Publishing contract - exclusion of performance royalties

A creative space for business discussions.

Moderators: admin, mdc, TAXIstaff

Post Reply
badams
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:40 pm
Gender: Male
Contact:

Publishing contract - exclusion of performance royalties

Post by badams » Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:52 am

Hello taxi members,
I recently was presented with a publishing contract for one of my songs. It includes little detail with regard to payment of royalties but simply states that with regard to royalties, the publisher agrees to pay writer 50% of all net earned mechanical royalties rec'd by the publisher, excluding peformance royalties. It appears to me that by those terms (with nothing more mentioned in the contract about royalties), I would be giving up any performance royalties. Just a reality check here--is there something I am missing or is there a scenario under which this type of arrangement might make sense? Thanks in advance for any comments.

User avatar
andygabrys
Total Pro
Total Pro
Posts: 5567
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:09 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Summerland, BC by way of Santa Fe, Chilliwack, Boston, NYC
Contact:

Re: Publishing contract - exclusion of performance royalties

Post by andygabrys » Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:35 pm

the part included doesn't seem that strange or out of the ordinary in todays marketplace.....


......but the exclusion of any language similar to this:

Composer will retain 100% of the writers share of performance royalties and will be directly by their PRO.......


....and Publisher will 100% of the Publishers share of ............ yadda yadda etc..............



Usually that's the arrangement, but funny that language isn't in the contract anyways.

Worth a question of your contact I would say.

badams
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:40 pm
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Publishing contract - exclusion of performance royalties

Post by badams » Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:04 am

Andy,
Thanks much for the feedback. Considering it would be paid thru PRO, that makes more sense to me now. But to your point, it seems it would be dealt with a little more explicitly somewhere. Thanks again!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests