Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
We have the full and complete right in this country to enter into a bad agreement. I would run from any agreement that allows the publisher to change the terms at will.
I’m one of those lawyers LAwriter talked about. I’m not giving legal advice, but really. Has the supply and demand curve gotten so bad that those kinds of agreements are entering this space?@Michaell- thanks for the good information. Why this is so dear to me is that many years ago, BMI refused to pay me royalties for many, many documented, reported and paid commercial radio spins for a song I had on the charts. BMI relied upon those same provisions you cited. BMI kept many thousands of dollars of royalties that should have been paid to me.
Certainly the PRO’s have set up the contracts to create this big hole and arbitration provisions to keep any effective litigation from happening. This scheme seems to prevent the very purpose that the contract is supposed to enable – get the composer paid. It seems if the procedural hurdles can be overcome, a fair-minded federal judge would look at the merits fairly seriously. The federal judges I have come to know would be very slow to say a contractual scheme is OK that pays everyone except the creator of the product.
I’m sure you have a better handle on the nuances of this area of law than I do. I would love to be able to talk to you directly about this and what possible solutions there may be. If you could PM me with contact info, or I would be glad to do the same. Thanks. .@Michaell- Thanks for the insight about the Fourth Estate case. Like you, I thought that taking longer than 90 days to register would bar the suit. However, the Supreme Court seems to question that such a suit is barred:
Fourth Estate raises the specter that a copyright owner may lose the ability to enforce her rights if the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations runs out before the Copyright Office acts on her application for registration. Brief for Petitioner 41. Fourth Estate’s fear is overstated, as the average processing time for registration applications is currently seven months, leaving ample time to sue after the Register’s decision, even for infringement that began before submission of an application.
If the Supremes think that a claimant can sue for a pre-application infringement after a seven month wait for the registration, there must be some kind of tolling of the ninety day period. Am I missing something there?
Maybe registration “relates back” to the date of application?
@chuckdallas- I wouldn’t mind looking this over from a legal perspective. I do believe that we’d have to have registered copyrights to have clout. If I remember right, the copyright needs to be registered within 90 days after the violation. I will look into this a little more. Maybe Art can create a sidebar for this discussion.
Michael is right about federal question jurisdiction. The $75k “diversity jurisdiction” requirement is not applicable. While I haven’t looked deeply into it, one who has a registered copyright has a statutory right to get paid for a performance. It would seem to me that everyone in the chain would be joined in the action, from the end user to the PRO. The composer merely demonstrates the performances and no payment. They can point the fingers at each other and explain why the composer should not be paid by them. I don’t think a federal judge would be very happy about a scheme where payment to the composer gets bypassed completely. Somebody will pay.
The case would have to be brought in federal court. State small claims court does not have jurisdiction.
BTW, my “real job” is a lawyer and I do a lot of federal practice. I have defended actions by copyright holders where a nightclub or sports bar performs registered copyrighted material. They are ugly. Settlements are in the tens of thousands of dollars for for one unlawful performance.
A possible solution – do you register your tracks with the copyright office? The big plus in registering is if you enforce your copyright you are entitled to both penalties and attorney fees. If everyone is washing their hands to compensate the composer, it may be time to start registering and enforcing the copyright. After a couple six or seven figure judgments, those who owe the composer might be a little more interested in paying the royalties.
I have no experience in the UK. In the States, Beatslinger’s advice is solid. However, in the UK, given the very strong trade unions, it might not be so simple.
I found this web page from the UK Musician’s Union regarding session musicians. It might give you some guidance. https://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/Home/Advice/Recording-Broadcasting/Session-Musicians If your friend is a union member s/he may not have leeway in what must be paid.Alexander Baker is the one who is speaking, above. As a lawyer, I have a lot of skepticism about making a civil rights case stick against the PRO’s. Also, you may want to do some internet research about Mr. Baker. I’ll leave it at that.
