Music Library Contract

[gongchime]

Well, he's still talking to me so, it's not so bad. His last reply was that if I insist on eliminating his non-exclusive rights, then that will kill the deal. He wants to keep them forever. He says that he puts the music on CD's, DVDs and hard drives and he never makes deals that cause him to have to remove stuff from his library. Doesn't sound normal to me. Well it would have been nice when someone who knew what they were talking about would have replied to the original post and then this problem would have been avoided which is why this was posted here in the first place. But of course no one is terribly thrilled to read other people's massive blocks of text so it's understandable. Me neither.Anyway, the vague wording such as "may comission" is bullshit. They need to say that they either will comission or won't comission or that I'm not obligated to fulfill comissions that are unreasonable and to state what a resonable amount of comissioning would look like. Don't want to be bogged down in a bunch of unreasonable requests to write more music that are required by law to be fulfilled. They don't need me to write more music. They don't need me to re record it. They don't need me to edit it. Nothing nada. If you want a 5 sec clip, a 30 second clip and a 60 second clip then you need to say so up front. It's not difficult to say or to write.Also, exclusive deal that reverts in 5 years is not so normal for a music library. Usually they are non-exclusive deals. That fact makes me suspicious as well as the sloppily written contract. Hence my concern.

[gongchime]

and Steve A. Gilbert/Casey H./Andre, you all seem to have actually read my post and you seem to feel confident that you understand the contract. It's not clear that the fee talked about is my fee. It sure looks like a fee they would determine to be paid by me. This is a contract. Stuff like that should be VERY clear. What is the deal with the parts that say they are assigned 100% of copyright? Are they really? So..., all the money goes to them and not to me. Something stinks.And also undicipherable to me was the part about being obligated to send an assignment letter and that if one is not forthcoming, then they will appoint themselves to become my attorney and will send it to themselves for me. Contracts should not leave things vague such as assignment. Assignment of "rights" might be assumed but this is a contract. They have to be explicit that assignment does not in fact also mean assignment of "employee duties" such as writing more music. Or sending them unreasonable amounts of masters or copies, or assigning away all of my rights. If that's the case, then it's not about to be signed by me any time soon if that can't be cleared up.

[Casey H]

Quote:Well, he's still talking to me so, it's not so bad. His last reply was that if I insist on eliminating his non-exclusive rights, then that will kill the deal. He wants to keep them forever. He says that he puts the music on CD's, DVDs and hard drives and he never makes deals that cause him to have to remove stuff from his library. Doesn't sound normal to me. Well it would have been nice when someone who knew what they were talking about would have replied to the original post and then this problem would have been avoided which is why this was posted here in the first place. But of course no one is terribly thrilled to read other people's massive blocks of text so it's understandable. Me neither.Anyway, the vague wording such as "may commission" is bullshit. They need to say that they either will commission or won't commission or that I'm not obligated to fulfill commissions that are unreasonable and to state what a reasonable amount of commissioning would look like. Don't want to be bogged down in a bunch of unreasonable requests to write more music that are required by law to be fulfilled. They don't need me to write more music. They don't need me to re record it. They don't need me to edit it. Nothing nada. If you want a 5 sec clip, a 30 second clip and a 60 second clip then you need to say so up front. It's not difficult to say or to write.Also, exclusive deal that reverts in 5 years is not so normal for a music library. Usually they are non-exclusive deals. That fact makes me suspicious as well as the sloppily written contract. Hence my concern.Quote:and Steve A. Gilbert/Casey H./Andre, you all seem to have actually read my post and you seem to feel confident that you understand the contract. It's not clear that the fee talked about is my fee. It sure looks like a fee they would determine to be paid by me. This is a contract. Stuff like that should be VERY clear. What is the deal with the parts that say they are assigned 100% of copyright? Are they really? So..., all the money goes to them and not to me. Something stinks.And also undecipherable to me was the part about being obligated to send an assignment letter and that if one is not forthcoming, then they will appoint themselves to become my attorney and will send it to themselves for me. Contracts should not leave things vague such as assignment. Assignment of "rights" might be assumed but this is a contract. They have to be explicit that assignment does not in fact also mean assignment of "employee duties" such as writing more music. Or sending them unreasonable amounts of masters or copies, or assigning away all of my rights. If that's the case, then it's not about to be signed by me any time soon if that can't be cleared up. You apparently have never received a contract from a publisher or library before. This really supports the suggestion made by Jon (Weapon) in another thread that we take the time to learn the business.There is nothing down with turning down a deal when the terms just don't work for you. I've politely turned down deals when, after PROPERLY UNDERSTANDING the terms, I realized it wasn't for me. There is something VERY WRONG with presenting yourself with the attitude you did. What? Because you are upset that attorneys didn't respond? Every time you post you show more and more of your lack of understanding of the business and typical contracts. Again, nothing wrong with needing to learn... Something very wrong in conducting yourself as you did. Just so you know, 5 year exclusive deals ARE NOT unusual for libraries and some of THE BEST ones operate that way. Sending music on CDs, DVDs or Hard Drives is common practice. Some libraries realize that it is virtually impossible to "un-do" tracks from hundreds of these that are sent out. (I did turn down a deal because of this, but FIRST I understood it and then I realized for the tracks involved, it wasn't a good deal for ME with a small catalog).You obviously are convinced that once you sign a deal, NO EFFORT on your part should be required. So you wouldn't assist your own career by sending in extra copies of masters, 5, 10, or 15, 30 second edits, etc. I thought you were in this to succeed. I must have missed something. Regarding the "may commission" thing, if you are so concerned, did you ever thing of POLITELY asking them to add a few words that you are not obligated to accept such requests? Do you really think their intention is to make you an indentured servant? (Slavery was abolished in the 1860's)...Contracts not being vague at all? You've got a lot to learn. I expect you will never be happy with one.As far as assignment of copyright, it is VERY common practice in exclusive publishing deals. You still collect your share of Writer's royalties while they collect license fees for which they send you your percentage (usually 50%). Letters of direction are simply a means to ensure that the PRO's (ASCAP, BMI) properly direct royalties per the agreement. I haven't seen these commonly when there is assignment of copyright... more common when there is another arrangement. HOWEVER, are you worried you might have to make another tiny bit of effort to help your own success? If the letter properly reflects what you agreed to, it is benign. (A music attorney needs to confirm this and might adjust the wording here and in other places, but the intent would be similar).But in the end, your problem isn't the lack of industry knowledge. It is horrific personal and business skills. If I ran TAXI, I'd stop your membership rather than have you cause grief for everyone. Every time someone acts as non-professional as you they not only hurt future TAXI submissions (Andre- I accept maybe not) BUT all submissions from the public that haven't come through a very well know source such as a manager or music attorney. Companies that once accepted unsolicited submissions (great for folks like us!) have stopped that practice because of people behaving like you.At first I felt bad that I wasn't able to help you, having noticed your post, and talking off-line (not legal advice, just help). But seeing your demeanor, I'm glad I didn't and never would in the future.Good luck in your future endeavors.CaseyPS Nothing in any of my posts should be construed as legal advice. Only a qualified music attorney can provide that.

