Studio Pros - Buyer Beware

[MBantle]

I had been quite happily using Studio Pros for vocals over the last couple of years or so. Their service is great, the vocalists are great and generally there is very little work to do with the finished vocals that they send you.

However... I have recently discovered that their generic Work For Hire agreement that they make available on their website (terms of service), is NOT ACCEPTED by some publishers.

Recently, I was really excited to have a song submission accepted by a well known Taxi friendly publisher, only to find that they now won't take the song without a WFH that is actually signed by the vocalist. Studio Pros are not able to provide this.

So, if you are recording songs that you hope to sync in film and TV through a publisher - either work directly with your vocalist and get that signed WFH, or if you want to use an online vocalist from SoundBetter (etc.), negotiate a signed WFH as part of the deal.

Could you perhaps elaborate on why publishers rejected it and do these publishers perhaps have their own template (or did you find an acceptable template)? That would be very interesting to know.
Cheers,
Matt

[thegajman]

Hey Matt, they rejected it because they have a policy that they won't accept any type of WFH, agreement, contract, etc. etc. unless it is signed by the actual vocalist. Studio Pros position is that they have a contract in place between them and the vocalist, and therefore, it is Studio Pros providing the service - not the singer. This does make sense to me. For example, if I hire a software company to build an app I don't need to go into contractual arrangements with every software developer that works for them, I just sign a contract with the company.

However, the publisher in question don't see it that way, they have a policy that insists on the vocalist signing a WFH... end of story.

Btw... if anyone can recommend great (current sounding) male and female vocalists that will sign a WFH without them gaining part ownership of the song, and without charging an exorbitant price, please PM me!

Alternatively, if there are any male vocalist Taxi members that are interested in re-doing the vocal (on a collab / share of the song basis) also please PM me.

[MBantle]

Hey Matt, they rejected it because they have a policy that they won't accept any type of WFH, agreement, contract, etc. etc. unless it is signed by the actual vocalist. Studio Pros position is that they have a contract in place between them and the vocalist, and therefore, it is Studio Pros providing the service - not the singer. This does make sense to me. For example, if I hire a software company to build an app I don't need to go into contractual arrangements with every software developer that works for them, I just sign a contract with the company.

However, the publisher in question don't see it that way, they have a policy that insists on the vocalist signing a WFH... end of story.

Btw... if anyone can recommend great (current sounding) male and female vocalists that will sign a WFH without them gaining part ownership of the song, and without charging an exorbitant price, please PM me!

Alternatively, if there are any male vocalist Taxi members that are interested in re-doing the vocal (on a collab / share of the song basis) also please PM me.

But how did the publisher come up with that request? Is it their standard policy? Is it not enough that you simply certify that you control all the rights?
Cheers,
Matt

[thegajman]

Yes, it's a standard policy.

[lucky909091]

Thanks for this very important information!