Giving up part of your writer's share...

[guscave]

This week I received an email from a library I've worked with for several years and they've gotten me some good placements. On the email he explained that they just made a deal with a big production company to provide “ALL” the music for a new TV show on a very prominent cable network. The library owner is asking all his writer’s to start providing new music a.s.a.p.

On the surface this looks like a great opportunity, however this deal is exclusive with no upfront money and the production company keeps 100% of the publishing. Meaning the library has to share in your writer’s royalties in order to make money off this deal.

This is a practice that I’m seeing show up more and it’s worrisome. I just don’t think it’s good for either the writer or the library. Because at the end of the day, the production company is making more from your music than the folks who had anything to do with it's creation and administration.

In many cases a writer’s back-end royalties is the last remaining source of revenue for their work. Upfront money and sharing of publishing is almost gone (unless you’re working with top-end publishers). Having a library now take part of that revenue too just lowers the writer’s value and income.

Just to be clear, this library is not a fly-by night company. They have always been on the up & up with me and at one time even helped me get royalties that were due to me which I didn't even know about. But the lure of having hundreds of your tracks on a show can sometimes blurs the lines between fairness and success. Also with so many new writers desperate to get their music on TV no matter what, there is no shortage of supply.

I do know that some libraries have turned away from these types of deal, and even the PMA (http://pmamusic.com/)has a negative view on them. It’s not illegal, but it does question its ethical value.

Like one library owner put it; “It’s like an architect designing and building a house for a client, then paying that client so he can live in it for a while”.

What do you think?

[pboss]

I would not sign that deal. In the end, the marketplace will decide the price, if it's a "free" marketplace. Ethics aside, it smells like payola or bribery to me. Even if it is bribery, in the end, it will still come down to the marketplace forces, I feel. At some point, the monetary rewards may not make it viable for good composers to contribute to a show's music needs, or to the industry as a whole.

The fact that the playing field is becoming more leveled, internationally speaking, affects "price", too. The tree is shaking and time will tell what's left.

[DesireInspires]

I would not sign that deal either.

I would possibly sign a deal like this if my song was the lead song for the show or part of the end credits. But giving up half of the writer's share for a background placement ain't worth it to me.

[VanderBoegh]

Hmmmm, is the deal an exclusive or non-exclusive thing? If it's exclusive, I think I would pass on it. But if the library is non-exclusive, then I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it, as I could put all of those cues in other non-ex libraries for other (more fair) payouts.

~~Matt

[VanderBoegh]

Ohhh, I just re-read your post and saw that it is indeed exclusive. Well, in that case, I think I would spend time writing cues that have more monetary potential with other projects.

~~Matt

[guscave]

Thanks folks, I never planned to sign this deal. In fact I told him I didn't think it was a very “writer-friendly” deal. He understood, and we will most likely continue doing business together with other deals.

My main purpose for posting this was to bring attention that these types of deals are lately showing up more and more. There are many composers out there that will jump at deals like this simply to get their music on TV with the slight “possibility” of gaining some other business from it.

My point is that writers really need to put a more significant value to their music. You can’t do that by continuing to accept deals where we (the creators of the product ) are volunteering ourselves to be pushed further down the totem pole.

[DesireInspires]

Thanks folks, I never planned to sign this deal. In fact I told him I didn't think it was a very “writer-friendly” deal. He understood, and we will most likely continue doing business together with other deals.

My main purpose for posting this was to bring attention that these types of deals are lately showing up more and more. There are many composers out there that will jump at deals like this simply to get their music on TV with the slight “possibility” of gaining some other business from it.

My point is that writers really need to put a more significant value to their music. You can’t do that by continuing to accept deals where we (the creators of the product ) are volunteering ourselves to be pushed further down the totem pole.

I agree.

For non-exclusive deals, I am willing to make certain "sacrifices". But these exclusive deals are starting to ask for an arm, a leg, and a newborn. It is a bit much just for backend royalties from background music on a cable show.

The backend payout for an exclusive cue is not necessarily going to be more than a non-exclusive cue. Those payouts are all dependent on a number of factors such as time of day, length of usage, number of plays, etc. Why give up half of the writer's share for a cue that may only generate $1? That means I only get 50 cents. I want my whole dollar, LMAO!

Honestly, I think working to get upfront money is the best way to go. The backend is good, but there should be an upfront payment for certain situations. Giving up half of the writer's share and exclusivity should require some upfront payment. Heck, a $250 gift card would at least help to buy food or gas. Gotta hustle out here. These companies are constantly trying to run game on composers.