Scripps profits go up yet no backend for composers.

[kclements]

I can't blame Scripps for this. They do pay to use the music. It is the music libraries who cut out the composer when a blanket license is purchased by Scripps.

Yes and No. Most networks pay for blanket licenses all the time AND pay performance royalties. Scripps has simply managed to get around it. I did read somewhere last year that Scripps was working with BMI to settle the issue but I haven't heard anything else lately.

I didn't hear anything about negotiations with BMI and Scripps, so I can't speak to that. But as I understand it, it is simply the Scripps business model to not pay on the backend. They haven't managed to get around it, they just made it their policy and are finding libraries that will provide them music. You can't fault them for working a particular business model. You can fight to change their minds, but there are a number of ways to do business and they picked this one.

Yes, networks do pay for blankets ( I don't know if I would go so far as to say most), and a few libraries share that with composers. You just have to know what you are signing up for with each library. We have to take it upon ourselves to learn the business side of the music business and be savvy enough to understand the contract and willing to walk from any deal that is not beneficial to our work.

If you are willing to give music to a library that deals with a lot/mostly Scripps programming, and doesn't share the blanket or give you upfronts - but instead promises that your music will go in the general catalog and might be picked up by other productions - I think you are contributing to the devaluation of our music.

But, if the library shares the blanket and/or gives you upfronts to place your stuff in Scripps shows, that might be an ok deal, depending on the details.

kc

[Joseph]

I agree with you guys. I'm not an established composer as I still have yet to be paid, but when I first heard that music used in Scripps programming does not pay the composers I was shocked (and more so when I started seeing how many programs use Scripps!). There is no way I could contribute to something like that. I've gone long enough without being payed for making music that I think I can hold out a little longer for a deal that actually respects me and my work.

-Joseph

[andygabrys]

But, if the library shares the blanket and/or gives you upfronts to place your stuff in Scripps shows, that might be an ok deal, depending on the details.

The devil is definitely in the details as I think that:

1) if performance free (i.e. no royalty earnings) blankets were as expensive as "regular" blankets then there would be little incentive for a show / network to ever go to a performance free model.

2) so we can assume that a performance free blanket is cheaper, maybe SUBSTANTIALLY cheaper than "regular" blankets where royalties are paid.

3) "regular" blankets are likely also rare as there are many libraries who offer up music under the "gratis" blanket - i.e. don't worry about any upfront, just properly fill out cue sheets.

So then I have to wonder:

If Scripps were really savvy, would they not want to be developing their own in house library where they could own the publishing and get paid every time they used one of their own tracks?

Or does that equate to a net negative result if they have to pay a network PRO blanket to ASCAP, BMI,SESAC?

[kclements]

I agree with you guys. I'm not an established composer as I still have yet to be paid, but when I first heard that music used in Scripps programming does not pay the composers I was shocked (and more so when I started seeing how many programs use Scripps!). There is no way I could contribute to something like that. I've gone long enough without being payed for making music that I think I can hold out a little longer for a deal that actually respects me and my work.

-Joseph

I would only add that Scripps is not necessarily the (only) bad guy here. It is easy to villainize Scripps and let the libraries slide. But they might be the more responsible party.

BTW, I am not a fan of the Scripps model or the deals they offer. I am mearly arguing that it isn't as simple as just Scripps being the Big Bad Wolf.

kc

[kclements]

But, if the library shares the blanket and/or gives you upfronts to place your stuff in Scripps shows, that might be an ok deal, depending on the details.

The devil is definitely in the details as I think that:

1) if performance free (i.e. no royalty earnings) blankets were as expensive as "regular" blankets then there would be little incentive for a show / network to ever go to a performance free model.

2) so we can assume that a performance free blanket is cheaper, maybe SUBSTANTIALLY cheaper than "regular" blankets where royalties are paid.

3) "regular" blankets are likely also rare as there are many libraries who offer up music under the "gratis" blanket - i.e. don't worry about any upfront, just properly fill out cue sheets.

