A few threads have developed regarding the PROs (Performing Rights Organizations), royalty payments, monitoring, cue sheets, etc. I am going to group them here for further discussion.
Music creators rating the music libraries.
A few threads have developed regarding the PROs (Performing Rights Organizations), royalty payments, monitoring, cue sheets, etc. I am going to group them here for further discussion.
Hi,
first of all, let me say, that this is really a great site. Lots of good information.
I have a question. Maybe someone can help me. I hope, it fits in this thread.
I want to sell royalty free music like I already do, but would also like to have my music (not the same music) in libraries, where I only benefit from, when I’m a member of a PRO.
Do you know a PRO where I can be a member as a foreigner (I’m from Germany), that allows me to decide, which tracks I want to register with a PRO and which tracks are royalty free???
GEMA, the german PRO, wouldn’t allow me that. If you’re a member of GEMA, all tracks are NOT royalty-free anymore. If I would join GEMA, I would have to remove all my tracks from royalty-free libs. Every new created track would automatically become GEMA-material.
Do you have any ideas? How can I cover both models?
Thanks, Nils
In the US, you can resign from your PRO ‘for the world’ or ‘foreign collections’, but keep your coverage in the States. Don’t know if GEMA will let you do that, though.
I’m not understanding that, though… GEMA can’t legally demand that you do that, it would seem, any more than they could demand you register everything. Hmm.
– S
I found the answer in ASCAP’s Rules section 1.11 – 1.11.5 et seq. Basically, if the publisher. or a co-writer, of any of your works remains an ASCAP member, ASCAP retains the right to collect the royalties on those works, and will continue to pay you. Royalties for your new works would be collected by your new PRO.
I don’t see this being an issue, then, with current publishers. This would potentially be a problem in a retitling situation.
I guess it boils down to whether you trust ASCAP to continue payments properly, and whether you’re in a position to move forward with creating a new, i.e., not retitled catalog.
Michael
Here is an interesting read I found on the problems of making a PRO switch and the potential problems of leaving your tunes in ASCAP. It certainly makes it sound like you’re in for a possible loss of income by changing to another PRO.
> I spoke with a BMI rep last week and am thinking about changing to BMI any
> thoughts about doing this? does BMI seem as incapable as ASCAP? Any
> thoughts?
>
In terms of broad-stroke distribution, historically, ASCAP and BMI are
somewhat joined at the hip lest one PRO suffer mass defections to the other. Each
PRO appears to have the ability to throw money at special circumstances and move
distribution monies around.
On paper, ASCAP has a more liberal policy in paying royalties for music used
in advertising than does BMI. On the other hand, BMI has a more liberal policy
as to instrumental score that may qualify to be paid at feature rates than
that practiced at ASCAP.
BMI execs have claimed deeper surveys in local TV and basic cable,
anecdotally, and I believe them. Otherwise, many policies are uncannily similar when you
get to the bottom line.
Should you decide to switch, the big question you must answer is whether to
terminate your agreement with ASCAP (taking your catalog with you) or
terminating with rights (leaving your previous catalog at ASCAP and starting a fresh
catalog with BMI.
There are pros & cons with each approach, and I would query executives with
EACH PRO to clearly establish policy in both cases. Preferably in writing, but
I doubt you can get it. This despite provisions of AFJ2 that demand that ASCAP
may not encumber your process in switching to BMI. Handily, certain of these
provisions in AFJ2 will not become enforceable until a BMI Amended Final
Judgment is adopted– and such a document does not appear to be in development.
This effectively releases ASCAP from many a policy involving your right to
switch. AFJ2 stipulates that any member may resign ASCAP at the end of any
calendar year giving notice 3 months prior. ASCAP policy now exceeds this provision
by tying your “window to switch” to 3 months prior to your original election
date to ASCAP, a piece of information not listed on your statement– you have
to research it. If you miss the window you will be prevented in switching (or
affiliating directly with a foreign society) for a year, perhaps more. This is
a direct affront to AFJ2 orders save for the “BMI out-clause.”
Should you decide to take your catalog with you, pay particular attention to
the publishing ramifications if you do not own the copyright of works you
intend to move. Have each PRO disclose the rules to you in this regard.
