new deal-Work For Hire/Buyout. Never done either!

[pepeluis]

Hello all,
Just seeking some thoughts on a deal proposed by a non-exclusive library who I have several songs signed to. have had good placements through them and have always been very happy with them.They communicate well and have a very useful artist page showing pitch activity.
The deal proposed gives me the option to opt in to being offered custom writing listings on a Work For Hire basis. I have trust in this library but this is something I have not done before so feel a bit unsure.
If my track is selected as I understand it I would either get

a) 50% of net receipts and 15% of future fees (Guess this refers to first and then future synch fees?)
or
b) only initial fee if client owns track. In this case there are no future fees (guess this mean client buys out track and I no longer own the synch and master rights?).. Guess this means no performance royalties in future?

Proposal also states that selected track would become exclusive copyright of library (in perpetuity) but I would still retain share of performance and get 15% of net receipts. I'm unclear how this can be if clause b) applies i.e. `client owns track`?

If my track is a runner-up in selection process (but not final selection) library may buy the track for a fee and this would be subject to condition a) (as above)

I have not yet opted in so have not viewed full contract proposed, I feel hesitant and excited at the same time as it may offer new opportunities to work in a different way as this deal would mean being able to have communication with the client and being subject to revision requests.

My main causes of uncertainty through my lack of experience are about selling a track in perpetuity (would I get performance royalties-reversion if not placed?) and getting 15% of future income (after initial 50%). Some of you people have probably signed similar deals and hopefully it seems an acceptable deal but it is new to me.

Apologies if my questions are unclear but have never signed a Work For Hire or done a buyout , any advice or thoughts are much appreciated.

[eeoo]

I signed on to this deal. If you get a buyout you would still retain your writer's share of royalties but instead of sync fees you would receive a lump sum of money upfront. That's how I understand it at least. It seems like a win-win to me unless you are hesitant to sign a song away in perpetuity but I have no problem with that.

eo

[TerrellBurt]

I'm in this same library and I believe it is a good deal. Opting in doesn't mean you even have to participate, it just means that you have the option if you wanted to do so.

[pepeluis]

Hi Folks,
Thanks TerrellBurt and eeoo for your helpful replies.
I am thinking to go ahead and opt in. I really value your thoughts as you have signed this deal already.

Am I right in thinking that the ` in perpetuity `deal has no reversion? I guess if my track is the winner for a particular listing then it gets placed therefore would have no reversion?
If not bought by the client but by the library instead would this still be the case (i.e. no reversion)?

Does the term `net receipts` refer to synch fees?

If the buyer of the track is the client would I still get my share of performance if placed or does that apply only if bought and placed by the library ?

Apologies if answers to my questions seem obvious but this is the first deal like this I have signed, so far just signed non-exclusive deals.

Thanks again .
Jose

[Kolstad]

As a European writer, I opted out of this deal. As a member of KODA (Danish pro), it was not possible for me to do work-for-hire at all on those terms (not legally viable here). We don't have work-for-hire implemented in compyright law here, so it is not possible for us to sign off the ideal rights to a copyright (we can sign exclusive deals, though). The deal seemed allright, though I found the default 500$ compensation a bit on the budget end. I saw the deal as an attempt to standarize a cut on the margins.

[andygabrys]

Am I right in thinking that the ` in perpetuity `deal has no reversion? I guess if my track is the winner for a particular listing then it gets placed therefore would have no reversion?
If not bought by the client but by the library instead would this still be the case (i.e. no reversion)?

yes. you sign it off, you get what you get (writers share and the portion of syncs as detailed) and that's it.

If its bought by the client itself vs. the library - don't think it matters the way I read the contract.

I signed it BTW. It looked like a good angle to me - as good as many others out there. Like others have mentioned (in this thread and others) in perpetuity isn't evil - but it might not be the way you want to work your material. For me, I have some tracks that I pitch directly, some that are in non-ex libraries with reversion, some in exclusive with reversion, some in exclusive in perpetuity. There are many good aspects to each situation.

Does the term `net receipts` refer to synch fees?

in general this type of clause refers to any upfront payments (like Sync / master use license fees) paid directly to you by the publisher. They reserve the right to deduct "reasonable and normal" expenses incurred in the processing and pitching of that track. Like copyright registration (if it applies in the particular situation) et al.

If the buyer of the track is the client would I still get my share of performance if placed or does that apply only if bought and placed by the library ?

check sections 3E and 3f of the "terms / conditions and work-for-hire agreement" document.

this says to me that if the piece is non-exclusively placed in a category (publisher still owns it exclusively) and you get the writers share.

or if it is placed exclusively in a category (like soft drink exclusivity for example) you still get your writers share.

so yes - regardless of the track being selected as the "winner" or not being the winner but bought by the library as one of the "top 5 tracks" you still get writers share.

remember that a publisher may sign tracks with you exclusively, but they are free to pitch and place it as many times as they want unless the client stipulates a category exclusivity.

make sense? that's how it appears to me.

HTH

[pepeluis]

Hi All,
Once again thanks to all who have offered their valuable advice. Thanks Kolstad for the European perspective, I am in the UK with PRS so I will check whether I can even sign such a deal.
Thanks too andygabrys for your very helpful and detailed response, if the writers share is still mine then I feel a bit happier to sign up, I really appreciate the time you people put into offering your thoughts.
By the looks of it there is no harm in optiing in to receive these opportunities as there is no obligation to actually write and submit anything as I understand it and I won't get to view the full contract proposed until I do. As I mentioned I do trust this Library as have always had good dealings with them up until now so it seems to be time to just bite the bullet and go for it as there seems to be nothing to lose at this stage.
In another forum post I read the useful thought that no one song is going to be the make or break of my career so I just need to just trust in my ability to keep coming up with plently of good tracks and ditch the doubt (hmm... good catch phrase for myself!) and go for it!!
thanks again
Jose