MUSIC LIBRARY CONTRACT

[james]

I have recieved a contract from a music library and I don't know if this is a good deal or not. I keep the writer's share of the performing rights and the publisher keeps the publisher share. I'm o.k. with that part. The next part says that I get 20% of the synchronization and mechanical license fees and 50% of public performance fees colected by the publisher. Is this a standard deal for a music library?

[hummingbird]

Quote:I have recieved a contract from a music library and I don't know if this is a good deal or not. I keep the writer's share of the performing rights and the publisher keeps the publisher share. I'm o.k. with that part. The next part says that I get 20% of the synchronization and mechanical license fees and 50% of public performance fees colected by the publisher. Is this a standard deal for a music library?Others might know better, but this seems like a reasonable offer to me. Congrats!!

[horacejesse]

I dunno. But I am very curious to know the answer.

[Casey H]

Quote:I have received a contract from a music library and I don't know if this is a good deal or not. I keep the writer's share of the performing rights and the publisher keeps the publisher share. I'm o.k. with that part. The next part says that I get 20% of the synchronization and mechanical license fees and 50% of public performance fees collected by the publisher. Is this a standard deal for a music library?Based purely on the numbers you presented, this is not necessarily a bad deal, but it is weighted more to the "back-end". There are some excellent posts by Matto elsewhere on these boards about how people get paid for use of their music. Basically, the "front-end" are initial one-time license fee payments and the "back-end" are royalties paid by PRO's like ASCAP or BMI which come in later on for broadcast airplay.On the front-end you get 20% of the license fee, which is smaller than the typical 50%. However, since the writer's share is 50% of the total performance royalties and the publisher's share is 50%, you would get a total of 75% on the back-end (50% + (50% of 50%) ). This deal could work out nicely if your music was played repeatedly on TV, for example.An important thing: Is the contract exclusive? e.g. Are you assigning full publishing to them or are the collecting their publisher's share by re-titling? Exclusive it not necessarily a bad thing, especially if they are a player with a good track record, but it's one more thing you need to know to make a decision.There really is no substitute for having a music attorney look over the contract. I know it's tough, you may pay more for the lawyer review than you will ever make (hopefully not!), but it's the best way to go.Best of luck! Ask questions! Casey

[mazz]

I'm pretty sure this is the same contract I just signed. From speaking with another composer about this, he related to me that this particular company is pretty aggressive in their marketing and so feel that the 80/20 split for the licenseing fee is fair since they are doing the promotion/relationship building work on behalf of our music.This is also a hybrid exclusive/non-exclusive deal in that they re-title the piece and file it with the PRO naming themselves as publisher and you as the author. They are calling it a derivative aggreement, the newly titled work is a derivative work based on the original. You agree not to sell the rights to this piece (I'm pretty sure with the original title you gave it) to any other music library but are free to market it yourself to other clients such as production companies, filmmakers, etc. There's also a revision clause. This type of aggreement seems to be a new "innovation" in the business. I don't know if it's a good thing or not. Matto has made comments on this in other posts.Disclaimer: don't use or consider this info as legal advice, I could be wrong about something here and I'm not a lawyer, just a colleague trying to be helpful.Mazz

[matto]

Quote:I have recieved a contract from a music library and I don't know if this is a good deal or not. I keep the writer's share of the performing rights and the publisher keeps the publisher share. I'm o.k. with that part. The next part says that I get 20% of the synchronization and mechanical license fees and 50% of public performance fees colected by the publisher. Is this a standard deal for a music library?What you have posted seems contradictory. You say the publisher keeps the publisher's share...then later you say the publisher pays you 50% of the "public performance fees". Casey's interpretation is that he pays you 50% of the publisher's share (meaning you'd get 75% of the total performance royalty), but I have a feeling that's not what "public performance fees" refers to (most likely it refers to direct licensing situations). This is why it's important to have a qualified entertainment attorney review the contract and explain it to you.Btw there's no such thing as a "standard music library deal". There are several typical deals that you're likely to encounter; this is not one of them but that doesn't in any way mean it's not good.

[mazz]

I just looked at my contract and if it's the same one, it's in a different section from the actual Performing Rights section. I think what james was referring to was the clause that states if the publisher collects a seperate fee for public performance such as a buyout of public performance fees, then the publisher splits that money with the composer. This, to me, would be a different situation from what would be paid by the PRO for performance fees (TV, etc.)I'm not sure what situation would constitute a buyout of public performance fees, though. Anyone know when this would come up?Mazz

[Casey H]

Quote: This is why it's important to have a qualified entertainment attorney review the contract and explain it to you.Just to re-iterate... Use message boards to gather information, learn terminology, discuss, etc... But nothing on a message board should be used as legal advice. Only a qualified ENTERTAINMENT attorney can do that... Casey

[matto]

Quote:I'm not sure what situation would constitute a buyout of public performance fees, though. Anyone know when this would come up?Sure, anytime a song is "direct licensed" to a show or network that doesn't go thru ASCAP/BMI.