Can you sell the lyrical AND instrumental version?

[roscoeb]

Hey all!Michael has spoken quite a bit about remixing or revamping your worded music into shorter instrumental tunes.I decided to do that and (I think) it has been a successful campaign since 5 entries have been recently forwarded.I've haven't gotten any offers or deals yet but it makes me consider the following question.Does signing a deal on an instrumental piece, disallow me to later sign a deal on the vocal version? Since I'mpretty new to the whole thing, I don't know how this works. Technically, they are copyrighted separately (if thatmatters). Come to think of it, there are lots of questions that run through my mind.In general, does signing a vocal song (for someone else's album for example) earn more money than an instrumentalused in a commercial from a music library?Does one have the potential to earn more money than the other?Would signing a deal on the vocal version exclude a deal on the instrumental version?RoscoeB

[davewalton]

Quote:Hey all!Michael has spoken quite a bit about remixing or revamping your worded music into shorter instrumental tunes.I decided to do that and (I think) it has been a successful campaign since 5 entries have been recently forwarded.I've haven't gotten any offers or deals yet but it makes me consider the following question.Does signing a deal on an instrumental piece, disallow me to later sign a deal on the vocal version? Since I'mpretty new to the whole thing, I don't know how this works. Technically, they are copyrighted separately (if thatmatters). Come to think of it, there are lots of questions that run through my mind.In general, does signing a vocal song (for someone else's album for example) earn more money than an instrumentalused in a commercial from a music library?Does one have the potential to earn more money than the other?Would signing a deal on the vocal version exclude a deal on the instrumental version?RoscoeBI don't know the answer to all of these but generally speaking, it all depends on whether your deal is exclusive or non-exclusive. An exclusive deal means that the publisher wants be the only one controlling and marketing the song, collecting licensing fees and publisher royalties. So with that, they don't want to run into an "instrumental" version of that track being pitched as competition to their vocal version. Non-exclusive, it won't matter. You can happily pitch your instrumental version, vocal version all at the same time another publisher or publishers is pitching either or both versions.For performance royalties like on TV, background instrumentals pay the least (which is what I do wouldn't you know it ). From what I've seen on my BMI statements, a background instrumental during prime time on network television pays around $160/minute. The same background song with a vocal track would pay significantly more and a vocal track that's not just in the background but actually kind of a feature of the show, that would pay significantly more still. How much more, I don't know since I don't have any vocal tracks on TV (yet )Maybe someone with a network television, prime-time vocal placement can chime in. I picked prime-time network television since that's the cream of the crop.

[matto]

The main basic concept to understand is that one song equals one "work" for copyright law purposes.Whether you make an instrumental version of it, a 30s version, an unplugged version, a disco version...it's still one work and one underlying copyright. Any deal you sign that either transfers the song's copyright to the publisher or licenses it to them on an exclusive basis will encumber that entire work and thus all versions of it.If there is no transfer of copyright and the song is licensed on a non-exclusive basis only, then the entire song and all of it's versions can still be licensed to other users, again on a non-exclusive basis.As far as royalty income and license fees generated from songs vs instrumental compositions, each country has their own system for this. In most, a vocal song will command somewhat higher royalties. In the US, songs command much higher royalties in general, although changes are underway at least at BMI that will potentially lessen that difference.Dave's BMI figure above of $160/minute for primetime broadcast network instrumental royalties is a bit optimistic as an average, I would put it closer to $120 as an average for the 5 broadcast networks (Cable is a mere fraction of this and varies wildly from cable network to cable network).A vocal song would pay about 7 to 8 times that, however such a "feature" use is capped at 45s, meaning any length above 45s won't pay you more.This is how it was until Q3/2007 at BMI, starting with Q4/2007 they have implemented a new system which factors in a bunch of things including Nielsen data, so it will probably be another year or so until a clear picture emerges. This new system only applies to the ABC, CBS NBC and Univision as far as I know.And of course this applies to BMI only. ASCAP will be different, although generally in the same range...matto

[matto]

Quote:The same background song with a vocal track would pay significantly more and a vocal track that's not just in the background but actually kind of a feature of the show, that would pay significantly more still. How much more, I don't know since I don't have any vocal tracks on TV (yet )This is actually incorrect under old BMI rules, anything with vocals was considered a "feature"...although under new BMI rules it may be correct...

[davewalton]

Quote:Quote:The same background song with a vocal track would pay significantly more and a vocal track that's not just in the background but actually kind of a feature of the show, that would pay significantly more still. How much more, I don't know since I don't have any vocal tracks on TV (yet )This is actually incorrect under old BMI rules, anything with vocals was considered a "feature"...although under new BMI rules it may be correct...Under the "old" rules, a "vocal background" pays as much as a "vocal visual"? I've never had either one (only those crummy background instrumentals ) so I don't know but I assumed (I know... I know... ) that there would be a pay difference between the two based on their respective significance and that a vocal visual would pay more than a "mere" vocal background.

[matto]

Not the case, and I think ASCAP is the same. But under the new BMI system it appears that that's changing...And btw, if comparing the above figures has people thinking they should be concentrating on writing vocal songs only...don't forget that writing your average instrumental takes a lot less time than writing your average song...and that there are a TON more placement opportunities in the overall music library world for instrumental music than there are for vocal songs.

[avillaronga]

I think everyone has said it all but I want to emphasize a couple of technical points:As matto said, any version of a song is still the same work under copyright law. It does not matter if you registered the two versions separately. Unfortunately, the LOC does not check the validity of the registrations they get, they only record them; what you did by having two separate registrations of the same work is incorrect, you should have registered the instrumental version as a derivative work (if you absolutely needed to, the original registration would have covered the instrumental version because it is not, most likely, significantly different than the original to merit a derivative work registration). Having those two registrations doesn't give you any legal way of signing the two versions two different exclusive deals. I think Casey wrote a thread a couple of months ago explaining things like this in a very nice way, if I find it I'll edit this post and link to it here. I think Martin's advice on a similar thread yesterday is perfect: instead of worrying about the legality of using different versions of a song, write the next, and the next, etc. Now, if what you are trying to do is get the instrumental version into a library and use the vocal version to distribute with your own CD or something to that extent then there's a lot more possibilities of doing that by wording the contract with the library correctly (consult a qualified entertainment attorney for that). That is a situation with a lot less legal gray areas.The other point I want to make may be just overzealous semantics but... you shouldn't be looking to sell your songs, you should be looking to license them. And, IMHO, anyone trying to make it in this business should know the difference between the two.HTHAntonio

[roscoeb]

Hey guys! Thanks for the great info! That was very informative in many areas. It also looks like I've been improperly copyrighting both versions. As for knowing the difference between "selling" and "licensing", please forgive my ignorance. I'm still pretty new at this and trying to learn through research, reading and for that matter - asking questions here. Once again - thanks!