Additionally, you want each PRO to agree on the PRECISE date in which ASCAP stops
collecting on your behalf and BMI takes it over. If you’re not careful, you can fall
into a void in which NO ONE is collecting or distributing for you for at
least nine months.
Speaking from experience– should you terminate ASCAP with rights, the
general promise is “to distribute on those titles as if you were still an ASCAP
member.” However, you’ll find that those titles you left at ASCAP will be
stripped-off the ACE online database as if they never existed. If a foreign PRO was
consulting ACE in an effort to send performance money to an appropriate place,
their research would reveal NOTHING. I cannot conclude other than this is a
punishment ASCAP inflicts upon members who terminate. Another policy enabled by
the DOJ when they largely cut ASCAP loose from government scrutiny and vacated
previous consent decrees specifying the rights of members. Specifically, the
“1960 Order” was abandoned– and a number of important rights were lost.
This and other factors make international performance money a black hole.
It’s perfectly okay for a foreign society to send performance money from my ASCAP
titles to BMI if they notice that I switched. But IF they’re consulting the
BMI database, my previous titles don’t appear there either because they are
ASCAP administered domestically. And of course, they’re not listed on ASCAP’s ACE
either. The Twilight Zone. Still, the foreign society can send the money to
ASCAP on my behalf, or just give up on the process as being too much trouble.
These are precisely the issues you want execs from ASCAP and BMI to address
so you can make an informed decision about the administration of your works.
Any info you can share about your experiences in this area will assist others
on the ProList in making decisions for themselves.
I hope this information is helpful to you and others– it is hard won.
Hello All,
I am new to this forum. I’ve been an ASCAP member for 25+ years. In the 1990’s I had a smooth jazz CD that charted at #44 nationally. I received exactly nine dollars ($9) in royalties from ASCAP. In 2000 ASCAP overpaid me for a track that was used on CBS sports. They deducted the overpayment as an “advance” for the next 10 years!
I’ve done a fair number of library tracks over the years.
1) What happens to my catalog if I switch to BMI? Anyone made the switch?
2) Anyone belong to BMI and SESAC, or ASCAP and SEASAC? Mark Northam at FMN suggests belonging to both a domestic and foreign PRO.
Thanks,
Michael
Ah, the ASCAP issue once again 🙂 I have thought about leaving ASCAP to join BMI or SESAC for several years now for pretty much the same reasons – their payment schedule is very unpredictable and unfair to instrumental writers.
But having a catalog of over 500 active tunes, I’m concerned about the confusion that will ensue once I leave. Will they continue to pay me any money that comes in after the songs are pulled or will that money be put into the general fund for the big boys to carve up? Will all the publishers who have my songs get annoyed at the extra paperwork of switching over their ASCAP companies to BMI/SESAC? Will the loss of money due to all this confusion outweigh the shortcomings of staying with ASCAP? The unknown keeps me from making that move.
Has anyone here done the switch?
Did you try calling ASCAP or BMI to find out?
I have a few questions for anyone who understands the track registration process with PRS for Music/ MCPS. My partner and I have been PRS members for a few years now, and have been adding our tracks to the database as we record them and add them to libraries. We are now also MCPS members as our own publisher. So here’s my first question:
Do we add our publishing name as original publisher to each track we’ve registered? Our entire catalogue is self published, so I assume the answer to this question is yes.
Where it gets confusing (to me anyway) is where certain libraries that we are with and have licensed tracks with take a cut of publishing – Audiosparx for example. Should we list them as sub-publishers of all the tracks we’ve licensed through their library? What about tracks which have been licensed multiple times with different libraries?
Where tracks have subversions – i.e. 60, 30 and 15 second edits; stingers; or underscores, should we register each version as a new work? There is no way of adding subversions to a main track registration. We title each one with the original track name plus the edit type – would this be sufficient for any subversion to be associated with the original track?
Finally, does anyone know whether it is possible to get the PRS to add our new MCPS publishing name to all tracks we have registered, or do we need to go in and do it one by one?
Apologies for the fuzziness of these questions – my brain is currently in meltdown trying to get this stuff straightened out! Any help and advice on any of these questions would be VERY much appreciated!