[gongchime]

the contract should not leave their ability to get extra copies open to abuse. It's probably not their intent though. A few words to say that the composer is not obligated to fulfill unrealistic comissions. Got it.Nowhere did my email contain anything bad. It just said change this and that. So, that's why he's not upset with me. Many of YOU people have misinterpreted the context. Saying change something in the form of a declamatory statement cannot be reconstrued to mean "Hey, asshole..." Look at my response to the negativity coming at me in this thread. No hostility whatsoever. Then look at all the posts ever made by me on Taxi and you won't find one little iota of the normal kind of bickering that goes on in here. It's not something engaged in by me, Thanks for the practical advice, it's helpful.The shaming lands back in your court.

[andreh]

Quote:Nowhere did my email contain anything bad. It just said change this and that. So, that's why he's not upset with me. Many of YOU people have misinterpreted the context. Saying change something in the form of a declamatory statement cannot be reconstrued to mean "Hey, asshole..."Greg-Are you saying the email you sent the library didn't use the same wording as your example in this thread? If that's the case, then perhaps we are misinterpreting your approach.However, if your text is verbatim what you sent, then you might consider seeking assistance with your written communications from a business professional. I'm not saying this to be mean or "shame" you, but if your music is good enough to warrant attention from a library and possibly other parties, then you could really be shooting yourself in the foot by thinking (and acting on the thought) that the way you worded your letter is even remotely acceptable or likely to engender a positive working relationship.I'm scratching head about why this person is still interested in working with you...either they really need music, or your tracks are made of pure gold!André

[gitarrero]

Quote:Well, he's still talking to me so, it's not so bad. His last reply was that if I insist on eliminating his non-exclusive rights, then that will kill the deal. He wants to keep them forever. He says that he puts the music on CD's, DVDs and hard drives and he never makes deals that cause him to have to remove stuff from his library. Doesn't sound normal to me. first of: I didn't read all the post's here; when reading the above I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in:think about that:* I agree with the library owner that he can't remove tracks off CDs, especially if this is a BUYOUT library - the business model is diffrent then in a licensing library. the buyout library sells whole discs and the buyer has the right to use this music for the life of copyright.so it's virtually impossible that the library could remove tracks from those cds, hds' etc.* there is no "normal" deal - there are a few basical principles and concepts in the library world that are often used, but basically every deal can be diffrent.the question is: what do you want? and what options do you have?do you want to do music for tv/film/multimedia and earn money with it? do you want to be an artist and your own publisher and therefore want to controll all your copyrights (note that this means A LOT of work and even more knowledge - it doesn't seems like you have this knowledge IMHO - no offens).if you want to make money with your music, you NEED to understand the business side; so I'd suggest you learn more about it and understand the diffrent concepts and functions in the market.and last but not least: fear is never good. and information/knowledge helps against fear - the musicians I know who have fear that their music got stolen somehow from "them" (the music industry) do not have the knowledge about how the music industry works, about legal facts etc.so inform yourself!HTHmartin

[gongchime]

Yes the wording was the same but it's not the first thing he saw. We were very congenial the whole time. After explaining my inability to find competent assistance in a reasonable time frame, having to understand the contract with my limited experience and my falling short of competence in the matter, he was understanding. It was explained that people on the taxi forum thought it was hostile and unprofessional and that hostility wasn't my intent, he just said something to the effect that it was jsut a little rough around the edges. No guitarrero, don't want to control all my copyrights and be my own publisher. Not deluded about an extended career as a music library specialist either. Just have some good, unique Asian kind of tunes that were composed and recorded when there was enough time for doing that. This jewelry business thing is paying off though. Now if only the business would run itself. Hmmm.....