Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
So in this case they are not offering an administration only agreement, but are asking for a portion of the copyright (ownership). The deal is in perpetuity so I don’t see much difference as you would never get the administration rights back anyway.
Okay, I’ll take a stab at it. I’m no trained expert, so others may correct me!
The way I currently understand it is that if I sign with an EX library. I’m effectively granting them the copyright for the length of the contract. Right?
What you are granting are “rights”, not “copyrights”. For the length of the contract you’ve given them the exclusive “rights” to represent your music. The copyright remains yours. Of course this depends on each individual contract. Look for wording like:
“nothing contained herein shall be deemed to convey to library any interest, including copyright, in or to the tracks, and the tracks shall be the sole property of Licensor.”
In a co-publishing deal, they would maintain half the copyright and then be granted only half the publisher royalties, or 25% of the whole. And I, the writer, would collect 75%.
In a deal where you will split the publishing you, as the owner of the copyright, will grant them the right to collect a portion of the publishing royalty. Transferring 1/2 of the copyright is not necessary.
>I read somewhere, that royalties are paid to the copyright holder and to the writer. But I haven’t read that anywhere else but that makes sense. If that’s the case, then the copyright holder and the publisher are effectively the same thing?<
The writer (author) of the piece of music is the copyright holder, unless they’ve signed it away. Again, look for contract wording as in the example above. Exclusive contracts do not have to give away copyrights. Remember, if you sign away the copyright then the entity paying you for it is now considered by law its author.
but does that mean you’ve never entered into any exclusive and “in perpetuity” arrangements?
Providing content to an exclusive library doesn’t always mean you’re giving up your copyright, and you are, as copyright owner and author, entitled to collect writer royalties. In an exclusive Work for Hire agreement however you are giving away your copyright which means you no longer own the music; the company paying you is considered its author and copyright owner in law and is entitled to collect writers royalties. (Is that about right MichaelL?)
I’ve just published an article for beginners. I’m not sure how new you are to this but maybe it will be helpful:
https://sonicscoop.com/2019/03/13/making-money-with-your-recordings-through-music-libraries/It is disappointing. Between direct licensing and the dreaded survey it’s surprising we get any pay at all sometimes.
Is ESPN not paying royalties because like the Scripps networks all of the music for their shows is direct licensed? Or is it because ASCAP doesn’t survey the network? Maybe your next question about the new cue sheets should be to ASCAP.
It’s kind of hard to compare cable networks. Payouts depend on time of day of the broadcast – morning, afternoon, prime-time or night. Of course there’s the length of the cue, the number of plays and the type of performance as in background, background vocal, feature, etc. Just looking at the statement for the highest dollar amount doesn’t really tell the whole story…
ASCAP certainly lets you decide which tracks to register. But I was curious about your post and took a quick look on the TEOSTO website and saw this:
“Teosto’s membership agreement for music authors covers all the compositions, lyrics and arrangements of an author. However, Teosto wants to increase music authors’ freedom of choice through self-administration. In practice, this means that authors can administer the rights to their works themselves in some cases.
Game music is one of the areas subject to music authors’ self-administration.”
My January ASCAP statement had 16 Nat Geo placements. Average payout for :15 seconds is like .45 cents.
Well, it certainly isn’t stock production music. 🙂 Concentrate on libraries that place their primary focus more on indie artists than jack of all trades composers. And as an artist, you’ll want to pay attention to how you’d be allowed to use your music should you enter an exclusive deal. Can you place it with streaming services, sell at gigs or etc.
I added some music, but didnt’ really know where to go with it so i just used a whole CD that I had
Well, you shouldn’t be using a whole CD that you had without obtaining the proper licenses. So it’s good you are looking into replacing the music. I watched a few minutes and feel you don’t need a custom score. Purchasing licenses for stock music I think will make you legal and do a fine job. The $500 you have could purchase around ten licenses I estimate. I have a few in that style:
https://www.pond5.com/collections/2303691I always end up with horrible clicks and pops after I start chopping up audio.
Set your audio editor to snap to zero crossing, this will avoid the clicks and pops. There will be times you’ll need to turn this snap off to make a very exact timing cut, but 90% of the time it will be better on.
I’m putting up a more simple thought. Any opportunity that tells me “This is potentially good exposure” as it does at the distrokid link makes me sure NOT to partake. I’ve been hearing the dreaded “E” word since I first started in the music business playing in bands, and all it’s ever meant is someone gains and I lose.
Hi, I tried to reply but it’s not showing up here. Drop me a PM or I’ll try to post again later.
Sure, push for an upfront fee. They might take away the 50% of license fees though. I would say consider no upfront fee a deal breaker if the deal is in perpetuity. If you can get a reversion clause where the tracks revert back to you after a few years if no placements you might give it more consideration.
You do not have permission to view this content.