Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
First, you should contact an entertainment attorney. That’s the only REAL way you are going to get solid, legal answers. I’m not sure what country or state you are in, so there are so many variables that it’s difficult to comment. Also, keep in mind I’m about as far from being an attorney as you can get, but…..All that said….
You own the copyright. I presume you also own the master (sync) rights, and granted that to them in exchange for the ENTIRE payment, which they did not make.
You mention they are “distributing” the film, but I find that just boarderline insane. I don’t know any distribution outlet that would touch the film without ironclad contracts with all these things neatly and tidily taken care of.
If it’s in distribution, that puts you squarely in the power position. You can stop their film from seeing the light of day – ESPECIALLY if their goal is to sign it with a larger studio for distribution. You might just want to wait, and then pounce when they try to get real distribution?
Or, what I would do, I’d have an attorney draft a cease and desist style letter saying that due to their default on the agreed upon contract, they do not have permission to use your music in their film. Please remove your music and pull down all copies or risk legal action.
When they apologize and agree to send a check (and believe me, they will), mention that your attorney is handling these matters now, and that the agreed upon contract is null and void since they didn’t pay. Then let your attorney negotiate a new contract for you which includes his fees, a significant “raise”, and whatever else you feel is fair.
Keep in mind one thing – do you ever want to work with/for these people again, and how tied into the industry are they??? Cause they are NOT going to be happy with you if you lock down their film – even though you have every right.
>>>>If they are working professionals, I’d send the above letter and hope for the best, then drop it if they don’t pay you<<<<
Word gets around quickly and it’s a small industry. If you shut them down they will almost certainly tell all their associates what a $##@!##$ you are. Of course, they would be liars, but that’s how this industry is, and people will remember the scenario – and you. If you don’t see anything positive happening with them or their associates in the future, go ahead and set your attorney on pulling down the film, and then do whatever you like with the music you created.
Again, please consult an attorney and don’t take anything I say as legitimate legal advice. It’s just how I’d handle things.
BTW, I’ve see things like this happen on MAJOR Hollywood blockbusters where a staff attorney at the studio wouldn’t treat a composer fairly, and refused to budge on the composers reasonable requests. Eventually, time moved forward and the film was dubbed with said music in place, and when it was ready for release (2 weeks out and trailers had already been announcing the film for a month), the composer made a call to the director who went ballistic on the studio and music supervisor for not taking care of business. The legal team came to the realization that they screwed up and that the Composer still owned and controlled several songs in the movie, and hadn’t signed the miserably one-sided contract they tried to ram down his throat.” FIX IT!!!!!- was the order of the day. You have NEVER seen such @$$ kissing and apologies to the composer. LOL When something is ready for release and the details have not been taken care of, oy!! Their butt is in a serious place of hurt. This could have cost them 10’s of millions as the film might not have been able to be released or it could have cost them dearly to buy out the composer.
To his credit, the composer played cool, cause it was the long term industry-wise thing to do. He literally could have asked for a $500k license for each song and it would have been paid. And the legal team for the studio would no doubt have been fired. But he didn’t and now, they love him for being reasonable and not playing hardball.
Keep that in mind. I told you this story so that you can see the positive of helping the producers get their stuff together. It can work in your favor if you are a reasonable person.
You have the controlling position. Stay calm, act responsibly, take the high ground, and get good council. Who knows, you might end up being a producer on the film with partial ownership. LOL
music123 wrote :
Regarding RF vs PMA type libraries
Good points music123! I need a like button as well. 😀 Is there a way to PM on this site? I’d like to touch base with you and ask you some questions “off-line” if you’re interested. Cheers,
-LAWriter-
Chuck asks :
Why royalty free instead of good exclusives?
Chuck, that’s an excellent question, and one I wrestle with myself – daily. I don’t have a definitive answer, but the main reason – IMO – is that network and cable TV are fading out, and streaming is becoming the “norm”. At this point, ASCAP and BMI have yet to figure out how to monetize streaming revenues effectively. On my BMI statements, Internet Streaming sources have grown to over 1/2 of my reported income – both domestic and foreign, and although huge in the amount of performances, it amounts to only a couple hundred dollars at best in terms of dollars while broadcast (although shrinking) is 50-80X’s as much. Not good.
What can we draw from this? Over the next few years – quite possibly – traditional Cable and Network payouts are going to shrink dramatically as technology shifts us over to streaming – because BMI/ASCAP’s current income model is based on Cable and Networks BROADCAST (not streaming) earnings. So…
When this happens, PRO back end royalties could (and most likely will) be affected dramatically – in a negative way. Front end sync royalties for Non-Ex libs will not be affected.
So your current observation of exclusive libraries out performing Non Ex libraries in back end returns could flip over quickly as the “composer royalty income paradigm” shifts towards front end sync’s exceeding back end performances.
