- This topic has 12 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
I’m being asked by both NE and Exc libraries (regarding new tracks I would submit and regarding new and current libraries I work with) to grant the library a “perpetual and irrevocable” license.
This would only be as issue for me if the library at some point changed their payment terms – ie. they take more of the sync or royalty split (or another agreement term I haven’t thought about yet).
If down the road, they change their end of the agreement would the agreement still be in-force; would that void the agreement and could I remove my tracks? Also, would they have to send out a new agreement?
Thanks.
I would think if the library changed their payment terms, any previous contract would become “null and void” and you would either sign or not sign the new contract. Or perhaps the contract you signed would remain in affect under the terms you agreed to, but any new material submitted in the future would have to be under their new terms.
I believe that the “perpetual and irrevocable” license refers to the actual licensing of the song and not the assigning of copyright. This deal is between the library and the client.
What this means is that if the library licenses the song to a client, that client can use the song forever under the terms of the agreement that the library and client signed. So I couldn’t ask a music library to ask a client to remove my music from an episode of a TV show that already has the music on it. This helps for when and if a TV show is made available outside of broadcast (DVD, streaming, podcast, etc).
If the term still sounds confusing, call up the libraries and ask them for clarification. They don’t want hassles anymore than a composer does.
If down the road, they change their end of the agreement would the agreement still be in-force; would that void the agreement and could I remove my tracks? Also, would they have to send out a new agreement?
It wouldn’t necessarily automatically void the agreement, However, it would be a breach of the agreement. Usually there is a clause in the contract (should be) that states what happens in the event that either party is in breach.
Hopefully there’s no clause in the original which states that the payment term may be subject to change or adjustment.
Alarm bells are ringing for me and my gal…
It’s certainly easier for admin purposes if a contract is for perpetuity. I’d love to sign a contract once and know that the track is in tender loving arms until death do us apart. But for the reasons mentioned above and more besides, it would have to one hell of a contract and publisher.
a “perpetual and irrevocable” license.
AS did this and rolled out their —-cult TV thing…my music is still stuck there and after 3 years there’s not even a glimmer of a placement..and if there was (which there isn’t) it’s still only backend $..they should let people out of that deal as it’s really just a black hole..boy did they talk that up…ugh…can’t believe I got fooled by “the music that powers hollywood” ugh..squared…
AS did this and rolled out their —-cult TV thing…my music is still stuck there and after 3 years there’s not even a glimmer of a placement..and if there was (which there isn’t) it’s still only backend $..they should let people out of that deal as it’s really just a black hole..boy did they talk that up…ugh…can’t believe I got fooled by “the music that powers hollywood” ugh..squared…
I feel you on that one.
But on the other hand, stuff happens. Don’t even worry about that deal if your music is non-exclusive. Place it elsewhere and move forward. No need for frustration or regrets.
MC is exclusive! So the black hole is alive and sucking.
Hi John,
Our Music Cult license is NOT exclusive, only perpetual. While there are statistical and market advantages to listing music exclusively here at AudioSparx, we do not ever require it.
Regards,
Lee Johnson
http://www.audiosparx.comSorry Lee!
My humblest apologies.
John.