From Conversing with other library owners they said each edit gets a separate number
and treated as a different piece so for example 10 tracks with 4 edits is 40 tracks.
On your first question,answer is yes,whenever you register a new song,you can register it before any other sub-publishing deals under your own publishing CO.I believe when you sign with exclusive non-exclusive companies,they get the pub when placed by them and exclusive means they only have the rights as a Library company to the pub on those deals per your contract.
2.Audio Sparx will register themselves,you can confirm this by checking with PRO=PRS
3.LIcensed tracks with multiple libraries are fine as long as they are non-exclusive and the better librairies will put their initials/track number and then your titles for each piece they register as the publisher.
4.yes
5.need to go in and do it!
Yea i gave them my cae number from the start. The guy just probably was too lazy or overwhelmed to make sure it was registered under the right composer. Matt do you know if any monies has been paid to the other person would i be able to get that back???
I don’t know for sure, but the PROs are really good at subtracting money when they’ve made a mistake… much faster than ADDING money when they’ve screwed up!
You would think that other person would have reported the error when he got paid for a track that wasn’t his. Last week a track showed up on my ASCAP ACE that wasn’t mine. I reported it immediately to the publusher and it was corrected.
ok so now i was looking under someone else’s work titles who have the same name as me and i see that my titles that were with the non-exclusive company were registered under the wrong person. How do i get this switched to the right person??? If any money was paid to this person…can i get the money back??? WOW!!!
Yikes, I’ve been there before. To fix it, call BMI immediately. Then explain to your library clients that they have to use your full name – including middle name, for any future cue sheets. Also, you should always make sure you give this info from now on when working with libraries, or any broadcast project for that matter.
The CAE number doesn’t hurt either, but from experience, most libraries don’t use it.
It shouldn’t be your job to take care of this stuff, but ultimately it’s up to you to make sure you get your royalties.
You have every right to request filed cue sheets from the library and/or the PRO for any project in which your music is used. You are an “interested [or “invested”] party” in that you are the writer, and you are entitled to any information that affects the use of your copyright (the “work”). You are also entitled to copies of the registrations made by the library with the PRO for the same reason. Get on the case of whoever registered those works incorrectly with your PRO, and make them fix it. Find out how much SHOULD have been paid to you from your PRO and then request that amount from whichever library made the mistake. The worst they can say is “no” but at least you’ve put them on notice that you won’t put up with sloppy admin. Going forward, demand a copy of the registration by the library to the PRO of any of your new titles with them.
Something that often contributes to such scenarios, though, is that a lot of writers (especially those who have an aka artist name) don’t provide the correct info.
You must always have your compositions registered in EXACTLY the same manner in which you are registered with your PRO. If you’re registered there with a middle name, use it in your licenses, contracts with libraries, and any other legal documents. If you have an aka, list that as well, but cue sheets MUST have your name noted exactly as you are registered with your PRO — no exceptions.
I can’t tell you how many times I have to fix this info for licenses and cue sheets….
Lucky Louie says he is the writer and that he has Lucky Louie Music as his publishing entity.
Yeah… not…
Lucky Louie is actually registered with his PRO as Louis G. Hamilton III, and he doesn’t even have a registered publishing entity, so he needs to be listed as “author published.”
Be meticulous, be diligent, and never assume that someone else is handling the details with 100% accuracy. Follow up on everything. It’s an unfortunate reality that the business side of this business is often handled badly, and the creators of the works are always last to get what’s due them.
I have a big question. I sold some tracks to a library exclusively and now that i’m looking @ my BMI works registration i don’t see any of those tracks listed. I still get 2 keep my writers share so is it my responsibility to register these works??? If i wouldn’t have went on the website to find the actual album that they put together i wouldn’t have ever known what names they renamed the tracks to. Also an non-exclusive library accepted some of my tracks a couple years ago and i remember him sending me a pdf file with the renamed tracks. Was i supposed to take that and register with BMI??? I’m still learning this part of it. If someone could educate me on this that would be greatly appreciated.
Hey all,
any thoughts on this :
I’m looking at a contract at the moment thats an exlclusive deal, however it indicates that the writer wouldn’t be due any revenue ( other than PRO payments ) from any usage thats described as “blanket license”.
