Forum Replies Created
HGTV is a Scripps channel. You won’t see any PRO money in most cases. 🙁
Congrats Davey! 😀
So many variables as to who will have good quarters (or years) vs. not so good. What type of music, what libraries, what shows placed on, what channels, what time of day the broadcasts were, vocal vs instrumental (BMI), featured or background, a lot of reruns in this quarter, and so on. A major network placement can give you a big bump one quarter but never rerun on that major network so the big stuff from it is short lived. But a placement on MTV’s Catfish or The (ugggh!) Kardashians on cable will pay for years and years as they rerun the crap out of those.
All you can do is keep feeding the machine and be patient.
Thank you Lee for that explanation! Much appreciated!January 10, 2020 at 1:33 pm in reply to: Free Music License Contract PDF recommendation/link? #34021
Just google “master synchronization license contract”. Lot’s of sample contracts come up.
Congrats & Good Luck!
Actually, if you look at the contracts in most cases, there *is* a clause that covers it. I know in SK’s contract there is something that covers it. It may not be clear at first but it’s there. What makes it tough is there are libraries that have made me good money with real paying placements and also Scripps placements paying me nothing. Pulling out makes a statement but it cuts off my own nose. I don’t think I’d sign a NEW contract with any library that doesn’t agree not to do non-PRO blankets or at least says they’ll share the blanket fees with composers.
I have had contracts like that which say that it covers any material you submit to them and they accept. So yes, contracts like that are out there. Ideally, I prefer the Schedule A route so it’s better documented. It’s a good idea to keep records yourself.
As far as the legal pros and cons, you’d have to ask an attorney. My own take is contracts are are mainly as good as the people behind them. MichealL might have some thoughts.
This is getting off topic and should probably go on it’s own thread but the subject of direct licensing came up.
Here is a little history: https://futureofmusic.org/article/fact-sheet/ascap-bmi-consent-decrees
Originally, direct licensing was created to benefit composers by not letting ASCAP/BMI have a monopoly. Obviously back then no one could foreshadow how it would come to be used decades later. Now TV production companies have figured out how to use this to their advantage and too many music libraries were willing to go along with it. Here in the US, we definitely need our representatives to step in and revise the consent decree/direct license laws. Sadly, getting someone in Congress to even understand what this is about is pretty tough. And we’re certainly not high on their priority list. It’s not like we’re farmers or rust belt factory workers that are large voting blocks. But we need to all be vocal and keep writing our representatives. Finding your reps, if you don’t know who they are is easy on the web. And they all have websites from which you can email them. We all spend a ton of time writing on forums. We certainly have the time to write our reps. I did it when the Discovery thing first became known and will keep doing it.
Best wishes for 2020!
Sometimes you just have to lighten it all up and have a few chuckles. 😀
(1) MLR will go IPO and those of us who got in early will get stock options and make tons of money.
(2) LAwriter will become the eternal optimist (Followed close behind by BEATSLINGER). 😉
(3) ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC will increase PRO payments by 20% just because.
(4) Scorekeepers will stop doing Scripps placements and pay reparations to all.
(5) MichaelL will be nominated to take Judge Judy’s place when she retires.
I don’t get angry, and just talk with my feet. “Deals” like that have no intrest to me, and I dont sign away music to libraries that does blanket deals either.
Just to clarify… There are libraries that do blankets which are VERY common but don’t do the Scripps type deals or if they do they at least share a portion of the blanket fees they collect with the writers. In general, it’s not BLANKETS that are bad, it’s what types of deals the library make and how the library handles them. But I agree we need to be careful what we sign. SK, for example, does tons of Scripps placements and often the writers never make a penny on any of the placements.
The main thing is: Answers should generally not be absolutes. Most things (or at least many) are not black and white, 100% bad or 100% good.
I agree that no composer should sign such a deal but I am curious what their explanation is, being it BS or not.
It probably means the library only does direct licensing. I’m not sure why the composer can’t be a PRO member– I could see why the *tracks* can’t be registered with a PRO. Unless the library is based outside the US and laws are different where they are. I’ve run into some situations where some non-US PROs have restrictions against direct licensing. I would at least ask them to explain.
(Not saying direct licensing or this library is good… Just trying to help understand the situation)January 1, 2020 at 6:13 am in reply to: Ok to divulge current NE library to possible new EX one? #33924
I think this was answered already, but always go with total openness and honesty. Besides it being the right thing to do, getting caught in a lie or omission can really hurt your reputation.
If you told this library the other non-ex ones you are in and as a result of that they won’t sign your songs, you are way better off than should they find out you lied. And you have the relationship so you can pitch them others down the road.
Here in the US, I usually pay $100-$150 (Usually $150 min. for a good vocalist) for a session and of course, have them sign a work-for-hire release. That being said, if the amount of work is more than a typical session, I could see paying more. By “session” I mean one instrument or a vocal performance (lead + harmonies) on one song. Everything is negotiable.
Another option if you are asking someone to do something that is more work intensive and really “makes” the song, you *could* offer a co-write. However, my practice is co-writes are always equal shares, the way most professionals do it. So it would be 50% (IMHO). A downside is they would have to sign off on any future contract for the song. Most do that easily but once in a while you get a PITA person.