Is it ethical for a library to ask for writer's share?

[Casey H]

If someone wants to sell a Monet painting that's worth $5 million on eBay for $5, that's not illegal or unethical. Stupid, perhaps. And on eBay, if someone wants to buy a corn chip in the shape of Jay Leno's chin for $500, that's not illegal or unethical. Again, it might just be stupid.

When all of us composers finally get SMART and decide not to put up with stupid deals, maybe that's when things will change. It's not up to the PROs to come in and "save" everybody from their stupidity, it's up to us -- and the publishers.

~ Tracey & Vance

Hey T&V... I agree with you. What concerns me is the fact that there will always be a hungry enough composers and publishers who say yes to the deal. With parties agreeing to this out there, it's hard to stop the trend. Some sort of legislation would put an end to it. Of course, putting an end to one thing could just spawn some other bad thing to work around the legislation.

Best,
Casey

[andygabrys]

If someone wants to sell a Monet painting that's worth $5 million on eBay for $5, that's not illegal or unethical. Stupid, perhaps. And on eBay, if someone wants to buy a corn chip in the shape of Jay Leno's chin for $500, that's not illegal or unethical. Again, it might just be stupid.

When all of us composers finally get SMART and decide not to put up with stupid deals, maybe that's when things will change. It's not up to the PROs to come in and "save" everybody from their stupidity, it's up to us -- and the publishers.

~ Tracey & Vance

Hey T&V... I agree with you. What concerns me is the fact that there will always be a hungry enough composers and publishers who say yes to the deal. With parties agreeing to this out there, it's hard to stop the trend. Some sort of legislation would put an end to it. Of course, putting an end to one thing could just spawn some other bad thing to work around the legislation.

Best,
Casey

I believe that Libraries who are members of http://pmamusic.com/ frown upon the practice. I am guessing that is most of the bigger / better / more upstanding.......I hope.

[Russell Landwehr]

When all of us composers finally get SMART and decide not to put up with stupid deals, maybe that's when things will change. It's not up to the PROs to come in and "save" everybody from their stupidity, it's up to us -- and the publishers.

~ Tracey & Vance

Hey T&V... I agree with you. What concerns me is the fact that there will always be a hungry enough composers and publishers who say yes to the deal. With parties agreeing to this out there, it's hard to stop the trend. Some sort of legislation would put an end to it. Of course, putting an end to one thing could just spawn some other bad thing to work around the legislation.

Best,
Casey

Ya, I think it comes down to "leverage." And the composers' leverage is the quality of and demand for their work. The composers who don't have enough of this equity will tend to get taken advantage of by the folks who are leveraging their money and industry assets to offer a crappy deal. Thing is, for the folks offering those kind of deals, they will get what they pay for.

As far as legislation, I think this would be an unfair application of leverage by adding the force of law to the weak composer's product. Sure it could actually cause the industry to be more "choosy" about the music and drive the quality of the product up. But, it would stifle the opportunities and growth potential for "learning-curve" composers.

Russell

[matto]

Nobody can legislate stupidity or can forbid people to give their product away or sell it for less than its worth. There can't and won't and shouldn't be laws against that and nobody is asking for that. But IMHO there should be laws against kickbacks and payola, and there are in many other fields.
Or are you saying anti-bribery laws unfairly target new businesses who need a "competitive edge" to break into the marketplace?

[Russell Landwehr]

I would say that anti-bribery laws and kick back laws are there to prevent an unfair advantage in a relationship where both parties do not realize Direct income from the product.

I view the shares as assets on the bargaining table and in a mutually respectful negotiation the money goes where it is intended. In other more adversarial negotiations the person with the most leverage hands the other party their butt in a sling.

in order to keep composers from getting screwed, then composers need to either walk away from the table or organize... like... a Union.

[DesireInspires]

It seems that although a library can offer a bad deal, there are no ethics applied to that deal.

I didn't even know that naive composers would be viewed as stupid for signing a bad deal.

I guess I asked the wrong question.

[Casey H]

Nobody can legislate stupidity or can forbid people to give their product away or sell it for less than its worth. There can't and won't and shouldn't be laws against that and nobody is asking for that. But IMHO there should be laws against kickbacks and payola, and there are in many other fields.
Or are you saying anti-bribery laws unfairly target new businesses who need a "competitive edge" to break into the marketplace?

In other fields, the laws use parameters used to identify kick-back behavior. For example, a hospital can't contract services from a physician and include financial incentives for admitting all his/her patients to that hospital. This would get them in trouble with state or federal oversight.

Is it reasonable to expect PROs to identify behavior that smells like kick-back? For example, a track registered with a TV production company as a co-writer (assuming they could even tell)? Maybe it's not fair for PRO's to be the policeman?

Interestingly, if I understand correctly, ASCAP bylaws already prohibit the writer(s) getting less than 100% of the writer's share. Of course, enforcing this... well, that's a whole 'nother story.

Casey

[Russell Landwehr]

Interestingly, if I understand correctly, ASCAP bylaws already prohibit the writer(s) getting less than 100% of the writer's share. Of course, enforcing this... well, that's a whole 'nother story.

Casey

VERY interesting since ASCAP is more like a Union and BMI is more like "The Man."

[guscave]

The PRO’s need to ask why a company that has nothing to do with publishing is receiving royalties for publishing. Also why is a library that had nothing to do with the composition of a song getting writer’s royalties?

Is it “unethical”, probably not, but it sure doesn’t seem right according to the basic definition of “Publisher” and a “Writer”.

There are a lot of unions and labor organizations out there looking out for their constituents. We as writers are the PRO’s number priority (or should be). Shouldn’t they be looking out for what’s best for its members? Not just for what affects us now but in the future as well.

Although many composers might turn away from these types of deals, I’m afraid that it’s the thousands of other writers that will go for them which will eventually establish this as the new norm. Take a look back 15 or 20 years ago and see just how much less a writer gets today than they use to. A 50/50% was the normal split between a writer and a library. Now one of the biggest royalty free libraries out there only offers 35/65 split on license fees. Many libraries don't even pay licensing fee to writers. Leaving us to rely primarily on back-end royalties. All these practices have become the norm now days because enough writers agreed to them when they were first introduced.

So in the end, if the PRO’s do not police these unfair practices, than who will?

[coachdebra]

Not sure if this is on point, but Paul Anka shared in an interview that there was another composer vying for the Tonight Show Theme. And Paul cut a deal with Johnny Carson, where Johnny took the publishing and shared the writer's share with Paul. Was Johnny the publisher or the writer? No. But without that, would Paul have signed the theme? According to Paul, no. And as he said in the interview half of something is better than all of nothing.

In 1962, when Johnny Carson took over the NBC "Tonight Show" from Jack Parr, he commissioned Anka for a new theme song. Paul suggested a song that he had already written called "Toot Sweet". After a lyric was added in 1959 it was re-named "It's Really Love" and under that title, was recorded by Annette Funicello on her LP, "Annette Sings". Under a deal with Carson, Johnny became the "author" for copyright purposes and got a piece of not only the publishing but the composer's share too. Both Anka and Carson's names were listed as writers and the two began collecting BMI performance royalties. The pair got $200 in royalties every time the show aired...and it ran for 32 years, 52 weeks a year, 5 nights a week -- which works out to $1,664,000.00 -- not bad for an old tune that had been re-cycled.

http://www.classicbands.com/anka.html

IMO - You have to decide if it's a good deal for you.