There have been long standing consent decrees against both ASCAP and BMI. https://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-consent-decree-review-ascap-and-bmi-2019. Wonder if this is an issue that should be taken up with DOJ. It may be of interest to law enforcement.@Ermut Erhan- Really impressive. It hardly sounds like a “first attempt” . You have some seriously good chops.
@Kery Michael- That “full, lush polished sound” is based on Richard Wagner style of composition and orchestration. It’s amazing that a 19th century composer would have such an effect on modern day film music. This article may interest you: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-jun-17-la-et-wagner-movies-20100617-story.html
Keep in mind that we receive a license to use their software for the virtual instruments or other plug ins. It’s IP just like our music. It’s not an outright purchase. The software developers get copyrights to their software just like our music. Here, we are looking at the licensing issue from the buyers’ perspective. The shoe is on the other foot so to speak.
How would you feel if somebody purchased a license to use your music with a right to transfer that license to anybody they choose for no additional compensation?I really like it. Good production. Good arrangement. Interesting combination of sounds being used.
I could follow the story line pretty well. So, the form is good. However, I agree cyberk91 that the piece should be divided into two separate compositions for the production world. The music supervisors will want to do their own cutting and pasting into different scenes. It’s more of a made to order piece (which is not a bad thing) rather than a more generic pad of music.I also get that this piece wouldn’t work as an underscore to a documentary as it’s too thematic.
How can I tell what there is a market for, and write accordingly?There is lots of thematic material used. You have a good sense of theme. Relatively few people can write good thematic music. I would continue what you do well.
The same usual suspects will have placements for thematic material as well as underscore pads.
When I was a young writer, I thought I had to be a chameleon and write what everybody else wanted me to write. I slowly found out that if I wrote what would get me excited, others would be excited about it too and it would sell.Thank you TheoNt. Looking back on it, there is one thing I would change in the car example. I am purchasing the right to control the car. You would technically still have ownership. However, right of control is 90% of the right of ownership. So, giving up control is practically like selling it outright. You just retain a percentage of the royalties from whatever the publisher does with it.
Major artists, e.g., Paul McCartney, spend their lives trying to regain control (the publishing rights) of their music they sold in their youth.What Klanglobby is doing is it will re-publish the tracks on Spotify, etc., showing Klanglobby as the publisher. Then Klanglobby will get the publisher’s share of the royalties and will also control how the music is published in the future. This is not just a problem with production music as Taylor Swift recently found out. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14/entertainment/taylor-swift-scooter-braun/index.html
Sounds like Klanglobby wants total control over those compositions. You need to decide whether ceding those IP rights make sense in the long term. Intellectual property rights can be very powerful and very valuable. That’s why everyone wants to get them for themselves.
BTW, this is all contractually based. There is no “law” that forces you to give up your rights. The laws come into play after you have signed away the rights.
Look at it as if you were selling a car to them. You own the car until you sell it to them. Then you don’t. The deal is sell me the car for nothing and let me use it. You have no rights to use the car unless you get my permission and you will have to pay me for that use. If I make any money off the use of the car, I will give you a percentage.
They will effectively own the compositions for free with just a promise to split future revenue based upon what the contract says. How valuable is your car, and does it make sense to give it to them in that manner? Only you know for sure.
I think it varies. On my statement I show the best YouTube being about $100 per 280,000 streams. Another service I had just under 20,000 streams and got 2 cents.
Putting it in perspective, the top YouTube pages with 40 million views equates to about $14,000 in royalties best case.
Haven’t been able to listen to it all, but it’s really interesting. I got started about ten years after you. I’m sure it’s amazing to the younger folks here, but the first-tier players were quite approachable as you discussed.
As I told others, at the time it was kind of an informal apprenticeship program. The experienced pros would take young promising players under their wings and show them the ropes. My two main mentors for keyboards were Ralph Grierson and Pete Jolly. Being exposed to the inside – how a chord is played – how to approach a line, is something that never could be put in a book. There was something about being there, in the moment, that was irreplaceable.
I’m no longer in the scene, but it seems like that concept has gone away.