100% publishing rights and 50% sync fees a bad deal?

[Casey H]

I can see if someone comes from the artist world and/or non-US, they might not understand how things typically work in US film/TV library deals. Fair enough.

Nothing wrong with asking questions.

But the OP tone in his post is the problem. He was on the attack toward the deal and worse, to Dave, from the get-go.

[davewalton]

The main problem here is that people that aren't familiar with standard deals, what the most common deal is, don't know what to look out for and what to not look out for. I don't care what the source is, saying that "the most common deal" is one where the publisher gives up all of the sync fee to the composer in addition to half of their publishing revenue is just flat-out wrong. Wish what you want but that in no way, shape or form reflects reality.

This thread started over the idea that a 50/50 deal was a rip off, that deals like that shouldn't even be part of Taxi or part of the Taxi listings. Then it "evolved" with a post that said "that MOST deals" today are where the publisher gives away half of their publishing income to composers.

We're trying to avoid this scenario...

Music Library: Hello Bob? We like your music and want to include it in our catalog. We have the standard 50/50 deal.
Bob: That's not the standard! I want all of the sync fee and half your publishing revenue 'cause I know THAT'S the standard. I saw that on the Taxi forum! You can't fool me! I'm no chump (ha ha!)!

[Kolstad]

Dave, I don't question that what you are saying IS the standard in the tv/film market. This is also my experience, at least from the "no name" bargaining position, which is most common for Taxi members, I believe, so what you are saying makes sense. You have lots of valuable experience with this, which is great.

However, the op was asking how we feel about this, implying that the moral stance is really what he's interested in knowing about, as far as I read the original post. So, even though the suggested deals are standard, and pretty much non negotiable in the tv/film business, that says nothing about how we feel about this.

I would also like to avoid the opposite scenario of the one you line up, which is where two publishers tell each other:
"hey, did you read the Taxi forums, all the composers were perfectly fine with the 50/50 business deals?"
"yeah, quite surprised about that"
"maybe we can push margins a little further, there seems to be acceptable room for that?"
"yeah, let's try it"

In that perspective it also makes sense to say that elsewhere in the music business the trend might go towards co-publishing deals, which is why I wanted to add other voices on this. The publishers role has been pretty debated in the music business the last decade, and "new pub" is a bigger and bigger deal these days. Many publishers earn 3-4 times more than great composers, which makes it relevant to include feelings and perspectives from a broad range of industry professionals, imo.

So, yes 50/50 is a standard deal (Dave's experience). No, there's no room to bargain for newcomers. What do I feel about that? Hmm, I'd like more money to the content providers, if there was a way. Should Taxi intervene? No, I dont think they are obliged to do that, Taxi already does a lot by working with only legitimate clients, secure transparency in the listings ect.

Bottom line, I believe the nuances are important, because things change over time.

[Russell Landwehr]

I was wondering how other taxi members feel about the recent postings asking for songs in nearly all genres that require that the songwriter sign an exclusive deal giving away 100% of the publishing rights and 50% of the sync fees. Do you think this is a good or even fair deal for the songwriter? Should taxi allow such deals? Please respond with your thoughts. (and please don't respond with the simpleton message "you don't have to submit to that listing", we all know that. This is more a discussion about whether or not TAXI should protect it's songwriters from being taken advantage of or allow this kind of deal to be listed at all. Your thoughts? Thanks

Hi, Phillip, I see you haven't been on the Taxi Forums since 2010.

In answer to your questions, I think that's a pretty good (and very fair) deal. Would I like to be greedy and take some of the Publisher's portion? Not really, I would prefer to build a mutually respectful partnership where both parties share in the proceeds that they've earned by the value they add.


Russell

[ilovemusic59]

Hi everyone! I am finally getting serious with the Taxi Forum and looking forward to future conversations. This subject about publishing/writer rights and the answers have been very helpful. My question is this, each time a song/instrumental is played on film/TV, etc., am I understanding correctly a fee is paid to the publisher and writer every time? In other words, is there ever a time the publisher will get paid, but not the writer? Thanks in advance for the information and I look forward to participating more in the forum!

