No Sync fees, What ya think about it?

[guscave]

Lately I’ve been reading on several other forums about how libraries that are offering no sync fees are degrading the industry. Their argument is that since there is no upfront fee, the music has no value (even though you’ll see money on the back end). I’m kind of on the fence with this because I’ve made 90% of my performance royalties from companies that offer no sync fees. It does seem to be more of the norm now days. At the same time I don’t want music for tv to be looked at as some undervalued commodity. I am however seeing talk of some companies beginning to wean away from offering such deals. Wondering what are people’s thought here.

[deantaylor]

I'm like you, kinda 50/50. Just cause there always were synch fees, doesn't mean there always has to be synch fees. And if the music owner still makes money on the back end .. the music still has value ... the library and the writer still make money. But I don't know all the history and arguments for/against.

[mazz]

I would imagine it's a supply and demand thing. With thousands of composers, from people with a laptop and free software up to and including established pros with large studios, providing music for consideration for film/tv, why should a production company pay a sync fee when they can go "down the street" and get the same thing for nothing or next to nothing?Of course, there's value in a production company having a trusted library cull through music and only send them what they want, instead of having to do it themselves. They would rather spend their time on what they do best and have someone who knows what they like working for them getting them music. I would bet the chances for a sync fee are much higher in that kind of a relationship. But I would also bet it's more difficult to get signed with a library like that because they're ultra picky about who they sign, which makes their music more desirable than "Joe's Free Music Store, we have a Milllyun pieces of music on our site". Given a choice, I'd rather be with a high bar, great placement exclusive library, even if there were no sync fees.BTW: The library I work for where I get the most placements on daytime TV pays an embarrassingly small sync fee but does pretty darn well on the backend. I'm not complaining.Mazz

[markjsmith]

There used to be a day when companies offered a sync fee as standard (yes a glorious day it was). That being said there were not nearly as many cable channels or avenues to get placements. So with more avenues for placements, more access for writers to get placements, more low budget "startup" cable shows that need music "on the cheap" we as composers have gotten devalued. Look at what has happened with recording artists. Back in the middle-ages musicians were slaves (so maybe were a little better off). Heck, there was an English king who declared all music subversive and had all the musicians he could find killed.

[matto]

Oct 20, 2009, 5:54am, guscave wrote:Lately I’ve been reading on several other forums about how libraries that are offering no sync fees are degrading the industry. Their argument is that since there is no upfront fee, the music has no value (even though you’ll see money on the back end). I’m kind of on the fence with this because I’ve made 90% of my performance royalties from companies that offer no sync fees. It does seem to be more of the norm now days. At the same time I don’t want music for tv to be looked at as some undervalued commodity. I am however seeing talk of some companies beginning to wean away from offering such deals. Wondering what are people’s thought here.Gus are you talking about libraries who are not charging their clients sync fees, or those who do charge their clients but don't share it with the writers? Two very different things...I'm not clear which of the two you are referring to...

[matto]

Oct 20, 2009, 9:31am, mazz wrote:BTW: The library I work for where I get the most placements on daytime TV pays an embarrassingly small sync fee but does pretty darn well on the backend. I'm not complaining.Actually they don't pay a sync fee at all, they pay an embarrassingly small production fee.

[mazz]

Oct 20, 2009, 6:30pm, matto wrote:Oct 20, 2009, 9:31am, mazz wrote:BTW: The library I work for where I get the most placements on daytime TV pays an embarrassingly small sync fee but does pretty darn well on the backend. I'm not complaining.Actually they don't pay a sync fee at all, they pay an embarrassingly small production fee.OK, I was focusing on the "embarrassingly small" part!

[guscave]

Oct 20, 2009, 6:26pm, matto wrote:Oct 20, 2009, 5:54am, guscave wrote:Lately I’ve been reading on several other forums about how libraries that are offering no sync fees are degrading the industry. Their argument is that since there is no upfront fee, the music has no value (even though you’ll see money on the back end). I’m kind of on the fence with this because I’ve made 90% of my performance royalties from companies that offer no sync fees. It does seem to be more of the norm now days. At the same time I don’t want music for tv to be looked at as some undervalued commodity. I am however seeing talk of some companies beginning to wean away from offering such deals. Wondering what are people’s thought here.Gus are you talking about libraries who are not charging their clients sync fees, or those who do charge their clients but don't share it with the writers? Two very different things...I'm not clear which of the two you are referring to...Hi Matto, Sorry for not being clear. I meant libraries who don't charge sync fees. Seems to be almost a normal thing today, although I am also hearing about libraries who are trying to get away from that model.

[matto]

Okay Gus,well in my experience libraries who don't charge any sync fees at all are (still?) pretty rare. Remember "sync fee" doesn't necessarily mean needledrop sync fee, in other words, every use of the music requires its own fee. Many libraries also offer (and have for many years) a blanket sync license instead, whereby the client pays a certain amount of money every year which entitles them to use as much of the music as many times as they want in that year. Depending on your contract with the library you may or may not see a part of the blanket license fee, so you might not even be aware that it was charged.Another type of sync fee which has been around for years is the lifetime license. This is mostly offered by so-called buyout libraries which sell CDs with music on them. The agreement is much the same as in a software license, by purchasing the CD the client does not actually aquire the music, but a lifetime non-transferrable license to synchronize the music to as many of his productions as he wishes. Again, depending on your agreement you may not see any part of the lifetime sync license fee (in other words, the sale of the CD) but it still is charged to the client.In my experince the vast majority of libraries out there adhere to one (or several) of the scenarios described, those who straight up give the music away are still in the minority. Some start-ups have used this approach to establish themselves and have later switched to a licensed model, so I woulod say the goal of most is still to levy a license fee. But it's also no secret that those fees have dropped over the last few years. One could argue that it is at least in part the fault of songwriters and composers who have cheapened their own catalogs by retitling the same composition numerous times and placing it in several libraries.

[guscave]

Thanks for clarification Matto