Advice/suggestion for TAXI

[feloniuspunk]

I've noticed in some of the listings, mostly for libraries, that sometimes Taxi will say whether or not the music library is offering a licensing deal or publishing deal or whatever.Me personally I'm not interested in submitting anything that requires me to sign over my copyright to anyone. I'd much rather just submit to opportunities for straight licensing deals and remain the owner of my songs. Besides I'd rather not give up my opportunity to shop the same song for two or three years waiting on some reversion clause to go into effect. But hey, that's just me.So, what do I do when there is no such info included? I just pass and don't submit. Is it possible for Taxi to start including that type of info within the listing? (Licensing deal versus publishing deal). It sure would make it easier for some of us to decide if we are interested or not and might just send some extra revenue to Taxi as well ($5/song versus $0/song). Or am I the only one on the planet who gives a hoot about this kind of stuff?Typical Licensing Deal = you retain copyright ownership (both composer's and publisher's if you have both) and negotiate a one time fee up front and get your name listed in the credits and get 100% of all royalties.Typical Publishing Deal = you sign over the publishers copyright to the library (giving them controlling interest) and hope they market and sell your material. You get no money until they sell, and if and when they do, they keep the copyright! You also cannot shop that same song yourself while they have the copyright (usually 2 to 3 years). You then only get the composer's 50% of any royalties.www.nickkepics.com

[edteja]

I agree. I am for getting as much information as possible. I am not against the publishing deal at all (depends on what I might submit) but it is nice to know more about what you are competing for.

[davewalton]

Quote:Typical Licensing Deal = you retain copyright ownership (both composer's and publisher's if you have both) and negotiate a one time fee up front and get your name listed in the credits and get 100% of all royalties.You're not describing the "typical licensing deal", you're describing what happens when you find and negotiate the deal yourself without the services of a middle man. You're dealing directly with the source (the music supervisor for the movie or whatever) and so you're just making a deal for this person to license your music.Quote:Typical Publishing Deal = you sign over the publishers copyright to the library (giving them controlling interest) and hope they market and sell your material. You get no money until they sell, and if and when they do, they keep the copyright! You also cannot shop that same song yourself while they have the copyright (usually 2 to 3 years). You then only get the composer's 50% of any royalties.You're now sort-of describing what happens when someone who is doing the work of representing you finds and negotiates a deal, but you're skewing the reality of the situation to have the most negative connotation. In the scenerio, a middle man is representing your music and is doing the work of the publisher (finding deals and placing your music). Your skew on this is that a publishing deal is somehow a scenerio where the musician is being taken advantage of. How would they receive compensation for their work and why would they even bother if they're not getting paid a portion of the licensing fees and royalties? Anyway, you're simply giving them the legal authority they need to negotiate on your behalf. A musician with a strong track record can negotiate very favorable arrangement with music publishers, much different than you describe.Anyway, didn't we just go through all this sometime ago when you started this thread:http://taxi.proboards27.com/index.cgi?b ... 0&page=1As far as the Taxi listings go, I think that you can identify the listings that you would be comfortable submitting to on your own. Look to see if you're dealing with the direct source (record company, film company, production company). An example from the listings would be:"A wide range of fun, energetic ELECTRONICA SONGS/INSTRUMENTALS in the general range of Groove Armada, Cibo Mato, Stereolab, Kinky, Ozomatli, LCD Soundsystem, etc. are wanted by the Music Supervisor of an Indie Film"The placement has already been identified and you're dealing directly with the source. No middle man involved because none is necessary.Listings that aren't projects where you're dealing with the direct source are listings that would't be favoreable to you based on your point of view. An example from the listings would be:"The President of an established Publishing Co. is looking for a wide range of tremendous JAZZ INSTRUMENTALS"You're then dealing with someone who wants to represent your music and, of course, has to be compensated for that.Hope that helps, Dave

[matto]

