- This topic has 58 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Ha! “‘a’ bad deal”… I type too fast…
there is also one prominent member that’s notorious for taking half the writer’s share.
I’m sure that there are bad actors and low performers in every model.
Whichever library you are referring to, they are violating the principles and core values of the PMA.there is also one prominent member that’s notorious for taking half the writer’s share.
Yes, there is a several members who takes writer share which is the reason why I have a hard time taking the PMA seriously. OK if the board weren’t aware of this but I know for a fact they are aware of this and still accepted them into the organization. Which to me makes it a lots worse. One specific writer/library owner has gotten several BMI awards too related to having “composed” many many tracks which irritates me insanely.
In order to clean up our industry we got to clean up the organization who is supposed to further our course. Maybe then I’ll consider a membership to support them.Curious, is this library a primary member or an associate member?
I’m guessing a library that specializes in reality TV music. Just speculation. Could be wrong. (If so, thought they moved the ASCAP)
It seems like there’s a tendency in this thread to lump all the PMA libraries together like they’re equals. In my experience that’s not the case.
You’re quite correct Kiwi. You can’t lump them all together. It only takes 1 piece of music that you publish and $500 to join. There are nearly 700 PMA member companies. Some are quite small.
I’m only speaking about the “big,” well-known libraries that writers mention often.
Yeah, all the ones I’ve referenced here are well known and connected in the business. I don’t accurately know the title count of each of them but I think anyone here would probably think of them as “big”.
I would imagine that most of the member libraries uphold the standards of the PMA very well. I know the ones I’m with do. I’m very grateful for that. But I also get where Happy Ears is coming from. The inconsistencies I’ve seen do tarnish my view of the whole organization just a bit. As far as the one I walked away from, the rhetoric I heard did not match the deal I saw. All I’m saying is that for me it just pays to be discerning and attentive regardless of affiliations.
Really? I could become a PMA member based on that criteria. I need to visit the site for more info.
In theory,maybe. There’s tiered membership, The first tier is 1-750 unique titles. The fee is $500 for that tier, per year.
Whether or not they would let a composer join because they have published one work is questionable.
I don’t like sharing any of the writer’s royalties, but every now and then it’s made sense to do it.
Smaller libraries, usually run by a reality TV composer (I’m sure many here have written for them!), often involve getting paid a little upfront money and splitting the writer’s royalties. This is because the music is usually going directly to a TV show and the owner of the library has to give up or share the publishing with the TV production company. The other reason they do this (other than getting more royalties) is to give their clients the impression they had a hand in writing it all. And yeah – to win all those ASCAP or BMI awards 🙂
Unfortunately, you’ll find that these TV composer run libraries still take half the writer’s share even when they get all the publishing (when operating more like a library and not a TV composer). It’s probably more a matter of ‘old habits die hard’ though, rather than greed.
As a newcomer to the library scene, it feels like a maze within a maze…..and not much distinction between the entrance and the exit. All of the rows and walls look very much alike…and you’re just feeling your way through. Every now and then you stumble upon some moss…..but was the moss a good sign last time or a bad sign?
I’m sure libraries don’t intend it to be this way….but holy hell….
🙂
@Mark Petrie
If sharing the writer’s share comes from habit rather than greed does that somehow elevate its practice?
I can’t get into personal motivations or justifications, everyone is free to do as they wish. For me it’s a questionable practice that’s difficult to justify. I find it troubling that it happens at all but I find it doubly troubling that it happens within the context of PMA affiliated libraries.
As far as I can tell the PMA is there, at least in part, as a protector of the industry and a steward of fair and sustainable business practices. Seeing such an organization tacitly approving a questionable business practice while simultaneously trying to play the watchdog role undermines their credibility in my eyes, at least to some extent. The motivations of the individuals engaging in the practice becomes immaterial to me within that context.
Smaller libraries, usually run by a reality TV composer (I’m sure many here have written for them!), often involve getting paid a little upfront money and splitting the writer’s royalties. This is because the music is usually going directly to a TV show and the owner of the library has to give up or share the publishing with the TV production company.
Here’s a real scenario: The TV Production Company wants all of the publishing. The only way then for a writer-owned library to bring other writers in and make money is to take a portion of other writer’s shares.
In that scenario the writer-owned library can either shut the door to other writers or the other writer’s understand the how and why and accept it.
Before you think that the writer-owned library just makes money for doing nothing…dealing with other writers is a lot of work.
That is a real scenario – and in that scenario the production company is also engaging in a questionable practice. Two wrongs making a right?… I dunno. I’m having a hard time seeing it that way.
I’m not trying to judge the motivations of anyone trying to earn a living but to me both of these things are indicative of the sort of wild west cutthroat maneuverings that undermine the whole playing field and make it more difficult for the good players to keep employing fair practices. I wish it wasn’t that way and I hope it changes. I’m not taking part and, other than sharing a few ineffectual words here, that’s probably about all that I can do about it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.