Is it ethical for a library to ask for writer's share?

DesireInspires · Post by **DesireInspires** » Thu May 30, 2013 4:20 pm

Matto, thanks for your reply!

My thing is why would a production company get a part of the publishers' share? If the production company was truly acting as a publisher, that would be different. But these companies are not. Are they even paying a blanket license to the libraries? These prod. companies are essentially gettig free music. Even if they pay a $100,000 annual blanket license, they will make that back in backend royalties. They will eventually break even. If these production companies are paying no blanket license fee, they are making easy and free money!

When a deal like this is signed, who owns the music? The production company or the library? I would guess the prod. co. since they have the publishers' share. That would solve the retitling problem, but would more than likely be exclusive and perpetual deals for the production companies. These guys would get perpetual royalties for the task of filling and submitting cue sheets. More than likely, they will just get some unpaid interns to do the cue sheet work.

Also, who in the library would own the writers' share? I would guess the owners of the library. But why would they get a piece of the writers' share for songs they did not write? If someone wanted to pay me to be a co-writer on one of my songs without doing any writing, I would be slightly interested. But the songwriters that agree to these deals are probably not getting any upfront money.

I do not intend to sound like a 'doom-and-gloom' guy. But deals like this do not make sense. Perhaps they will become the norm and composers will just fall in line. Interesting times nonetheless.

BruceBrown · Post by **BruceBrown** » Sat Jun 01, 2013 12:34 pm

I agree with Matt. It's like bribery or payola.
It seems a little underhanded to me.
Bruce

bassman · Post by **bassman** » Sat Jun 01, 2013 1:18 pm

100% agree with Matt. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Casey H · Post by **Casey H** » Sat Jun 01, 2013 1:47 pm

Maybe lots of composers should petition their PROs to get involved to get legislation against this practice. If ASCAP, BMI, etc. represent our interests (Do they?), I would hope they would lobby on our behalf.

Kolstad · Post by **Kolstad** » Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:05 pm

I think there's something wrong with the question.. ethical is about whats good or bad, and for a company its good to maximize their profits, so clearly the answer has to be "yes" its ethical in a strict, fundamentalist kind of way. Companies dont really operate with many other "higher" principles than hardcore economic ones.

That makes their behaviour predictable. Shouldn't be a problem unless that library is monopolizing the market. You just have to decide if its a good deal for you, in your situation..

matto · Post by **matto** » Sat Jun 01, 2013 4:09 pm

Uhm...that's a really odd definition of 'ethical' you have there Magne...

Also, saying this is 'not a problem' is like saying corruption is not a problem as long as not *everybody* is corrupt...

DesireInspires · Post by **DesireInspires** » Sat Jun 01, 2013 5:39 pm

matto wrote:Uhm...that's a really odd definition of 'ethical' you have there Magne...

Also, saying this is 'not a problem' is like saying corruption is not a problem as long as not *everybody* is corrupt...

That type of thinking reminds me of defense attorneys on "Law & Order". Those guys can argue a case for anything.

Kolstad · Post by **Kolstad** » Sun Jun 02, 2013 1:06 pm

Hehe, I was just trying to answer the question. There are two kinds of ethics going on, the company's ethics and the composer's ethics. I wasn't trying to take a stand for the library, though. The point I was trying to make was that we have a choice, no matter how one sided a deal is constructed. Sometimes it makes sense to get a little dirty, I think, allthough most of the time it doesn't.

T&V Marino · Post by **T&V Marino** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:23 am

If someone wants to sell a Monet painting that's worth $5 million on eBay for $5, that's not illegal or unethical. Stupid, perhaps. And on eBay, if someone wants to buy a corn chip in the shape of Jay Leno's chin for $500, that's not illegal or unethical. Again, it might just be stupid.

When all of us composers finally get SMART and decide not to put up with stupid deals, maybe that's when things will change. It's not up to the PROs to come in and "save" everybody from their stupidity, it's up to us -- and the publishers.

~ Tracey & Vance

andygabrys · Post by **andygabrys** » Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:28 am

T&V Marino wrote:If someone wants to sell a Monet painting that's worth $5 million on eBay for $5, that's not illegal or unethical. Stupid, perhaps. And on eBay, if someone wants to buy a corn chip in the shape of Jay Leno's chin for $500, that's not illegal or unethical. Again, it might just be stupid.

When all of us composers finally get SMART and decide not to put up with stupid deals, maybe that's when things will change. It's not up to the PROs to come in and "save" everybody from their stupidity, it's up to us -- and the publishers.

~ Tracey & Vance

nicely put. and Jay Leno's chin...lol!

Re: Is it ethical for a library to ask for writer's share?

Re: Is it ethical for a library to ask for writer's share?

Re: Is it ethical for a library to ask for writer's share?

Re: Is it ethical for a library to ask for writer's share?

Re: Is it ethical for a library to ask for writer's share?

Re: Is it ethical for a library to ask for writer's share?

Re: Is it ethical for a library to ask for writer's share?

Re: Is it ethical for a library to ask for writer's share?

Re: Is it ethical for a library to ask for writer's share?

Re: Is it ethical for a library to ask for writer's share?