UK Deals In Perpetuity

[WMProductions]

I’ve been offered a deal for an album with a UK publisher. We’ve had a lot of email discussions, including a Zoom meeting. He seems like a good guy and is a musician/writer himself, for what that’s worth.

It’s a smaller library, about 5 years old, and MCPS registered. They recently joined the UK Production Music Alliance (UKPMA). I like him and they seem to be on the road to moving forward towards bigger things, which is why I’m interested in signing with them. I’ve been with enough huge hoarding libraries with infinite songs to know that’s a waste of time.

I need to ask more questions, but the main concern right now is that he wants a perpetual license on the album. This would be my first direct UK deal, and he tells me that the perpetual license is pretty much standard these days with UK libraries. Is that true these days? I did ask if he would add an addendum, or even in an email, stating that ‘if there are no placements for any of the material within 3 years’ that we could cancel the contract. He has refused this.

I do have interest for this album from three other smaller pubs, but two have been slow with communication and one isn’t being 100% upfront with ‘admin fees’. Because they’re mostly in the EU as well, I’m hoping that I hear something back by tomorrow morning to make this decision a bit easier.

This is my first post here, and I did search the forum, so sorry if I’m in the wrong category or if this has been covered.

Spank you!

[Art Munson]

Is a Perpetual License Standard in UK Production Music Libraries?

Perpetual, or in-perpetuity, licenses have become increasingly common in UK production music deals, particularly with exclusive library albums. Many UK-based libraries prefer these terms because broadcasters and media clients require long-term access to tracks without concerns about rights expiring.

However, just because perpetual licensing is becoming standard does not mean it is always in the best interest of composers. There are several important considerations before agreeing to such terms.

Why UK Libraries Ask for Perpetual Rights

Broadcasters, streaming platforms, and advertisers often demand long-term or perpetual usage rights to avoid legal and licensing complications in the future.
Libraries that work with international sub-publishers or aggregators require the ability to license music freely across various territories for extended periods.
Managing catalogs is simpler for publishers when they don’t have to track expiration dates or renegotiate terms every few years.

The Risks of a Perpetual License

1. No Exit Strategy
Without a reversion clause, your music could remain in a publisher’s catalog forever—even if it never earns a single placement or dollar.

2. Lost Opportunities
Tracks tied up in perpetuity cannot be re-pitched to other libraries or used elsewhere. This limits your ability to earn income from those compositions in the future.

3. Unequal Risk
If a publisher wants the benefit of long-term exclusivity, they should also share in the risk—such as offering a clause that releases rights back to the composer after a period of inactivity.

4. Verbal Assurances Are Not Enough
A publisher may seem trustworthy, but unless rights and expectations are clearly defined in writing, good intentions mean very little in the long run.

Reasonable Compromises to Consider

If you’re open to negotiating, consider proposing:

A term-limited exclusive agreement (e.g., 3 to 5 years), with the option to renew if placements are being made.
A reversion clause stating that if no placements or income are generated within a certain timeframe (typically 2 to 3 years), the rights revert to you.
A performance-based extension, where the license is only extended if the publisher actively secures placements or generates revenue.

Even including these points in an email as a documented understanding is better than leaving things completely open-ended. If a publisher refuses to include any form of time limit or reversion clause, that may signal an imbalance in the deal.

Comparing Other Offers

You mentioned having interest from other publishers:

If some are slow to respond, that is not necessarily a reason to disqualify them. Many small but legitimate libraries are under-resourced and can be delayed in communication.
If another publisher is unclear or vague about administrative fees, that’s a more serious concern. Always request full transparency on what they deduct and how royalties are split.

It may be better to wait a few extra days for a fairer offer than to rush into an agreement that ties up your music indefinitely with no guaranteed benefit.

Final Thoughts

If a publisher expects perpetual exclusivity but offers no clear path for you to benefit from it—such as a track record of placements or a willingness to include fair contractual terms—then you should consider whether the deal is truly in your best interest.

This album is your intellectual property. Make sure the agreement respects the long-term value of your work.

If needed, you might offer to start with a smaller set of tracks under a shorter term to evaluate how the relationship develops. Many good publishers are open to proving their value before asking for long-term commitments.

[Mike_M]

I’m an established, UK-based production music writer. I would say that, yes, in terms of an exclusive, MCPS-registered UK catalogue, assigning your copyright to them in perpetuity is the norm these days. Whether that represents an acceptable deal to you is another question.

There’s of course risk for you, but there would be risk for a catalogue to have writers suddenly deciding to pull their material too.

Also bear in mind that, even if you could negotiate a termination clause, other publishers would likely be wary of signing ‘second hand’ material, so that may not be the solution you think it is.

[Author]

Posts