NON-Exclusive, 50/50 deal but Publisher gets 100%

[FreddieK]

How can it be a NON-Exclusive deal if someone has 100% of the Publishing... don't they own the song?
Also is it appropriate to ask for a 2 year reversion clause when singing a song to a Publisher?
Thanks! Freddie K.

(From A Listing)

"This Company offers a NON-Exclusive, 50/50 deal. You’ll get 50% of any applicable sync fees and 100% of the Writer’s share. The Publisher will get 50% of any sync fees and 100% of the Publisher’s share. There is also a possibility that this Library could offer a buyout of the Masters and Publishing rights. You must own or control your Master and Copyright to submit to this opportunity"

[Casey H]

It's the terminology which confuses people. Every dollar of PRO money is split 50% writer, 50% publisher. So 100% of the publisher's share is 50%. Just like 100% of the writer's share is 50% of the total pie.

Nothing is amiss here. All the money is split 50/50 between writer and publisher. HTH!

Reversion clauses vary from none at all ("in perpetuity") to 2, 3 or 5 years. 2 years is very reasonable. And don't forget, it's non-exclusive anyway, so you could (if you want) pitch it to other non-exclusive libraries. The only thing you can't do is sign the song with an exclusive library.

Casey

[AlanHall]

this ^^^

It's non-exclusive in that you are free to shop to and join with any other publisher (let's call them pub B) on this exact same material you've signed with this library (call them pub A). What this library (pub A) gets is 100% of the publisher's share of anything that they (pub A) sell. They don't intend to claim any right to income from the same material that another library (pub B) happens to sell.

[cosmicdolphin]

Sounds normal

I don't think I've ever been offered a deal with a reversion clause - All 700 tracks are signed in perpituity for better or worse.

[Casey H]

Sounds normal

I don't think I've ever been offered a deal with a reversion clause - All 700 tracks are signed in perpetuity for better or worse.

I've had some non-exclusive deals with reversions but I don't really pay much attention to the term on a non-exclusive. Once I sign one non-exclusive for a song, I consider it committed to the non-exclusive world forever 99% of the time. I could always submit it to other non-exclusive libraries. The clause doesn't really have much meaning for non-exclusive. And...

One word of caution about pulling a track with a reversion clause. There are some exclusive libraries that won't sign a song that's ever been signed elsewhere because they can't be 1000% sure that it's not out there somewhere in someone's system, hard drive, etc. I know one Taxi friendly, exclusive library that won't. Their concern is that while it was under the other deal, it was sent to some music sups. You remove the track but it's still sitting with a music sup who finds it 2 years later and wants to use it. It then creates a conflict and a mess.

Casey

[FreddieK]

this ^^^

It's non-exclusive in that you are free to shop to and join with any other publisher (let's call them pub B) on this exact same material you've signed with this library (call them pub A). What this library (pub A) gets is 100% of the publisher's share of anything that they (pub A) sell. They don't intend to claim any right to income from the same material that another library (pub B) happens to sell.

I appriciate everyones input on this...
I understand how the Writer and Publisher shares work, but It's hard for me to wrap my brain around "non-exclusive" You sign over the publishing to some one and they don't own the song...
So if they're "non-exclusive" and another opportunity comes along and someone else want's them you tell them they're sinned but "non-exclusive ... dose that mean that you can sign your publishing over several times to different
Publishers or Library's at the same time?
"Years ago before I knew better I signed over my publishing rights to some songs to someone that didn't have the connections or intentions of working the songs. They just wanted to own the songs incase
our band were to get a major record deal and have hits... We just thought WOW someone wants to "Publish our songs". Didn't know what a reversion clause was. After years of nothing happening with my songs another reputable publisher wanted to work to try and monetize them but could't because the songs were already signed away. The songs might as well be dead since they were just sitting on someone's else's shelf "Live and Learn"
Just don't want to sign over songs to someone "for life" without being able to get them back down the road if they're not bring worked and placed to earn money, at least after a few years of the songs not getting placed so you can re-pitch them to another publisher. Appreciate you guys! FreddieK

[Casey H]

Hey Freddie
Non-exclusive libraries only take the publisher's share on tracks THEY place. They way they do it is they register yours song with the PROs using an alternate title. Usually this is your title with a tag and the front or end. For example, you have a song called "Walking In The Garden". The non-exclusive library would register it as "LIBX - Walking In The Garden". When an end user (e.g. TV show) files a cue sheet, it will have that re-titled name on it, identifying it as that library's version. You would be free to sign it with another non-exclusive library who might register it as "LIBABC - Walking In The Garden".

These different titles allow the non-exclusive libraries to take the publisher's share of PRO without conflicting with the same track in other libraries. Make sense?

HTH
Casey

[FreddieK]

Hey Freddie
Non-exclusive libraries only take the publisher's share on tracks THEY place. They way they do it is they register yours song with the PROs using an alternate title. Usually this is your title with a tag and the front or end. For example, you have a song called "Walking In The Garden". The non-exclusive library would register it as "LIBX - Walking In The Garden". When an end user (e.g. TV show) files a cue sheet, it will have that re-titled name on it, identifying it as that library's version. You would be free to sign it with another non-exclusive library who might register it as "LIBABC - Walking In The Garden".

These different titles allow the non-exclusive libraries to take the publisher's share of PRO without conflicting with the same track in other libraries. Make sense?

HTH
Casey

Casey, Thank you so much! You explained it perfectly! … I Didn't know that the PROs use an alternate title for 50/50 Non-Exclusive deals.
I have some Vintage songs that I wanted to submit to a listing, but didn’t quite understand the 50-50 deal but you explained it great! Now I don’t mind submitting the songs in the fact that if they're signed I can still pitch them to another non-exclusive library if I don’t get placements from signing them the first time. I do want to say that I really appreciate you reaching out and helping people on this forum! Also I've listened to your songs and think that your works are awesome! I’m a fan!!! With the experience and success you’ve had I hope you don’t mind if I ask you an occasional question down the road about production, mixing, publishing, or whatever...
You seem to have a lots of knowledge and experience in all of it!
Thanks so Much !!!
Freddie K.