Opinions on Licensing Agreement Language

[lookinthebook]

I have been offered my first licensing agreement for film/tv/media compositions and am unfamiliar with what would be considered the parameters of "standard" contract language in this format. I would appreciate any opinions on the matter.

The document is a "catalog distribution agreement" with a music library company based in the Los Angeles area seeking non-exclusive rights to licence my musical works for any and all media. There is no money being offered upfront. A paragraph reads "Within the terms of this agreement the Company shall retain synchronization licensing fees, if any are collected. 100% of the non-exclusive publishing royalty income share from worldwide performances in any and all media - only within productions wherein the Company has placed the catalog - will be given to the Company."

The next paragraph states "Writer's shares shall non-exclusively be split 50% to Artist and 50% to Company."

Is this standard contract language and a "fair deal"?. Any input would be appreciated.

[guscave]

The next paragraph states "Writer's shares shall non-exclusively be split 50% to Artist and 50% to Company."

Is this standard contract language and a "fair deal"?. Any input would be appreciated.

You should really have an entertainment lawyer look at it, however I would never split my writer's share. Publishing is another story, but never writers. How did you get together with this company? Did they come to you or did you solicit them? Curious.

[lookinthebook]

I solicited them. They seem to be a well-established company with an impressive list of placement credits including major motion picture releases.

[Casey H]

It could be bad wording in the contract or out of context here as presented in part but please don't post more of it- that should be confidential.

The writer's share of performance royalties is virtually never shared. In fact, I don't think PRO's even allow registrations like that.

Definitely talk to a qualified music attorney about this.

If they keep 100% of license fees and you get the writer's share of performance royalties, it falls within the realm of normal deals out there though getting a share of the license (master/sync fees) would be better. License fees have come down a lot in the past 5-10 years so more of the money for TV GENERALLY is in the back end.

If you are confident in the reputation & track record of the company and there are no other issues with the contract, a deal for back end only is still very much worth it, especially if you don't have other tracks already out there making money for you. A friend of mine has a track in a back-end only library, has music on Americal Idol Rewind, and gets quarterly BMI checks of over $1300... Not bad.

Casey

PS If you were registered on this board, I'd suggest you PM me to discuss more about these types of contracts. I can't give legal advice but can discuss generalities.

[davewalton]

I have been offered my first licensing agreement for film/tv/media compositions and am unfamiliar with what would be considered the parameters of "standard" contract language in this format. I would appreciate any opinions on the matter.

The document is a "catalog distribution agreement" with a music library company based in the Los Angeles area seeking non-exclusive rights to licence my musical works for any and all media. There is no money being offered upfront. A paragraph reads "Within the terms of this agreement the Company shall retain synchronization licensing fees, if any are collected. 100% of the non-exclusive publishing royalty income share from worldwide performances in any and all media - only within productions wherein the Company has placed the catalog - will be given to the Company."

The next paragraph states "Writer's shares shall non-exclusively be split 50% to Artist and 50% to Company."

Is this standard contract language and a "fair deal"?. Any input would be appreciated.

A standard "fair deal" on a non-exclusive, no upfront payment would be (IMHO)...

50/50 split on upfront licensing fees (50% to each)
They get the publishing royalties (100%
You get the writers royalties (100%)

It's a bit of a red flag... would have to be a unique situation to make it attractive. Having said that... a "less-than-desired" deal can be a stepping stone to a "more desired deal". If it were my first I *might* take it (after asking for a 50/50 split on sync fees and 100% of writers share) but I'd certainly limit the number of tracks that I submitted to them. If they're no different than any other library then there's better deals to be had. Still... a placement (if you would get one through them) and the credits that went with that placement can be worth a lot for your next deal... better than no credits

FWIW,

Dave