- This topic has 28 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
Hi MA, I’m a UK writer. Feel free to PM me if you like.
MA…it’s quite possible that buried deep in the fine print of your contract with the library that placed the cue, they’ve given themselves the power to sub-license your cues, and possibly the authority to do what ever they deem necessary to accomplish sub-licensing agreements.
Personally, I would pass on that deal. I don’t like the idea of splitting writers share at all.
I would enter into these deals. Sometimes they can lead to bigger things, such as becoming a staff writer for the company.
Not likely!
As usual, a question about a work-for-hire contract offer turned into an unrelated attack on a non WFH library.
Now…back to our regularly scheduled program…..
I would enter into these deals. Sometimes they can lead to bigger things, such as becoming a staff writer for the company.
Not likely!
Yes, it is highly unlikely, but it did happen to me. I ended up being on “staff” for four years. I still write for that library on occasion, but get 100% writers share now. Many other things also came out of that relationship…and still do.
There’s a lot of quid pro quo that goes on in this business. Sometimes, not always, it pays to play the game. Other times you’re just getting screwed. You’d need a crystal ball to know which is which.
Actually, I mentioned the deal with J… because it was a WFH contract – so I thought it was quite relevant. Apologies if it read otherwise.
I was unaware that “J” actually pays for music. Did you get paid, or did they just word it as a WFH contract? If the latter, WHY did you agree to it?
People complain about lawyers, but sometimes we stop people from doing the wrong thing, if they listen. Sorry about your situation.
@NotmyrealHandle,
The argument that I’ve heard in the past is that “they” need to take part of the writers’ percentage in order to get “their” investment back, i.e., the upfront money.
Well, hey wake up and smell the coffee. That’s what an investment is…a risk. Basically, they wanted to mitigate their risk, with your money.
You made the right choice. Don’t look back.
The argument that I’ve heard in the past is that “they” need to take part of the writers’ percentage in order to get “their” investment back, i.e., the upfront money.
Well, hey wake up and smell the coffee. That’s what an investment is…a risk. Basically, they wanted to mitigate their risk, with your money.
The risk may have been greater in the past. But if a composer uses DAWs and other modern tools to create music, making a song for a WFH deal is not a risk at all.
QUALIFIER: Those that create music using more traditional means or utilize an expensive studio should be more cautious about such deals.
The risk may have been greater in the past. But if a composer uses DAWs and other modern tools to create music, making a song for a WFH deal is not a risk at all.
The risk that I referred to is the risk incurred by a library that pays upfront fees to composers. The risk is that they might not get their money back, or make a profit if the composer’s music doesn’t get used.
Yes, the composer’s risk is minimal, only time invested for DAW based composers.
The value of intellectual property is another discussion, altogether. Some people persist in being very “precious” about their work, which is debatable in a commodified marketplace.
I like your analysis Rob. I think the key is risk allocation.
With respect to expense though, remember that the cost of DAW and software is “amortized” by the number of pieces of music that a composer can potentially produce and sell.
In contrast, a “one and done” investment in live players doesn’t yield as much “product” (without clever manipulation).
I think DI’s basic point, of the risk being less for DAW based composers versus hiring a live orchestra, has some merit.
Just to be clear, there are 2 different scenarios that come up…
(1) A library (or other party) asks you to write custom music for them to spec and wants a percentage of the Writer’s share.
(2) A library is pitching a production that wants the entire publisher’s share and now asks if you would be willing to split the Writer’s share for non custom/spec cues you put in the library.
The scenarios are similar but not exactly the same. I think the thread was talking more about #1.
Not thrilled with either scenario, but as others have said, every situation has to be evaluated individually based on the pros and cons. Clearly, there are situations whereby giving up some Writer’s share can open doors for you that couldn’t be opened otherwise.
I think if we learn anything in this business it’s that there are no absolutes.