So then I have to wonder:

If Scripps were really savvy, would they not want to be developing their own in house library where they could own the publishing and get paid every time they used one of their own tracks?

Or does that equate to a net negative result if they have to pay a network PRO blanket to ASCAP, BMI,SESAC?

I agree Andy. As with most things, you need to educate yourself and take responsibility for the actions you take. It's very easy, and common, to not bother and hope someone else figures it out.

As for Scripps going in house. That might be against their business model, or they see no reason for the extra overhead when they can strike deals with other libraries. As the Scripps rep told us in Nashville, it isn't his fault the libraries don't share the blanket.

kc

[DesireInspires]

I agree with you guys. I'm not an established composer as I still have yet to be paid, but when I first heard that music used in Scripps programming does not pay the composers I was shocked (and more so when I started seeing how many programs use Scripps!). There is no way I could contribute to something like that. I've gone long enough without being payed for making music that I think I can hold out a little longer for a deal that actually respects me and my work.

-Joseph

I would only add that Scripps is not necessarily the (only) bad guy here. It is easy to villainize Scripps and let the libraries slide. But they might be the more responsible party.

BTW, I am not a fan of the Scripps model or the deals they offer. I am mearly arguing that it isn't as simple as just Scripps being the Big Bad Wolf.

kc

Yes, I agree.

Scripps pays for the use of the cues. They do a direct license with the music library. By doing a direct license, Scripps avoids having to fill out cue sheets. They pay a flat fee to use as much music as they want.

The music library loses money by not being able to collect the publishers share of royalties. But they do get paid the upfront fee. The composer gets none of the upfront fee and loses out on the writers share of royalties. That is where the problem lies.

[Joseph]

I agree with you guys. I'm not an established composer as I still have yet to be paid, but when I first heard that music used in Scripps programming does not pay the composers I was shocked (and more so when I started seeing how many programs use Scripps!). There is no way I could contribute to something like that. I've gone long enough without being payed for making music that I think I can hold out a little longer for a deal that actually respects me and my work.

-Joseph

I would only add that Scripps is not necessarily the (only) bad guy here. It is easy to villainize Scripps and let the libraries slide. But they might be the more responsible party.

BTW, I am not a fan of the Scripps model or the deals they offer. I am mearly arguing that it isn't as simple as just Scripps being the Big Bad Wolf.

kc

I'm definitely not trying to make Scripps out to be the only bad guys here, I'm just saying that I can pass on a deal if it involves providing music to Scripps or even a library that deals with Scripps. I don't work for free unless you're family (and even then it's questionable )

Does anybody know if they are the only network that operates under this business model, or are there others that we should be aware of?

-Joseph

[andygabrys]

Don't know.

[DesireInspires]

I'm definitely not trying to make Scripps out to be the only bad guys here, I'm just saying that I can pass on a deal if it involves providing music to Scripps or even a library that deals with Scripps. I don't work for free unless you're family (and even then it's questionable )

Does anybody know if they are the only network that operates under this business model, or are there others that we should be aware of?

-Joseph

ESPN also does direct licenses for music used on its network.

The problem is not with networks such as Scripps or ESPN. It has more to do with the fact that some music libraries get paid for a direct license but then allow these networks to use as many songs as possible for a flat rate.

In reality, a direct license allows the purchaser to bypass PROs in America. The purchaser license the song from the copyright holder for a flat fee and does not have to file cue sheet for the broadcast of those uses. But music libraries license a large portion of their catalog to these networks and do not share the direct license fee with the music creators.

There are no PRO royalties are generated when the music is used. So the music library does not get to collect the publisher share of royalties, but gets paid through the blanket license fee. The composers get completely cut out of the earnings and lose everything. This situation is sad for the composers that lose out on this money. Everyone else gets something.

[mobster85]

This is really interesting and yet concerning at the Same time. Thx for sharing.