Forum Replies Created

Viewing 7 posts - 21 through 27 (of 27 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: Colab advice please #32001

    Thank you all responders to my question.

    You are right Art, I think I have answered my own questions! When you say (if I do it) to go for writing credits and payment, do you mean immediate payment for the time spent coaching her on pronunciation etc
    Plus a cut of the writing? If I go down that path I will have to assess what contribution is needed and what split is right. Does anyone have any advice on splitting ownership for this kind of thing. I have a feeling my contribution would be substantial so probably 50/50 would be right?
    When I met this lady for our first lesson, she told me about her album she is writing. She excitedly asked if I would help her with it. I was non committal as I didn’t know her at all. The motive of her wish to learn Flamenco guitar (which I teach) was obviously to learn guitar but also singing. I do sing but don’t teach it. In any case she is already a great singer but I don’t think she speaks Spanish. My gut feeling is that the album could be be a ‘vanity project’ and may not be focused on making money. She gives me the impression she doesn’t need money as she mentioned that she doesn’t work (but does not seem skint!)
    Right now I don’t know what she is proposing so I will have a frank conversation with her to get more clarity, if it turns out to be co-writing partner that she needs then I don’t have time to gamble on it (she mentioned something about it being a ‘healing’ album) . If it is just to advise on Spanish pronunciation then I can charge my hourly teaching rate .
    I have come across a scenario in the past where I was contacted by someone wanting me to compose and record some children’s songs in Spanish. They had looked up musicians union rates for teaching and expected me to charge along these lines with no understanding or mention of song ownership/royalties.
    Even if my student has been in the music business I can’t assume she understands the ins and outs of what she may be asking.
    It will be clearer to me when I, a) read her lyrics and b) find out what she wants.
    I am happy to not get involved if it is co-writing her album as it may be a can of worms I don’t want to open!
    Thanks for your patience reading my ruminations, bouncing off you good people is a great help.!!
    Thanks. JD

    in reply to: Colab advice please #32002

    Hi Paul Biondi, sorry missed your response.
    That’s very helpful to get your experience, gives me a good guide on how to deal with and structure my approach.
    Thanks very much

    in reply to: Colab advice please #31997

    Further to my original question, does anyone have any experience of translating songs and how this applies to song ownership of the original composition?


    Thanks BEATSLINGER, appreciate your comments, that is exactly the reasoning that led me to ask the question.
    I am listening to all opinions as in the ‘normal’ world of employment what you say makes total sense. I was (and still am) uncertain of the best approach. One difference is that in a conventional job scenario an employer will want to know where you worked in the past but in the music licensing arena any other library I mention is likely to be still a current business relationship. Don’t know if it makes any difference in real terms but it is a difference.
    I am still open to hearing more opinions and experiences to help me decide how to proceed..
    All the best


    Thanks to all of you for your advice, From reading your advice I think my approach will be to mention maybe 3 recent placements in well known and current films and TV shows but not mention competing libraries, this should be on a ‘need to know’ basis (me being paranoid!?)
    . The placements themselves should give an idea that they were placed by a good library I think and demonstrate that I can come up with the goods, I guess in the end the music I submit should speak for itself.
    BEATSLINGER I am glad it has not been a problem for you but I would feel uncomfortable naming other ibraries, everyone’s comments including yours have helped me reach this conclusion so I can only say THANK YOU to all of you!!

    in reply to: should I reitle own tracks for RF libraries #31911

    Thanks bionkeee2000 for your thoughts,
    Yeah maybe I’m overthink it, as you say, just getting a placement is hard enough!
    Saves me a lot of time/work by just submitting t to RF with same title as tracks already represented by NE libraries.
    I will re-think some of the titles for songs rejected by NE libraries when submitting to RFs to make them more descriptive, they have not yet been registered with prs so it is not a problem.
    Thanks again!

    in reply to: Hesitant signing first exclusive deal with Library #8048



    Hi Folks,


    I really appreciate all of you taking the time to answer so thoroughly with such helpful thoughts and advice, it really does help get my head clearer.


    This is a USA based library (I am in UK) that gets pretty good comments on MLR and I had a good impression when talking to owner.As mentioned I have only signed non-exclusive deals before so this is my first exclusive. With this piece it feels hard to sign away song ownership with no advance or guarantees (logically I know not to expect this) but in some way I am not able to be totally logical with this one. I have performed it live in theatres and it feels more `mine`. Maybe I just shouldn’t have sent it to him in the first place!


    This is my first interaction with this library and I feel a bit awkward picking holes in the contract.when we just met so to speak, I know it is business but I want to start on the right foot. I think part of my uncertainty is that I don’t fully understand the contract on some points. I assume if I sign over copyright then I can’t perform, sell or put it on my website?.


    I did get a free hour written legal advice as part of my Musicians Union membership. Some of the points raised were mentioned by you folks too such as requesting a reduction of the  reversion period plus the following additional points…


    ` If it is intended that the agreement shall be for the purpose of the Publisher exploiting the works and recordings by means of library music then the rights taken need to be limited to that. Unless the Publisher can demonstrate it has the ability and intention to exploit the work and the recording by other means, then it should not have the right to do so. Otherwise the rights taken are disproportionate to the exploitation intended and this is unfair. In the event that there is exploitation of the composition(s) by means other than library use, then the royalty payable should be 70% of net receipts from each type of exploitation. That is to say 70% of the publishing income and 70% of the recording income.`  

    Writer shall have approval over all non standard library exploitation and Writer reserves all rights to grant synch licences, sample licences and similar types of exploitation, including digital downloads and “ringtones”.    
    Writer shall have consent for all synch licences, sample licences and other non-mechanical exploitation, including digital downloads and “ringtones”.  
    Writer shall have consent for and the Publisher shall bear the cost of any adaptations and alterations. Any changes to the compositions shall be treated as one hundred per cent (100%) written by Writer and Writer shall be paid in respect thereof accordingly. 
     Do you folks think it reasonable at this stage to request these changes (there are more points flagged up by my advisor, 13 in total!) or just go with what is on offer perhaps just discussing the reversion period (there are 2 numbers being considered in total)?
    Apologies for such a lengthy post! Appreciate any advice. Many thanks. PepeLuis


Viewing 7 posts - 21 through 27 (of 27 total)