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

[DesireInspires]

Always a hard "no" if they want a portion of the writer's share.

Exactly.

[Kolstad]

A while back, there was a very successful library who wanted exclusive, with no upfront fee, all of the writers share, and you couldn't be a PRO member. They offered blanket deals to their clients, got lots of placements, and it was VERY hard to get in..

[DesireInspires]

A while back, there was a very successful library who wanted exclusive, with no upfront fee, all of the writers share, and you couldn't be a PRO member. They offered blanket deals to their clients, got lots of placements, and it was VERY hard to get in..

LMFAO! That was a good one!

If you are serious in the slightest, why would someone sign this deal? How would the composer make any money? No upfront, no backend?

[admin]

Yep, I need to know which company that is. We always ask companies what their deal is before we run listings for them. We've had two change their deals AFTER they started running listings with us, but those incidents were at least 5 years ago, probably longer. Please call me at the TAXI number after noon in LA today (DMV this morning ). Just tell the person who answers the phone, I'm a member, and Michael asked me to call him.

BTW, we've had some requests from well-known companies to run listings where the library takes some writer's share, and we've always turned them down. Sadly, this practice is growing. As is often the case in many aspects of our business, all it takes is some people taking deals that others won't, and the foothold is established. From there, it's a slippery slope, sadly.

There's always somebody in line behind you that will take a deal that you won't. They're often newer and they desperately want to say, "I've got a publisher."

Michael

[davekropf]

BTW, we've had some requests from well-known companies to run listings where the library takes some writer's share, and we've always turned them down.

And for this I am extremely grateful! It speaks highly of your integrity, professionalism, and character.

[Kolstad]

A while back, there was a very successful library who wanted exclusive, with no upfront fee, all of the writers share, and you couldn't be a PRO member. They offered blanket deals to their clients, got lots of placements, and it was VERY hard to get in..

LMFAO! That was a good one!

If you are serious in the slightest, why would someone sign this deal? How would the composer make any money? No upfront, no backend?

It WAS meant as a joke, however the only part that wasn't true was that they didn't take ALL of the writers share. It was a newcomer Swedish library, two or three years back. Not associated with TAXI. I can't remember their name anymore.

[DesireInspires]

Yes, I think I know of that company.

They pay a one-time fee to the composer and take over the copyright. If this is the correct company, they have a blanket royalty free deal with a Finnish state broadcaster.

[SteveBaruah]

Just to clarify the deal I was offered. I've since had a long Skype with the owner of the library. They are definitely not one of these new libraries just trying to undercut everyone to desperately get placements. These are HUGE players.
He explained they just have to structure the deal this way - 50/50 writer's, 50/50 publisher's share - so they are free to be flexible IF THEY NEED TO. Unfortunately it's just a sign of the times. They know about the kind of deals that other libraries are offering, and just need to be able to offer SOMETHING if they have too. Until now they said it has happened vary rarely, but if they absolutely have to, they will give 40/50% of the publishing away. Any deductions in the royalties are covered 50/50 by me and the library equally.
Taxi also didn't know about this deal structure, I asked the library why the Taxi listing says I keep 100% of the writer's share, and he said that was an error.

[Casey H]

Just to clarify the deal I was offered. I've since had a long Skype with the owner of the library. They are definitely not one of these new libraries just trying to undercut everyone to desperately get placements. These are HUGE players.
He explained they just have to structure the deal this way - 50/50 writer's, 50/50 publisher's share - so they are free to be flexible IF THEY NEED TO. Unfortunately it's just a sign of the times. They know about the kind of deals that other libraries are offering, and just need to be able to offer SOMETHING if they have too. Until now they said it has happened vary rarely, but if they absolutely have to, they will give 40/50% of the publishing away. Any deductions in the royalties are covered 50/50 by me and the library equally.
Taxi also didn't know about this deal structure, I asked the library why the Taxi listing says I keep 100% of the writer's share, and he said that was an error.

My feeling is, even if you are dealing with honest, HUGE industry vets (I have no doubt you are! ), giving permission for a practice that is detrimental to songwriters and composers in the long run is not the way to go. I personally wouldn't do it but recognize that everyone has to decide what is right for them.

Best of luck!
Casey

[DesireInspires]

Just to clarify the deal I was offered. I've since had a long Skype with the owner of the library. They are definitely not one of these new libraries just trying to undercut everyone to desperately get placements. These are HUGE players.
He explained they just have to structure the deal this way - 50/50 writer's, 50/50 publisher's share - so they are free to be flexible IF THEY NEED TO. Unfortunately it's just a sign of the times. They know about the kind of deals that other libraries are offering, and just need to be able to offer SOMETHING if they have too. Until now they said it has happened vary rarely, but if they absolutely have to, they will give 40/50% of the publishing away. Any deductions in the royalties are covered 50/50 by me and the library equally.
Taxi also didn't know about this deal structure, I asked the library why the Taxi listing says I keep 100% of the writer's share, and he said that was an error.

So let me see if I understand:

You get to keep 50% of the writer's share. The library owner keeps 50% of the writer's share. The music library keeps 50% of the publisher's share.

So who gets the other 50% of the publisher's share? The original songwriter or the client/production company?

Either way, I believe that this isn't the best deal for a composer. The composer sells himself/herself short in the end.