This is pretty typical now days with royalty free libraries, but haven’t seen it too much with exclusive deals.
It means that the library can make a blanket deal with a network (or whoever), receive compensation via that blanket license, and no one but the library gets any money when your music is used. I repeat: No one but the LIBRARY gets any money when YOUR music is used.
The blanket license takes the place of individual music licenses. TV shows — especially low-budget ones — like this scenario since they don’t have to do any paperwork other than cue sheets.
The reason libraries do this is because it takes time and effort to figure out what was used where and they don’t want to have to break things down so everyone can get their fair share. They claim too many man-hours needed to get the “paltry” sums to each writer/artist. Well… all those “paltry” sums add up for them and they pay their rent with ’em. Too bad YOUR landlord isn’t getting any of that cash when your work is used.
An alternative to this is a sort of blanket license — where a show is given a catalogue of music, and they’re allowed to pick, say, 10 pieces for every episode. Based on the total per-season blanket fee, the dollars are pro-rated for each episode, and the each-episode fee is then pro-rated based on how many pieces are actually used. Cue sheets for each episode with the proper info is provided, and then all the composers/artists are compensated at the end of each season based on how much of their music was used during that season. This is a FAIR way of doing things. Paying nothing to those who create the work, and then having the privilege to exploit it without compensation to the creators is NOT.
Hi Everyone,
This is my first post but I’ve been visiting for several months. This site is invaluable. Thank you Art for creating it and thanks to everyone else for your contributions.
I have a question that Google hasn’t been able to help me with too much. I’m registered with ASCAP as a writer. I have music in five libraries. Depending on the library, some ask you to list a publisher (with said publisher’s PRO affiliation) when providing track information. What’s the best thing to do? Just put my name? Should I register with ASCAP as a publisher even though I haven’t formally founded a publishing company of my own? ASCAP doesn’t go too deep in their FAQs and I haven’t really come up with any solid guidance on the web. One of the libraries I have an agreement with gives you the option of letting them administer the publisher’s share (of which they give you 50%). So that’s clear. Any thoughts? I’m still figuring some of this stuff out. Thanks!
The library music company is normally (if not always) the publisher, and will take the publisher’s share.
If you own your publishing (meaning you haven’t given away all publishing in your deals with the various libraries/companies), and you’re an ASCAP writer, you need to create an ASCAP publishing entity.
BMI allows a writer who owns their own publishing (but has no formal publishing entity) to note the publisher name as “Writer Name (author published)” and they will receive both their writer and publisher share royalties.
ASCAP will not. They will hold the publishing royalty money “in trust” (whatever THAT means, since I don’t know anyone who has been able to cash in later on that) until such time as a publisher is attached to the registered work.
If you’ve given away your publishing with the respective libraries repping your music, then whatever company is attached to a specific title is what you should note for cue sheet purposes.
Scott you’ve hit the nail on the head.
The playing field has changed fundamentally for PRO’s, and they seem to be struggling to adapt.
There’s nothing they can do about plummeting advertising revenues, although this may itself be symptomatic of a structural change in media and marketing models. However they seem to be struggling to stay abreast of a rapidly evolving broadcast environment. The myriad of platforms, online usage, new and rapdily expanding territories and methods of distribution are challenging their ability to monitor and collect on behalf of their members.
I had a long chat with the technical director at PRS (the UK’s collection agency) a week or so ago. They have been trialing music fingerprinting in an attempt to stay abreast of real-time usage monitoring, but the logistical challenges involved in implementing this klind of system are huge. Basically, they can’t do it without the cooperation of the broadcasters, and even then they’d only have the UK covered.
All collection agencies manage (somehow) to claim every year was a record year for collections, but talk to any sample of composers, and you’ll get a very clear picture that royalty payments are falling. We largely have Audionetwork and the disease of so-called ‘royalty free music’ to thank for that, and for a general deterioration in the quality of music used in media.
I see some turbulent waters ahead.
Jules
Indeed. And has anybody seen this?
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/
I don’t know what’s more depressing, the numbers or some of the sadly uninformed comments….