If/when front end Sync’s exceed back end performance royalties…..your 4:1 observations will no longer be viable.
Make sense?
-LAWriter-
I have put my very, very best music into the top PMA exclusive libraries over the last 20 years. Those titles are around 40% of my total library. The balance – 60% of my total library are basically in two non-exclusive libraries. In the backend performance world, the exclusives net 10-15% of my BMI royalties. The non-exclusives net me 85-90% of my BMI royalties.
I would be much better off financially if I had put the 40% exclusives into the non-exclusive paradigm, and been 100% non-exclusive. That’s just numbers, not philosophy.
THEN, there’s one time exclusive front end payouts vs. monthly non-exclusive sync license payouts for those 40%. Long term (5 to maybe 10 years), I believe the monthly sync licenses would far exceed what the PMA libraries paid me up front – which was fairly substantial.
On the front end syncs vs. BMI backend – which is an abstract comparison, but one I think is worth looking at, because unless BMI and ASCAP can start monitoring streaming, we very may not have a BMI/ASCAP payout much longer….. My front end sync licenses are coming from only ONE NE library and are gaining on BMI. They are currently around 25-33 % of my BMI backend every quarter. That’s substantial.
With those numbers, I can’t really see the PMA’s “protect the production music paradigm” perspective any longer. As music123 notes, the numbers just don’t add up to the hype any longer.
I’m desperately trying to wrap my head around jettisoning everything I’ve tried to accomplish the last 20 years, but the numbers keep slapping me in the face.
-LAWriter-
MichaelL – the “PSS We don’t accept music from composers with music in RF libraries” is pure and simple…well, I won’t say it. It’s the same $#@! that I’ve heard from other PMA libraries in the past.
Absolutely infuriating. IMO. There’s no way I’d let any music out for $125. If they multiplied that figure time 15 or 20 they might be able to pull off that kind of attitude, but $125?!?? I don’t care how good their rep might be. An attitude like that will seal their fate longterm as the industry starts to turn backwards and head the opposite direction.
Art, Music123 – in light of staying on topic, would you mind commenting on my recent post in the “other” PMA – music biz thread? thanks
Since this has been changed over to a “state of the production music business” thread, I have something to discuss that’s on topic and that’s been on my mind for awhile.
I think that as up-front master rights payments get smaller and smaller, and as ASCAP and BMI are loosing their grip, the “get paid sync upfront, and performance backend” paradigm is loosing it’s allure.
Sure, I’d rather be associated with huge well known libraries, but more than that, I’d rather earn a living. The big libraries (virtually all of whom are PMA) are failing at that right now. Even $2k is not enough for me to produce a track, pay musicians, pay production staff, build a studio, pay the bills, and net a profit for “writing” the cue – unless the back end is phenomenal. And those “phenomenal” back end days are long gone from my perspective. ESPECIALLY with netflix, streaming, etc. looming in the shadows.
Oh wait – they are not in the shadows anymore… So…
So let’s talk about the old school paradigm of sign your creative copyright and masters away to the big company and let them control your destiny because they have your best interest at heart vs. the new school paradigm of retaining and managing your own copyright :
Old School Strike 1 – upfront payouts dismal, and not appropriate for the degree of work and creativity going into a musical product.
Old School Strike 2 – backend is shrinking consistently, BMI and ASCAP are completely ineffective in getting even 1/10th of what they should be from streaming services, and in a few short years streaming WILL be virtually all that matters. So….steeeerike 2!
Old School Strike 3 – None of the “biggies” I’ve ever been associated with will split sync’s with me. To boot, they are mostly doing blankets which would be a joke anyway. Then, they want my music in perpetuity even if they do not perform. Meanwhile, royalty free libraries are paying real money – although small – UP FRONT sync’s which at this point in time, I think is the future of royalties – AND I can control my copyrights if they do not perform, or move my music, or change things up, or try different musical distribution directions.
Seems like a total no brainer to me, and yet, I’m still having a hard time leaving the PMA and it’s associated libraries in the dust.
Any thoughts? Am I crazy? Am I writing music that is out of touch with the times? Am I just having a writers mental breakdown? Love to hear any of your thoughts on this, cause I have 4 huge projects that were originally envisioned for the “mainstream” that I am considering keeping the masters and copyright for, and putting them into what is becoming a good thing – non exclusive libraries.
Thanks for any thoughts.
-LAWriter-
MichaelL – I agree! Mentoring is critical. Unfortunately, the “intern” debacle has made most composers qualified to mentor not want to go there. I’m grateful for the opportunities I had.
MusicMatters – agreed as well. I’m not sure why the PMA is courting composers. It’s been a publisher only organization in the past. And I agree that our “expectations” are unlikely (as in a snowballs chance in hell) of being addressed. Still, as I asked earlier – the question remains – why?
