Music library - is it legal?

[bassman]

Hi thereI spoke to a fellow composer yesterday and I told him I had signeda deal where the library takes 70% of the synch fees as opposed to the more common, 50%. He told me it's illegal for a libraryto do that. Could anyone shed some light on this? is it really illegal?

[gitarrero]

hi bassman,just from the information you gave here so far, it's not illegal. a library can take 100% of the sync money, which is quite common if you get a good upfront fee for your piece.note that sync money is something completely diffrent then the publishers/writers share (backend royalties which you'll get through your PRO). maybe your collegue meant that?if you're interested in the business of libraries I'd recommend some readings & watching: matt's videos on taximusic's youtube channel are a great starter, for example. other good resources are books like donald passmann's "all you need to know about the music business", which explains common concepts in an understandable language.hthmartin

[bassman]

Hey MartinThanks for that. It's possible he misunderstood me, or I misunderstood him. Anyway, your messageis clear and I'll have a look at the Passmann book.Best wishes

[hummingbird]

Nov 17, 2008, 3:15am, bassman wrote:Hi thereI spoke to a fellow composer yesterday and I told him I had signeda deal where the library takes 70% of the synch fees as opposed to the more common, 50%. He told me it's illegal for a libraryto do that. Could anyone shed some light on this? is it really illegal?I don't think it is.

[mojobone]

If a deal memo scratched on a cocktail napkin is considered binding, just about anything that can be negotiated is legal in the music biz, up to and sometimes even including outright involuntary servitude.

[aubreyz]

Martin is right. Sync fees are different from publishers/writers performance royalties. There's not really a standard for sync fees. Some legitimate libraries/publishers will take 50% of sync fees, some 60/40-40/60-70/30- there's not a one size fits all rule.However, none of the major PROs (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC) will honor a writers share of less than 50%. That's why there IS a standard for writer/publisher agreements.HTH,Aub

[Casey H]

Any split in the universe on master/sync is perfectly legal. The only thing for which there is a rule (sort of) is that performance royalty dollars are 50% to writer and 50% to publisher. However, libraries may take any percentage, often (100%-sometimes 50%), of the publisher's 50%. AND if they act as the admin for all royalties such as often with a full publishing (or admin) contract, they could even take a percentage of the songwriter's share.So, in short, anything is actually possible. Most common is the library splits the master/sync fees 50/50 and takes the publisher's share of performance royalties. For the right opportunity, I wouldn't pass up on an offer just because it's 70/30.... 70/30 with a library that makes a lot of placements is worth more than 50/50 with a less established one.** Commissioned work-for-hire not covered above... Different game...Casey

[Casey H]

Nov 17, 2008, 9:24am, aubreyz wrote:However, none of the major PROs (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC) will honor a writers share of less than 50%. That's why there IS a standard for writer/publisher agreements.I'm not sure if this is completely true (effectively) for full publishing contracts whereby the writer assigns the copyright to the publisher who then can register the writer's share anyway they want. I could be wrong as Sue would tell you. Casey

[aubreyz]

Nov 17, 2008, 9:35am, hurowitz wrote:Nov 17, 2008, 9:24am, aubreyz wrote:However, none of the major PROs (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC) will honor a writers share of less than 50%. That's why there IS a standard for writer/publisher agreements.I'm not sure if this is completely true (effectively) for full publishing contracts whereby the writer assigns the copyright to the publisher who then can register the writer's share anyway they want. I could be wrong as Sue would tell you. CaseyAlthough I'm sure there are ways around it, these are the ASCAP terms of membership. BMI's terms are not as specific, but generally say the same thing:Ascap Quote: http://www.ascap.com/about/payment/paymentintro.html“As a condition of ASCAP membership, all writer and publisher members agree that, even in work-for-hire situations, the writer and not the employer will be paid the writer's share of ASCAP performing rights royalties. In addition, ASCAP's Articles of Association provide that, with only very limited exceptions unrelated to work-for-hire situations, writer's royalties "shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of." Hence, subject only to those very limited exceptions, ASCAP will not honor an irrevocable assignment of writer's royalties but will, notwithstanding such anassignment, pay writer's royalties only and directly to the writer member-in-interest.”So ASCAP will not honor any agreement for less than standard writer's share, and if a publisher joins ASCAP they agree to that standard with "very limited exceptions". Honestly, I haven't done the research on what those limited exceptions may be, as I was investigating a work for hire arrangement at the time.Aub

[Casey H]

Hi AubI can't say I know for sure and maybe anyone doing other than what ASCAP and BMI state as rules isn't being kosher. The rules you posted are pretty darn clear.The scenario that I THINK I've seen is: You sign a publishing contract with a publisher whereby you assign them full copyright. At that point it's their song... They register themselves as both writer and publisher and administer royalties... Then they pay you less than the full writer's share-- whatever share of the total pie you agreed to.I'd rather be wrong here.Maybe Matto will chime in... Casey