Got a forward, and a "music supervisor" followed up, but...

[sofunky2]

I got a forward on a song and a week later was contacted by a music supervisor. He wanted me to send a WAV file of the song, and the registration number of the song with my PRO. Also, he asked for 25% of the up front fee and 100% of the publishing.

I'm suspicious…I see by his IMDB that he's had only a few minor supervisor jobs, and it feels like he's fishing for tunes to lock up.
I don't want to be weird, but I sent this letter and haven't heard back from him. Would love to hear anyone's thoughts on this. It's my first forward.


"Regarding the contract , I had a couple thoughts. I’m comfortable with the 25% up front fee, but the listing did not mention that you’d be taking 100% of the publishing. Specifically, the listing says “These will be Non-Exclusive, $2500, Direct-to-Supervisor placements, and you’ll keep 100% ownership of your copyright and master recordings.” Other people I’m familiar with typically take 35-50% of the publishing. How would you feel about 50% of the publishing, and we renegotiate if you get a good placement? Also, I’d like to retitle the song for your use if you don’t mind."

[eeoo]

In the licensing world it's pretty normal for the party making the placement to keep 100% of the publishing backend as long as you're not giving up any of the writer's share it sounds like a standard deal. I don't know how normal it is for a supe to take part of the upfront money, maybe someone else can chime in on that? But just to be clear, royalties are split between writer and publisher so a 50/50 split is referred to as 100% publishing goes to publisher and 100% writer's share goes to writer. What confuses me is that the listing says it's a direct to supe opportunity but it sounds as though he/she wants to sign the song for a catalog , as opposed to a specific placement, like a library would. If it's a standard library deal then the terms you describe are generous.

BTW I'm not a lawyer so grain of salt and all that.

Hope that helps.

[hummingbird]

I think I'd discuss this with TAXI and see if it can be cleared up. 25% of sync is cool. Remember this is only 100% publishing of the retitled non-exclusively placed track. You make 75% of sync and 100% writers royalties, and you are free to pitch the track to other non-exclusives. However, it is a odd for a music supervisor to be acting like a library. So I'd call TAXI on Monday and ask about it.

[Cruciform]

A supe shouldn't be taking anything - no cut of syncs, no cut of PRO. He or she should be being paid for their work on a project by the studio/producer.

If they are building a catalogue of their own, then they are operating like a library and for that, they should be shopping their music around to lots of shows, films, etc., not just having it on hand for current projects they're working on (they may or may not be doing this, I don't know).

Personally, I think you're right to question the offer.

[eeoo]

Exactly Vikki and Rob, is it a direct to supe opp or a library opp? Seems like that's the question.

[Cruciform]

Exactly Vikki and Rob, is it a direct to supe opp or a library opp? Seems like that's the question.

+1 That's the clarification needed.

[sofunky2]

Thanks for chiming in everybody! I'm a new member and this is my first forward and follow up…it didn't feel right, and I don't want to start out with TAXI feeling like they deal with less than upfront folks. I'll give TAXI a call next week and see what they say.

[ComposerLDG]

There are library owners who also do music supervision, so the two don't necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.

[mojobone]

In the licensing world it's pretty normal for the party making the placement to keep 100% of the publishing backend as long as you're not giving up any of the writer's share it sounds like a standard deal. I don't know how normal it is for a supe to take part of the upfront money, maybe someone else can chime in on that? But just to be clear, royalties are split between writer and publisher so a 50/50 split is referred to as 100% publishing goes to publisher and 100% writer's share goes to writer. What confuses me is that the listing says it's a direct to supe opportunity but it sounds as though he/she wants to sign the song for a catalog , as opposed to a specific placement, like a library would. If it's a standard library deal then the terms you describe are generous.

BTW I'm not a lawyer so grain of salt and all that.

Hope that helps.

Sounds like a supe who also maintains a catalog, which I'm gathering is not so unusual. It would not be unusual for a library or publisher to ask for 50% of upfront (licensing) fees, so if the guy's active as a supe and also building a catalog with an eye toward becoming a publisher/library...I think I'd take that deal six ways from Sunday. To my mind, 75% of all-in fees is a pretty sweet deal, if that;'s what's meant, and particularly so, if it's non-exclusive, but much depends on the ultimate placement. Any case, it sounds like you'd be entering a deal with the supe, so it's either a co-publishing or an administration deal, and it's probably not impolite to ask him which.