Work for hire libraries

[Wildman]

Lately I have received some offers from various libraries to write music for them.

Mostly they are willing to pay between 50-300 USD as a production fee but they want to take 50% of my writers pro share and there will be no direct syncs because this libraries mostly have blanket deals with broadcasters.

In many cases the broadcasters have their own publishing that is why those libraries want 50% of the writers share to earn money.

Is it morally acceptable to let owners of libraries participate as composers just to get jobs ?

For me it`s a bad deal but what are you guys thinking about it ?
Is it normal in the U.S. ?

Best,
Wildman

[music_pro]

Man…I see a trend here and its not a good one…

First production companies stop paying for music, then they figure out they are getting music for free, then why not make some money out of it, right?

What next, they will start taking 100% publishing and 50% writer share?
I guess the next step is taking all publishing money, and leave the writer with just the credit.

[MichaelL]

Are these libraries PMA members? Sounds sketchy to me.
Care to name names?

[Tbone]

Forget morally acceptable, it’s a bum deal. I would tell them that I want my writer’s share (it’s called writer, because it’s for the WRITER, remember?) or they can forget it.

Did you know that at the PRS, it’s actually written in their constitution that the writer cannot be put down for less than 50% of total performance royalties when a track is registered on the PRS database? So in the UK with the PRS this wouldn’t even be allowed.

[woodsdenis]

Did you know that at the PRS, it’s actually written in their constitution that the writer cannot be put down for less than 50% of total performance royalties when a track is registered on the PRS database? So in the UK with the PRS this wouldn’t even be allowed.

and here too, but if the “library” puts an individual PRO member down as a co-writer then they can do nothing about it. Also here (Ireland) they take a very dim view of production companies taking the publisher share. Implied in a publishing agreement is the publisher should be exploiting your material for mutual benefit. If they just demand publishing for your music, for it to be included in the their production, that is exploitative and just getting money for nothing.

Either way this deal sucks.

In the pop world it is not uncommon for the artist to demand a share of the writers cut, major difference being you can judge based on the artists stature what you are giving away, or more importantly may be gaining. This may hold true in exceptional cases in our world, say it was the a major TV news theme, you may decide it is worth it, but for a general term for a library without any guarantee, it really is exploitative.

[Tbone]

That is true. They can be put down as co-writers to get round the restriction here.

Yea, agreed, when there’s no sync fee you can hope for, and such a small up front payment, losing half your writer’s share is (in my opinion!) beyond ridiculous.

[Wildman]

I guess the main problem here is that so called Trailer or Production Music companies are sometimes composer or producer/supervisor driven.

That means they publish their music through bigger companies or through in house publishing companies that belong to big broadcasters.

That is why they want a part of the writers pro share. Of course, as far as I know, it`s not allowed but somehow it starts to get the new business model for some areas of our industry.

I also don`t like it.

[MichaelL]

I guess the main problem here is that so called Trailer or Production Music companies are sometimes composer or producer/supervisor driven.

There is some truth to that Wildman. Sometimes, when there are a number of “partners” (middlemen) involved, the pie gets sliced thinly, and there’s nothing you can do.

[NotmyrealHandle]

Curious if anyone has been offered a similar deal from J….. ….. ?
I was – about a year ago – and walked away. For me, it just felt unethical. It shouldn’t surprise many, whose name (from this company) is cut in on the writers share…I remember seeing some ppl talk about the obscene amont of cues registered to his name. Not so hard to have thousands of cues registered when this kind of practice is going on! I think ppl take the bait because the companies push that “commissioned” content to the front of the searches and it’s more likely to be used/get placed.

For the most part, I try to look on the bright side/upside of everything our realm of the business has to offer but this deal really put a bad taste in my mouth. Particularly because they are one of the big players, at least, in TV.

(Forgive my posting anon – little paranoid about someone identifying me from my screenname on this post).

[More Advice]

I recently had a track placed in a UK spot on radio in Wales. The publisher not only retitled the track without my knowledge at the PRS, but they also decided to make themselves co-writers in the PRS registration. They decided to knock my share down to 50% writers share and suddenly I have 2 co-writers! Supposedly MCPS will pay the publisher “mechanical royalties” on April 15th and then the publisher is supposed to “forward” me 70% of what is collected.

So Denis, or other PRS members or UK writers, can you enlighten me as to what is going on here? And can you please explain the roles of MCPS/ PRS, etc I am slightly confused by the MCPS. It’s my understanding that this organization sets standard rates for adverts in the UK and pays (only the publisher) accordingly for the “dubbing of the actual track”
http://www.prsformusic.com/users/productionmusic/Documents/production-music-rate-card.pdf

Then writers are paid royalties for “performances” of the track?

This is very different from what goes on in the USA in regards to radio spots.

[More Advice]

@notmyrealhandle…yes Dr. J has about 25,000 titles registered at ASCAP and his name is all over cue sheets (as co-writer). Dr J has omnipotent talents enabling him to write 20 cues a day! It’s really a shame and shocking that other PRO’s do not display cue sheets as ASCAP does.

You really get valuable info from those cue sheets. You can see who the writers are and who the publishers are. It’s probably the single most valuable information one can have in all honesty. It’s also at a point where you can almost “ballpark” estimate what your next royalty check will be.

[woodsdenis]

@MA I am not with PRS but IMRO (Ireland) we have virtually the same guidelines as the PRS, as in Ireland we actually used the PRS until 20 years ago when we went out on our own.

The MCPS is for Mechanical Copyright protection and they do have rate card for UK broadcasters. On the other side of the coin, I do know that they will act as an agent and negotiate with rights holders for sync licences if you want.

My only dealings have been for CD sales where they ( and others,is it Harry Fox in the US ? ) collect your mechanicals. In my instance it did go via a publisher as those songs were assigned. I dont know if an individual can join the MCPS.

The MCPS and PRS seem to be combined now.

How it works with sync licenses, I have no experience sorry.

[Tbone]

More Advice: you’re the guy that kept hearing his music on an ad everyday but wasn’t getting paid for it right?

Before we get into this, when you check your track’s registration on the PRS database, exactly what % do you come up as having under PRS? (Not MCPS)

[More Advice]

@Tbone are you a UK writer or Publisher? or both?

[Desire_Inspires]

I would enter into these deals. Sometimes they can lead to bigger things, such as becoming a staff writer for the company. A few cues here and there would not be an issue for me.

The royalties alone would be great for cues that were co-written by the owners of a library due to the fact that these tracks show up first in the searches and may be used first. Sometimes taking a chance really isn’t taking a chance at all; it is just an investment into something greater.

[Author]

Posts