Music123 – Great stuff!! Where’s the like button? 😀
OK then, that’s cool. That wouldn’t entice me to join though.
Group health insurance or retirement benefits might though….
🙂
But seriously, you mentioned earlier what the PMA is “NOT” interested in. And I’m curious with that in mind, why they want writers to join. Especially since they have traditionally been publishers only. Thx.
Oy! It seems I have struck a raw nerve – again.
Sorry TAE. Art asked me what it would take to entice me to join the PMA. I honestly thought the PMA was for publishers only – as it used to be. So…I tried to answer that as truthfully and as on point as I could. The items you say it’s “NOT” about is exactly what it IS about for me. I have not just randomly found this thread and decided to post – this is something that has been on my mind for years. There should be room for all perspectives.
If I have offended you, please accept my humble and sincere apologies.
Best,
-LAWriter-
Thanks Art! I hope this brings about good discussion.
Art – thanks on all points. Appreciated.
Traditionally I was told that the PMA was for publishers only, and therefore, even though I have writing relationships with many large PMA libraries, I passed on joining – because I couldn’t. I’m not a publisher.
Evidently this seems to have changed. I will no doubt join, but I would not join to “get” something like seminars, education, access, etc., but rather to stand in solidarity with fellow writers. If this is a “publishers inviting writers in for second class status” then I’m not really interested. I have all the connections I need.So….. what would entice me to join? (Sorry, I know this will inevitably drift into the A category somewhat)
1. The number one thing would be a shift from publisher perspective to a writer / publisher perspective. To be fair – there needs to be an equality between the two if they are opening it up. Writers vs. Publishers equally balanced in terms of leadership and direction – not a publisher direction with writers support. Not word only, but in deeds. Although we kind of play on the same team, there has traditionally been a business vs. creative bias, with the business side being in control. As is evidenced with US politics, to be effective for all, there needs to be balance. How about a non-publisher, writer leadership every other leadership cycle. I know this cannot happen overnight, but if I saw evidence of change, I’d be ALL over it.
2. A zero tolerance policy (at least on the books) for bias against anyone who writes “outside” the specs of what the PMA deems “acceptable”. No more behind doors blackballing. In other words, no back room politics against those who choose to also write for non-exclusive libraries. There was (is?) long standing leadership (past tense perhaps) bias against anyone who wrote non-exclusive titles. I definitely get the sense this is still the general party line.
3. Coming to grips with reality in 2016. i.e.: Non Exclusive and royalty free libraries aren’t going away. How can the PMA stay relevant and create better opportunities for me as a PMA writer? Among other things, perhaps by :
4. Inclusion of legitimate Non-Exclusive libraries that are working to help writers and grow their businesses legitimately. From a WRITERS perspective, the shift is moving away from “BMI/ASCAP” back end to smaller front end sync’s. Why? Because there are so many uses for music now that BMI and ASCAP do not seem to be able to monetize. (At least not efficiently) I for one do not want to leave money on the table.
5. No more preaching AGAINST other business paradigms that are outside the PMA’s party line. If they work hard to make the PMA paradigm superior, and no slamming of others is necessary. If they accept all writers independent of who they have written for in the past, this will strengthen the organization. Strength is created by forward thinking outside the box thinkers, not by shrinking into the past and locking doors.
6. Sorry, I know I’m overlapping a bit….A more forward thinking view of the industry, and less of a protectionist holding on to the past attitude. There IS a balance somewhere. A good example for them to look at would be the Musicians Union in the early 80’s. Look at what happened to them. They went from being a strong union that supported ALL of it’s members to a (fairly) impotent organization that is biased towards a few hundred individuals who are at the very top of the industry who can still operate in 1960’s / 70’s paradigms. The rest of musicians – including long standing members – have moved on. The film industry went offshore. The membership languished. The total income, work dues, etc. became a small percentage of what it was in the past. That’s a fail IMO. I don’t want to see the PMA follow suit. Honestly I don’t.
7. If they want to embrace and protect the Exclusive music paradigm, I’m AOK with that, but they need to also take a writers perspective if they want BOTH sides of the team to support it. A little fairness goes a long way if you want a membership equity… A reversion policy is long overdue with libraries in general. A fair and equitable buyout fee is woefully lacking. A split of sync fees is becoming standard, but I don’t generally see this implemented in PMA libraries. I could go on and on…. but…. In other words, if they want WRITERS to join, then need to represent writers interests too. I don’t know, maybe this is impractical. I mean, if the DNC asked republicans to join and vote their direction, do you think they would actually represent the views of conservative republicans. Or vice versa – repub vs. dem. No difference between the two – but I think you get my point. If I’m joining an organization, I don’t want to feel like I’m fighting against them, and traditionally, this is exactly what has been going on. Pub vs. Writer. It’s a long standing battle.