Hey Nick...Congrats on your transmitter write-up, way to go!I noticed Taxi has recently begun to include more info like you mention in their listings, particularly on the film/tv side.I welcome that as well, the more info the better. Of course there will always be companies that prefer to negotiate their deals on a case by case basis and therefore won't want to disclose a "standard deal" (there's no such thing anyway) in the listing.Quote:Taxi will say whether or not the music library is offering a licensing deal or publishing deal or whateverDave already pointed out some of the flaws in your description of "typical" deals...I just wanted to add that not even "Mother Theresa Music Library Inc" would EVER offer a licensing deal like the one you describe. Those kinds of deals are only available from music supervisors or a (film's / production's) production company.I think it really comes down to whether you wanna do music for a living, or you have a nice day job and only wanna do music as a hobby/sideline.Both of these approaches are perfectly valid, it just depends on your situation/preferences.For those who wanna do music for a living, I think it would be wise to take those jobs/deals you think are most likely gonna help you achieve your goal in the long run, even if they may not look like the most advantageous deals in the short term.Let's face it, a GOOD publisher can take a writer's career FAR beyond the point that most individuals could take it themselves.matto

[feloniuspunk]

matto and Dave,Thanks to both of you for your replies. I admit I have a very small track record for going around saying what I think are "typical" deals. I was only speaking from how they appeared to me at the time.I agree with both of your assessments however and think that it depends on what you want. I do have a nice day job and do music on the side so I do have the luxury of being rather picky about the deals that come my way.To me ownership of copyright is everything. That is what I plan to pass on to my family after I begin to "decompose."That said though, I do prefer more information rather than less in the listings so people like me can decide better. I do appreciate your responses and want to be quick to point out that I still have plenty to learn from more experienced people. Please keep your great attitudes and keep posting informative replies like these.

[matto]

Nick,Quote:To me ownership of copyright is everything. That is what I plan to pass on to my family after I begin to "decompose."as I said earlier everybody's situation and preferences are different.Having said that, I hope you'll forgive me for wondering if maybe your logic on that last point might be a bit flawed:Passing a catalog of copyrights on to your family is valuable (beyond the obvious sentimental value your music will hold for them) only if 1- these copyright are already generating income or 2- your family has the knowledge and music business savvy to exploit them.Otherwise they'll just be sitting there, the public won't get to hear your music and it won't make anybody any money.By contrast, I have already built a sizeable catalog of music, the copyright to which is held by various music libraries, and which is being pitched contantly without me doing anything. If I died tomorrow, god forbid, those companies would keep pitching that music, it would still be heard by the public and it would keep generating income for my heirs for years to come. All of it without them raising one finger or knowing a single thing about the music biz, pitching, or anything like that. All they'd have to have basically is a valid mailing address. Granted, they would only receive about half of the money they could have received had I held on to all of my copyrights; however this is easily offset by the fact that I have FAR more placements due to professional representation of my catalog by those libraries, and will continue to get new placements even after my death because of it (assuming a certain timelessness of the music, which most of my stuff possesses). And of course by the fact that the royalties will continue to roll in without any doing on my family's part.So instead of leaving them with a potential headache I'll be leaving them with a "no-brainer annuity", so to speak. One less thing for them to worry about...That's the other side of the coin.matto

[nomiyah]

Good point Matt. Well said.

[feloniuspunk]

matto,I never really thought of it that way. You are right that whoever owns the copyrights also holds the burden of pitching the tunes. I guess what is hard for me to get my mind around is the giving up of the publisher's 50%. Of course it's not giving up anything if the songs aren't producing anything. So maybe 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.I'll have to go home and rethink my life. I don't want to sell you death sticks.Your Jedi mind trick is almost working on me. Thanks for the feedback. On the bright side, that publishers' 50% is already mine to give up should I choose to do so. I at least have that going for me. I guess I'd always retain the composer's 50%.Is this how most folks (writers) in the industry look at it? Maybe old dogs can learn new tricks.

[matto]

Quote:Your Jedi mind trick is almost working on me.Nick...I'm not trying to play any mind tricks on you, Jedi or otherwise... But you know that of course.I just think it's always a good idea to look at things from every different angle. What I'm doing is not necessarily the right thing for somebody else. Everybody's situation is different. In my mind, even every song and every deal is different.For some songs and situations, having a good publisher will undoubtedly be more lucrative, let alone much less work.In other cases, holding on to your copyright will be the best choice, thus giving maximum pitching flexibility and affording full control over your creation.In all cases, having a bad publisher will suck! Even if that publisher happens to be you...To some degree it depends on how good a sales person you are, how much you enjoy dealing with the business side of things vs just writing music, and how big your catalog is.There's a lot to consider and I most certainly understand the anxiety that goes along with letting go of your copyright. There are no absolutely right or wrong answers in these situations, but I think it's always helpful to ask all the questions and play out all the different scenarios.matto