Well known Library taking part of writers share...

[JohnnyP]

I'm seeing this trend growing more, but not so much as the library asking for half of the writer's share for themselves but rather the production company asking for it. In return they are promising the library a lot more placements to offset the loss. I know of one library that has gotten me lots of placements that is no longer taking in new writers unless they agree with the new terms.

I'm not too crazy about it and hope it doesn't become the new norm, but it is popping up more and more.

Gus,
I think your post here encapsulates the issue for me.

This particular production company asked the library/its writers for more of the “pie” in return for a promise of more placements. A promise that may or may not be kept.. It could conceivably be further amended by the prod company for a larger piece in the future.

Now I can’t completely blame this prod co for “asking” for a bigger share- asking is part of the negotiating process. In my opinion the fault lies with the library for capitulating to these new terms and passing them on to its writers.
This is a large library with several US offices and a presence in Europe.
I would’ve thought they would have the strength to resist this deal and not leave their writers with this “take it or leave it” offer ..

[Kolstad]

I’d sign this deal with the quickness. Please send me a PM about this company. I got some cues that I need to get signed!

You seem to have misunderstood the business of music. It's not about signing away your rights to get into a low end library. Its about keeping your rights, while getting music placed in high end productions.

The library I'm talking about is not a low end library. This library represents about 75% of my income. Again the library is not keeping the 50% writer for all thier placements. This is specific to one very large production company who is requesting it from any library they deal with from now on.

Fair enough, but where do you draw the line? Next time, or 5th time, or when they start asking for more? When they change the deal for their whole catalogue? When they are only 50%, 25% or 10% of your income? When is enough, enough for you?

I understand it’s hard, if you rely on this income. But it seems like you will take a hit either way, we all do.

[eeoo]

So they're saying that you won't see a decrease in revenue because they're going to get you more placements? I see that as working for half your normal rate. What am I missing?

I won't be partaking in the race to the bottom.

[AmandaJane]

Personally I would never consider giving a share of my writer's copyright to a library of any sort, however many placements they were going to get me.

As far as I am concerned it will simply be another nail in the race to the bottom, and the nails will be making the holes that make the boat sink
Gotta love mixed metaphors

Libraries, like us, have a choice who they have as clients. So, this particular library have accepted a deal say from one production company to share the publisher's copyright with them, and are now trying to pass that on to their writers/composers via the 50% of the writer's copyright. What about all this library's other clients who aren't asking for a share of the publishing ? Think on this, if you sign the deal for your entire catalogue (past and future) with this library, you will on some, or even many, occasions be giving them 50% of your writer's share even when the end client isn't asking for 50% of the publishing...
I might be a tad mad, but hell, I am not that mad !

I also value songwriters and composers as a whole, and like to think I try to support them in general too, and not just be out for myself.

[Casey H]

So they're saying that you won't see a decrease in revenue because they're going to get you more placements? I see that as working for half your normal rate. What am I missing?

I won't be partaking in the race to the bottom.

Lose money on every sale but make it up in volume!

[AmandaJane]

So they're saying that you won't see a decrease in revenue because they're going to get you more placements? I see that as working for half your normal rate. What am I missing?

I won't be partaking in the race to the bottom.

Lose money on every sale but make it up in volume!

Yup, work 2 or 3 times as hard for the same income...

[andygabrys]

Normally I wouldn't go for such a deal, but this library does extremely well for me. I spent about 2 hours on a video conference with the CEO discussing this as well as other issues before making my decision. This type of deal is exclusive to only one production company they work with. All other placemets will still remain the same as before. The idea here is that we shouldn't see an decrease in revenue because there will be more placements. But only time will tell. Good thing is I can pull out of it at any time by simply not providing any more music to them.

Sure they get a lot of placements due to their proximity to a video editing suite that is also owned by the same individual(s). It should be noted that this library places mostly on TV, lots of unscripted, and a good deal of sports programming.

Existing catalog items will continue to be paid at the same as the existing 100% writers contract. They will not be pitched to new shows or opportunities where the deal that the library offers is the newer 50% of writers.

Existing Placements will be paid at the old 100% writers rate.

I understand why you would want to go with this deal - as if they are your bread and butter, you continue on. If you are one of the top writers in your genre and you produce more cues than others you will have a greater share of the money assuming that all the cues are of the same quality. Hopefully that is many times what you earn now even though the rate will be at 50%.

For the industry as a whole, and for what composers choose to do - this is a negative stroke though. If it propagates to other production companies / networks in the future this is a downward spiral. Protect your portion of syncs and writers share. Don't give it away.

this: This type of deal is exclusive to only one production company they work with. All other placemets will still remain the same as before. I can't say is true.

Looks like the rate is going to 50% for pitching to this company as well as all others for the new music that you write. Its only existing music that will be paid in accordance with the old contract.

[guscave]

Normally I wouldn't go for such a deal, but this library does extremely well for me. I spent about 2 hours on a video conference with the CEO discussing this as well as other issues before making my decision. This type of deal is exclusive to only one production company they work with. All other placemets will still remain the same as before. The idea here is that we shouldn't see an decrease in revenue because there will be more placements. But only time will tell. Good thing is I can pull out of it at any time by simply not providing any more music to them.

Sure they get a lot of placements due to their proximity to a video editing suite that is also owned by the same individual(s). It should be noted that this library places mostly on TV, lots of unscripted, and a good deal of sports programming.

Existing catalog items will continue to be paid at the same as the existing 100% writers contract. They will not be pitched to new shows or opportunities where the deal that the library offers is the newer 50% of writers.

Existing Placements will be paid at the old 100% writers rate.

I understand why you would want to go with this deal - as if they are your bread and butter, you continue on. If you are one of the top writers in your genre and you produce more cues than others you will have a greater share of the money assuming that all the cues are of the same quality. Hopefully that is many times what you earn now even though the rate will be at 50%.

For the industry as a whole, and for what composers choose to do - this is a negative stroke though. If it propagates to other production companies / networks in the future this is a downward spiral. Protect your portion of syncs and writers share. Don't give it away.

this: This type of deal is exclusive to only one production company they work with. All other placemets will still remain the same as before. I can't say is true.

Looks like the rate is going to 50% for pitching to this company as well as all others for the new music that you write. Its only existing music that will be paid in accordance with the old contract.

Hi Andy,
Although I know of the company you are refering to, my post is about a different library.

[Casey H]

But does it matter WHICH library it is? No. Give away writer's share and you are helping to set a very dangerous precedent.

[guscave]

Relationships in this business is extremely important, so yes it does matter who you do certain deals with. This is not the first time I've been approached with a similar offer (the first was more than 4 years ago), and I've turned almost all them down. Not all deals are the same, so you have to pick your poison carefully.

When I started in this business it was unheard of signing an exclusive deal without front end money. Now it's the norm, but I know a lot of writers that still won't sign those types of exclusive deals, and that's ok.

Will more production companies start asking libraries for a cut of the writer's share? Absolutely!. (Some have already been asking them for 50% publishing). Is if fair? "NO", but the business is constantly changing and like the song says, "You've gotta know when to hold em or fold em"...

This is not a one size fits all industry. I write well over 300 songs a year so I use multiple avenues for income. Everything from straight up non-exclusive licensing to WFH and everything in between.

I'm not advocating that writers sign these types of deals where you give a portion of your writer's share. If it were up to me, I'd love to see every song added to a library's catalog get paid up front plus back end royalties. But for now the deals I've done have worked out for me. Your mileage may vary....