Most RF is non-exclusive.
I’ve been registering my more recent pieces as 200% writer and forgetting the publisher thing.
How does a writer register 200% of a track?
How does a writer register 200% of a track?
It’s just how BMI works. If you register a cue as both writer and publisher (no library or other publisher involved), the writer’s share is %100 and the publisher’s share is %100 which equals %200 total.
I love that BMI doesn’t require a publisher’s account for simple registrations on direct placements.
I love that BMI doesn’t require a publisher’s account for simple registrations on direct placements.
Yes, with ASCAP if you want to collect the publisher’s share on your own, you must set up a publishing entity.
I love that BMI doesn’t require a publisher’s account for simple registrations on direct placements.
In my case, it’s not simple. I publish another writer’s works and other publishing companies are involved, as well.
Yes, with ASCAP if you want to collect the publisher’s share on your own, you must set up a publishing entity.
My first publishing company was with ASCAP. Then, I moved everything to BMI. As I recall, it was pretty cheap to set up an ASCAP publishing company. BMI charges $275 per entity.
My first publishing company was with ASCAP. Then, I moved everything to BMI. As I recall, it was pretty cheap to set up an ASCAP publishing company. BMI charges $275 per entity.
Another aspect of what I like about BMI. They treat publishers as publishers but they don’t treat writers who do their own administration the same. If I were monetizing the work of others I wouldn’t have any problem paying for a publishing entity but I’m very glad to avoid that when I’m just looking out for myself.
I really like the way that BMI approaches this. To me it’s fair and equitable.
I’ve read this thread and I’m still unclear. I’m in a similar position — I’m with BMI and I created my own publishing company many years ago with it’s own name, but I can also publish under my own name from what I gather.
So, my questions are: When I’m registering my songs with BMI, should I choose myself as composer at 200% or split it between myself as composer and publisher, 100% each, and why?
And if it is the latter, does it matter if I use my name or the name of the Publishing Company I created?
Thanks in advance,
Abump — anyone?
@angopop. I’ve always used my own publishing company to assign the publishing income to (unless, of course, it’s with a music library). Seems to me the cleanest way to go. Maybe there is an advantage the other way but I don’t know what it would be.
I do everything under my name because that’s what’s easiest for me but I don’t think either way is more correct than the other for simple registrations. To my way of thinking a publisher account would only offer an advantage if I was operating more as a publisher of other peoples work. But that’s just me…
Regardless, the only time I end up with a %200 registration is when I place something directly, which is rare. Otherwise the library, network, or production company ends up with at least a part of the publishing anyway. When I do end up with a track fully registered under my name it automatically goes into my non-exclusive catalog so it usually ends up re-titled with a different split and different registration if I sign it with someone else (non-exclusively) after my direct placement. That %200 registration is only to cover my direct placement. As long as I keep track of everything I never run into conflicts. And if I did run into a conflict I could always re-title my own track and re-register it. No one would know the difference as long as I’m not stepping outside of any exclusive agreements.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.