8. I know these thoughts would require a huge restructuring of the organization….so….. Practical easy things? Um….how about a list of every associated library with detailed description, contact info, link to their website, what they are currently looking for, etc. You know, a good resource for WRITERS.
Best of luck with the integration of writers into a publisher focused organization. I hope it works out fabulously. Time will tell.
-LAWriter-
There is no doubt that the production music world is changing, and that those who insist on blindly holding onto the past will be swept away by the currents of a changing society and its demands, the technological gale force winds which have changed music production to the core, and the ever escalating game of politics playing at a much higher level on the money food chain than music will ever attain.
To me this is highlighted and evidenced by the current push and demand for “exclusivity” while upfront payments for the “right” of exclusivity are dropping perilously — even to the point of no upfront payment. Those asking for perpetuity and exclusivity without serious up-front investment want the opportunity to have their cake and eat it to as dad used to say….
No thanks.
My perspective – if anyone wants exclusivity for my musical works, they had better be willing to pay dearly for it. For me to crawl under the covers with them and sign on their dotted lines, they had better have a vested interest sooo heavy that they are willing to not just put it on their ever-growing easily stocked shelves in case someone MIGHT want it, but instead, they had better be out there beating the bushes hard in an effort to monetize my investment for them. Because that’s what it is. MY investment for THEM. In the real world, I don’t just work for them – they are working for me.
In 2016, even $2k is not enough for a creative work to be signed away in perpetuity and exclusively. Making music full time at a top level is expensive, and there are too many new exciting options in a rapidly changing world to have my music tied up exclusively with someone not willing to pay upwards and over $1-2k for a piece.
I’m sorry, but for the PMA associated libraries offering nothing up front (and yes, I’ve been offered just that for an incredibly difficult and expensive project I created by a highly touted boutique PMA library) there is no way. It is sad for me to say, but after many years of being associated with some of the biggest libraries in the game, I am not finding the PMA libraries too appealing at this point in time – they are quite often too far behind in the amounts they pay out, and too out of touch in their ability / willingness to get out and get quality placements for my music. It takes a lot of money to live in LA in 2016, and shrinking up front payments, along with shrinking (per play) BMI/ASCAP payments do not make the old model as appealing as it used to be.
If music libraries want to play in the exclusive world, they need serious, hard core capitol to invest – not a warm friendly pie in the sky promise in hope of placement – at no up front cost to them. If that is too hard of a game to play, then find another business. I can’t finance their gameplay. You can only squeeze experienced quality composers so hard before they don’t want to play anymore.
The options in the non exclusive world, including multiple non-ex libs, forays into the music for the general public world, and private use of music for my own projects is too great to hand it over for the “possibility to play in the exclusive world” with no guarantees, no upfront buyout money, and perpetuity demanded. It’s embarrassing. I thought PMA membership demanded more.
Yes, 10 years ago the real-life possibilities outside the traditional music library world were somewhere between dismal and a joke. No longer. Up front “tiny” sync fees are becoming a major player in comparison to BMI / ASCAP fees which are shrinking (as least in a per play perspective). For me, the only thing keeping my BMI/ASCAP alive is huge amounts of music being added to an already large amount of shows in circulation / syndication, and placements with libraries that I’ve got long term relationships with.
I don’t know the answer for the PMA, but from my vantage point, they seem to be in a very precarious position as the world changes around them. They are wise to reach out and seek advice from composers. I hope they can listen and read between the ever contracting lines…..
Well….
It seems that was my “rant” that got deleted Art. Honestly a bit surprised, and a little disappointed. IMO there was good stuff in there for the PMA and writers to think about. But I suppose maybe those are the things they don’t want to hear?
Just so I know where you are headed this time : is the intent of the original question looking for :
A – ways for the PMA to be more relevant, better equipped to meet market demands, ways to equip libraries to be more successful in a changing market, ways to better equip to advocate for composers?
or,
B – are they looking for what benefits would entice composers to join the organization?
Two very different questions, and I suppose I focused on the former rather than the later. I’ve got lots of thoughts on both, but they require an open mind, which personally I find critical to longevity in this business.
Regards,
LAWriter
These unexpected and pleasingly large BMI blips used to catch me by surprise. But I finally figured it out. At least for my earnings.
For those of you who have a good portion of their royalties based on US Cable TV shows, note that the annual NCTA (National Cable TV Assn) payment is made this quarter (Q1-2016). That amounted to the difference between last quarter and this quarter for me. It’s always a nice surprise! Actually, the percentage of “pages” (always a good indicator for me) of royalties for Q1 2016 went down 5% for me, but the NCTA made up and over last quarter for me.
Of course, for every person “up”, I run across another that was “down”. LOL It’s hard to figure out.
Of note – BMI and ASCAP have to do something about the Internet streaming or we are all dead in the water in 5+ years…..