[SteveW]

Thanks again chaps, for your wise words. I shall endeavour to gain some “clout”. Might take a week or two though 🙂

[SteveW]

Yeah, that does make a lot of sense, Michael. Especially what you were saying about their main thing being to get the track commercially recorded not licensed. I wasn’t really looking at it that way since the conversations before the agreements appeared seemed, in both cases, to be focused on the licensing potential of the tracks.

Thanks for taking the time to explain things. I’ve learned some more today 🙂

[SteveW]

Yes Michael, it’s the latter. Their angle was that they thought the tracks would be great for TV/film, which was the main reason I was interested.

So are you saying that questioning a library’s agreement might generally have a different result to questioning a publisher/label’s agreement?

Sorry if I’m asking silly questions. My involvement so far in music licensing is getting a few tracks a year licensed through Pump/Getty. I’m trying to branch out and take it a bit more seriously this year though.

[SteveW]

Thanks for replying, Michael. Both these agreements came from well established publishers/labels who are very active in music placement. There was no upfront money offered.

The first agreement had no reversion at all, which obviously I questioned. The second agreement, which was for a single song, stated it could be reverted if the composition was not “commercially recorded” within 3 years. My question to them was whether the wording could be changed slightly to include ANY use, like TV, film etc.

But as you say, in a saturated market this is obviously just too much bother for these lovely people 🙂

Steve

[Author]

Posts