Co publishing question. Help please ; Right of first refusal

[Casey H]

Hey Rich
Since you are going to review this with an attorney anyway, I'd probably stop posting text from the contract on a public forum. Their contract is their intellectual property and they may not love seeing it posted for the world. JMHO

Best of luck again,
Casey

[playagibson]

Hey Rich
Since you are going to review this with an attorney anyway, I'd probably stop posting text from the contract on a public forum. Their contract is their intellectual property and they may not love seeing it posted for the world. JMHO

Best of luck again,
Casey

Good call !

[coachdebra]

It is difficult to interpret such passages out of the context of the whole contract but I read it as referring to future compositions. I don't see how it could make sense to include such a clause with respect to the compositions that are being accepted per the schedule A. If you sign this contract they have already taken control of those songs. It would be redundant to have a clause then stating they also want first right of refusal of compositions they've already signed. That's my out-of-context opinion.

Good call on the attorney. Please let us know how they interpret it.

Contracts tend to be incredibly redundant. Because the purpose of a contract is to spell out what happens in the case of any and every contingent the lawyer can think of. It is not unusual for a contract to restate things we normal human beings think were already covered, in fact, not to do so is a sign that the contract is poorly constructed.