[philadeaus]

It appears I need to explain a comment in my reply to Dave. Everybody seems to want to condemn me for asking a valid question and wanting to know if giving away all of the publishing rights to a song is a good deal. I stated in my question "Please respond with your thoughts. (and please don't respond with the simpleton message "you don't have to submit to that listing"" Dave titled his response " Well, you don't have to submit to that listing". That seemed antagonistic and offensive to me so I stated so. My apologies if that seemed "harsh". But I don't know Dave and that title was EXACTLY what I kindly asked not to be responded with. So there you go. I hope everyone can get back on point and stop attacking me for stating something that could have been just a bad joke, but certainly appears to be a bit antagonistic in nature.
Now, perhaps I don't know a good deal when I see one, I don't know, but I am still wondering why getting zero % of the publishing rights is a good deal when it is MY song??? When sheet music or a book sells with my song in it is sold, I expect a royalty. I wouldn't mind sharing my sync fees either if it is earned somehow, but as these deals stand they don't seem good or fair to me. That's all. That is why I asked for responses in a forum. To get facts and opinions from a wide audience of people with knowledge and experience. I appreciate everyones responses, including Dave's. I am just trying to understand what a good deal vs a bad deal is, regardless of "standard practice" in order to protect my intellectual property while doing deals that are fair and lucrative for all parties involved.
Thank you all for understanding, forgiving and sharing.
Sincerely,
Philadeaus

[cassmcentee]

"Please respond with your thoughts. (and please don't respond with the simpleton message "you don't have to submit to that listing"" Dave titled his response " Well, you don't have to submit to that listing"

Hah! I'm such a simpleton I didn't even catch that!

Philadeaus, you started a great thread!
Even though I've heard/read this stuff about % many times over, it never hurts to run through it again.
Thank You!
Cass

[eeoo]

Dave was being sarcastic thus the laughing face emoticon. He was also being helpful. Anyway, if you're going to be licensing your music to film/tv opportunities through a publisher a 50/50 split is standard. That means you split any upfront money and you split the backend royalties, publisher keeps 100% of the publisher's royalties and the writer (you) keep 100% of the writer's royalties. If you don't want to give up any publishing you need to be your own publisher and good luck with that. Yes it is your song but if you sign with a publisher and they do 100% of the work to get it placed then they should get 100% of the publishing, right?

eo

[Casey H]

Dave was being sarcastic thus the laughing face emoticon. He was also being helpful. Anyway, if you're going to be licensing your music to film/tv opportunities through a publisher a 50/50 split is standard. That means you split any upfront money and you split the backend royalties, publisher keeps 100% of the publisher's royalties and the writer (you) keep 100% of the writer's royalties. If you don't want to give up any publishing you need to be your own publisher and good luck with that. Yes it is your song but if you sign with a publisher and they do 100% of the work to get it placed then they should get 100% of the publishing, right?

eo

And in addition to what eeoo is saying, in many cases (not all! It varies!), you only give up all the publishing royalties to the music library with respect to film/TV type placements and you are free to still sell the tracks on CDs, downloads, pitch to artists, etc.

To reiterate what's been said, in the music library world of film/TV placements, the library almost always gets 50% of all the income, that being the full publisher's share and 50% of master/sync fees. That is the closest thing to "standard" out there.

You can pitch music directly to music supervisors in which case you would most likely keep ALL the publishing. However, that route can be difficult and time consuming. Many have found that doing their own marketing takes up so much time (a full time job) it leaves them with not enough time to focus on the music making. That's where the libraries/publishers earn their money. They do that work and free you up to make more music.

Best
Casey

[sguiles]

I was wondering how other taxi members feel about the recent postings asking for songs in nearly all genres that require that the songwriter sign an exclusive deal giving away 100% of the publishing rights and 50% of the sync fees. Do you think this is a good or even fair deal for the songwriter? Should taxi allow such deals? Please respond with your thoughts. (and please don't respond with the simpleton message "you don't have to submit to that listing", we all know that. This is more a discussion about whether or not TAXI should protect it's songwriters from being taken advantage of or allow this kind of deal to be listed at all. Your thoughts? Thanks

The reason I think you're getting so much pushback to your responses is the WAY you're saying things in your original post and in your responses. The fact that you used the word "simpleton" implies that someone may try to help, but that there's a wrong answer. Then the final few sentences implies that somehow Taxi wants us to be taken advantage of. Of COURSE they should protect their songwriters! By saying "SHOULD they" you imply they might not have that in their minds.

So, I understand your original request, but I think you could have said it in a different way.
That said, lots of good advice has been posted in this thread.

Hope it helps.