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

[matto]

First, it should be pointed out that DI's original question and post has absolutely nothing to do with royalty free libraries which are a completely legitimate business model which does not transfer publishing rights to the end user and/or have the library partake in the composer's writer's share. I think that's an important point to make.

That being said, if we are comparing the various library business models, a fairly good analogy would be buying/renting a car.
A royalty free library would be comparable to buying a car (for cash)...you pay once and get unlimited rights to use the music in perpetuity.
An annual blanket issued by a licensed library would be akin to leasing a car...you pay a yearly fee for the right to use a library's catalog (or part thereof) as much as you want. If you stop paying, you can now longer use the catalog.
A production blanket issued by a licensed library can be compared to renting a car for a certain purpose, e.g. vacation. You pay a certain fee to be able to use as many tracks as you like as many times as you like in one particular production or season thereof.
Finally, needle drop licensing could be compared to calling a taxi cab every time you need to go somewhere.

When using the car analogy, it becomes easy to see that none of the above business models is 'better' than the other...they just all cater to different clients and their needs. Just as your needs, circumstances and budget would dictate your choice of your means of transportation, so do a client's needs, circumstances and budget determine which library business model they would gravitate to.

But notice that none of the above business models involve getting the car for free, let alone getting it for free *plus* getting paid for using it...

[matto]

VERY interesting since ASCAP is more like a Union and BMI is more like "The Man."

That's completely inaccurate and outdated. BMI was *originally* started by broadcast industry interests, but today both ASCAP and BMI are non-profits, both distribute all their revenue after deducting operating expenses to their writer/publisher members/affiliates, both are equally strong advocates for music creators' and music publisher's rights and both operate under the same 'consent decree' meaning the government essentially oversees the rates they can charge broadcasters and other music users.
If you're gonna call BMI 'the man' you might as well call ASCAP 'racist' for initially refusing to accept African American writers as members....

[Casey H]

@Matto... Thanks as always. Great analogy with the car.

And getting back to DI's original question and related reply posts, should we be looking to ASCAP and BMI to police this behavior whereby the writer's share is going partly to an obvious non-writer such as a TV production company?

I recognize that it could be difficult because co-write can be given to lots of entities whereby it's impossible to know why. For example, if a producer is given co-write, and a share is therefore registered to an individual person and there is no way to distinguish that from any other situation. And, it can be perfectly legit for a songwriter to agree to give a producer co-write, depending on circumstances.

Best,
Casey

[guscave]

@Matto... Thanks as always. Great analogy with the car.

And getting back to DI's original question and related reply posts, should we be looking to ASCAP and BMI to police this behavior whereby the writer's share is going partly to an obvious non-writer such as a TV production company?

I recognize that it could be difficult because co-write can be given to lots of entities whereby it's impossible to know why. For example, if a producer is given co-write, and a share is therefore registered to an individual person and there is no way to distinguish that from any other situation. And, it can be perfectly legit for a songwriter to agree to give a producer co-write, depending on circumstances.

Best,
Casey

Good point but I would add that giving writers share to a producer or arranger keeps it in line with people who were involved with the creation of the song. I think we cross the acceptable threshold when it moves into the distribution side or worst the end user.

How can it be monitored or policed is another question.

[Casey H]

@Matto... Thanks as always. Great analogy with the car.

And getting back to DI's original question and related reply posts, should we be looking to ASCAP and BMI to police this behavior whereby the writer's share is going partly to an obvious non-writer such as a TV production company?

I recognize that it could be difficult because co-write can be given to lots of entities whereby it's impossible to know why. For example, if a producer is given co-write, and a share is therefore registered to an individual person and there is no way to distinguish that from any other situation. And, it can be perfectly legit for a songwriter to agree to give a producer co-write, depending on circumstances.

Best,
Casey

Good point but I would add that giving writers share to a producer or arranger keeps it in line with people who were involved with the creation of the song. I think we cross the acceptable threshold when it moves into the distribution side or worst the end user.

How can it be monitored or policed is another question.

Yes... I only mentioned the producer/arranger thing to bring up the point that it could be hard for PROs to determine legitimate co-write registrations from "kick back" ones.

[Russell Landwehr]

VERY interesting since ASCAP is more like a Union and BMI is more like "The Man."

That's completely inaccurate and outdated. BMI was *originally* started by broadcast industry interests, but today both ASCAP and BMI are non-profits, both distribute all their revenue after deducting operating expenses to their writer/publisher members/affiliates, both are equally strong advocates for music creators' and music publisher's rights and both operate under the same 'consent decree' meaning the government essentially oversees the rates they can charge broadcasters and other music users.

I thought ASCAP was an organization to which you become a member with a voice. And BMI was a company that you paid for the privilege of their services.

It does seem logical that the PROs would be the ones to police the writer/publisher issue. However, it probably could only be done on the complaints of the affiliates. However, enforcement would be a completely different issue. Didn't the PROs at one time visit establishments such as nightclubs and bars and muscle them to pay fees? That sounds like a policing action.

Russell

[DesireInspires]

Updates:

I had recent communication with a music library that wanted a portion of the writer's share.

The deal was structured in a way that the songwriter would only receive 75% of the writer's share. The reason given for the songwriter only receiving 75% of the writer's share was that the production company wanted 50% of the publisher's share. As a result, the music library owner would only receive 50% of the publisher's share. So to keep things "fair", the owner of the music library wanted 25% of the writer's share of royalties.

Let me break with down:

Production company: 50% of publisher's share
Music library owner: 50% of publisher's share, 25% of writer's share
Songwriter: 75% of writer's share

So my question is why would the music library demand or even ask for a part of the writer's share to make up for what they gave away to the production company?

These are the issues that musicians and composers face today.

[andygabrys]

Like they say "what you allow you condone".

Now is the library of high stature (maybe I should have said "or high moral fiber")?
Is it exclusive?
Is it a PMA member library?

I am guessing no, possibly yes, and no.

[crystallions]

Russell - There is no charge to become or stay a member of BMI as a writer. They have been my PRO since 2008, and I have never paid any kind of fee for their services. There is a one time $150 fee to set up a publishing company with them.

[DesireInspires]

Like they say "what you allow you condone".

Now is the library of high stature (maybe I should have said "or high moral fiber")?
Is it exclusive?
Is it a PMA member library?

I am guessing no, possibly yes, and no.

Here is a link to the discussion, which was started by the owner of this new music library: http://vi-control.net/community/threads ... ary.62602/