Contract Seems Unfair - Thoughts?

[adamrkenyon]

This is the second contract I've been offered. It is exclusive.

It seems to terribly favor the library. For one thing the exclusive contract lasts for 100 years, but this is a singer/songwriter piece. Why would someone sign away a song for life knowing that if the library does nothing with it, the artist is stuck?

Also the email says that it's basically a 50/50 deal, but the contract seems to me to say something different.
What do you think?:
Also what's the deal with me only getting 12% of the sheet music?

Owner(LIBRARY) shall pay Owner of Rights (ME) a sum equal to fifty (50%) of any and all
net income received by LIBRARY NAME HERE from any licensing of
Compositions, including mechanical licensing, master licensing, and
synchronization licensing, less reasonable monitoring, accounting and
administrative fees.
2.2 Owner shall be entitled to receive a sum equal to one hundred (100%) of
any performing and broadcast fees, which shall be collected by ASCAP,
BMI, SESAC, SOCAN, Harry Fox, Internet broadcast or performance
companies and their affiliated societies, exclusive of fees paid directly to
composers, so long as the performing rights society will pay such sums
directly to Composer or it’s publisher(s). If not, Owner of Rights or
Composer shall pay such sums to Owner directly. Composer(s) listed will
retain total writers rights and attribution of the Composition(s).
2.3 In the event of the exploitation of any sheet music, Owner shall pay the
Owner of Rights a royalty equal to twelve percent (12%) of the net
proceeds of the wholesale or retail selling price, (whichever applies), (or
wholesale equivalent) on all copies sold of the sheet music embodying the
Compositions(s) when the money is received by Owner. Owner of Rights
shall not be entitled to receive a royalty for any professional and
complimentary sheet music copies of the Composition(s).

[eeoo]

I don't know about the sheet music part of it but the 50/50 split and in perpetuity parts of it are pretty standard. For those of us trying make a go of licensing through music libraries signing away songs in perpetuity for 50% of net proceeds is par for the course as long as it's a good, reputable library. For me it's all about moving on to the next song and having faith that I can keep churning them out and not being precious about the songs I sign to exclusive/perpetuity deals. I realize that mind set is not for everyone, only you can make that call.

[andygabrys]

I don't know about the sheet music part of it but the 50/50 split and in perpetuity parts of it are pretty standard. For those of us trying make a go of licensing through music libraries signing away songs in perpetuity for 50% of net proceeds is par for the course as long as it's a good, reputable library. For me it's all about moving on to the next song and having faith that I can keep churning them out and not being precious about the songs I sign to exclusive/perpetuity deals. I realize that mind set is not for everyone, only you can make that call.

+1. Absolutely agree.



As for the contract - that's really wordy in legalise but its basically saying that what Ethan said above. The extra words take into account situations where the library for some reason is actually receiving 100% of royalties or sync / master use fee (or the reverse where you might get it all - its a catch-all to CYA on the part of the library) so that you and the library will settle up all those payments so that each receives 50%.

Also don't know if the sheet music % is reasonable or normal.

[Kolstad]

I think you are right to be careful, especially right now, when everyone is desperate and pushed to the limit. In the end it is a matter of trust. You should only sign if you have confidence in the company, and what they can do with your music.

I cant offer any legal advice, but can only say that you should measure your trust in the company up with your portfolio, especially if you know the song will be an active for years to come. Maybe it is worth it to sacrifice some rights, or maybe you can find a better company or deal for it.

[adamrkenyon]

Thanks, @kolstad, @andygabrys & @eeoo for the responses.
We are planning to go ahead with it. It's our first exclusive deal.
I did learn elsewhere that what you are saying is true: that most of it is pretty standard.
I'm still not sure about the sheet music, but I figure this is only for a few songs and the chances that sheet music will be a factor are probably slim to none.

[cassmcentee]

I'm suprised that they left out the percentage points for Player Piano Rolls!

[Casey H]

Is this for a Film/TV music library? In that case, the odds of there ever being sheet music associated with your track are 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 (approximately).

The sheet music reference is mainly for pitching songs to artists to record and goes back a long way to the more typical standard publishing contract. It would only really matter monetarily on the other 1 in billions chance you got a major artist to record your song and it was a huge success.

So don't sweat it. Best of luck!
Casey

[AlanHall]

(to those experienced here) Is the "50% NET ... less reasonable monitoring, accounting and administrative fees" really a good thing to agree to?
I can only imagine a library saying 'your share was $120.00 this year, minus $35.00 per quarter for managing the account, so you owe us...' at least that's how the HSAs and IRAs that I'm familiar with work

[cosmicdolphin]

As the deal seem pretty standard the big question more whether the library will do well with the song. Generally I have found the bigger the library ( more staff, more offices, better portal , more subpublishers, more active on social media etc ) the better they have done with my music. YMMV

Mark

[crashgates]

.