How many are both writers AND publishers?

feloniuspunk · Post by **feloniuspunk** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:05 pm

I noticed in some recent listings that the "deal" the lister is offering is that you get 100% of the writer's royalties and they get 100% of the publishers royalties.I'm sure many of you are smart enough to realize that writers get 50% of royalty profits and publishers get the other 50% of royalty profits.That's why I registered myself as a publisher when I "published" my first CD. I am holding out for deals where I can get both halves of the royalties. My publishing company is called Patiwak Publishing:http://www.broadjam.com/userimages/10585_45389.jpgIt's easy to become a publisher. Have you put out your own CD? Guess what, you quailfy! I just think it's kind of dumb to turn over half of the potential royalties to a stranger when you don't have to.I view these kind of licensing deals as shady and some of these shady folks are simply taking advantage of the uninformed, the innocent or the ignorant. Anyway, that's my two cents. I have been forwarded many times and have been offered "deals" where I'd have had to sign over my copyright to the company. I've turned them down. My copyright is all I really have to protect me. Why would I give that away?Opinions/comments?

ernstinen · Post by **ernstinen** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:37 am

Quote:And you always sign over your copyright to any publisher. That's what a publisher does. They own the song when you agree to let them publish/pitch your song.Hmmm, I don't believe that's correct. The songwriter owns the copyright. What the publisher "owns" is exclusive rights to pitch the song, and takes 50% of any monies that the song makes.Am I wrong? Matto --- Matto, where are you!? BTW, I'm a songwriter with my own publishing company.Ern

onoffon · Post by **onoffon** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:57 am

We don't have a publishing company, but we own all of our publishing and get paid accordingly, split in the same percentages as our writer's credits.Works for us - and we have something to bargain with...

ernstinen · Post by **ernstinen** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 11:15 am

Quote:Exactly... When you sign a publishing deal, you turn over ownership... The publisher owns your song...I have never heard of it put that way, that they "own" your song. Maybe it's just semantics!? Or maybe I'm an idiot! Ern

ernstinen · Post by **ernstinen** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 11:48 am

From a music attorney:"Publishers 'administer' your copyrights which is just an industry term for collect money. Not surprisingly, publishers do not do this for free. Most publishers will collect your money and give you half while they keep the other half as a fee. There are other arrangements, but this is the standard publishing deal.The songwriter 'assigns' the copyright to a publisher. This is a legal technicality in case the 'owner' of the copyright must sue to enforce a copyright."So now I get it --- legal technicalities. Sheesh! "Assign" means "Own" --- to lawyers. Ern

matto · Post by **matto** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:22 pm

Quote:It's easy to become a publisher. Have you put out your own CD? Guess what, you quailfy! I just think it's kind of dumb to turn over half of the potential royalties to a stranger when you don't have to.I view these kind of licensing deals as shady and some of these shady folks are simply taking advantage of the uninformed, the innocent or the ignorant. There's certainly nothing "shady" about a publisher asking for part or all of the publisher's royalties. Nor is there anything "dumb" about giving up part or all of your publishing to the right publisher.If they are doing their job properly, they will work hard at pitching your music, and hopefully make you lots of money in the process; you wouldn't expect them to do that for free, now would you?It may be easy to become a publisher, but it's anything but easy to do THE JOB of a publisher. Unless you have tons of connections, plenty of spare time, a great work ethic, a winning salesman-type personality and are good at pitching, casting and, in general, marketing your music, your "publishing company" will be nothing but a vanity project and you'll be sitting there owning 100% of nothing...and we all know how much that is... I think a lot of artists and songwriters are hurting themselves by being too paranoid about giving up part or all of the publishing. The right publisher can do so much more with your music than you could on your own, they can open doors for you, make you money and help you amass some credits, which in turn will cause the music industry to take you more seriously and ultimately lead to deals that are more in your favor.Here's something a publisher at the Road Rally had to say (I'm paraphrasing): "We do all kinds of deals, from deals where we own the song and get 100% of the publishing, to co-publishing where we'll get maybe 25% of the publishing. Writers always think it's in their best interest to hold on to as much of the publishing as possible, but that's not necessarily always the case. Think of it from the publisher's standpoint: If I have two songs in my catalog that are up for the same major movie placement and for song A the writer gave us 100% of the publishing, while for song B the writer only let us have 25%, guess which song I'm going to be pushing more..."In this case the songwriter who gave up all his publishing will end up with a major movie placement, a significant amount of cash and a killer credit, while the "smart" guy who held on to 75% of his publishing gets nothing.Food for thought.matto

matto · Post by **matto** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 9:33 pm

Quote:Am I wrong? Matto --- Matto, where are you!? Typically they own it. There's usually a clause in the contract which says (in about a hundred words of legalese ) that you're assigning ownership of the song to them. It's not always the case in film and tv, though.matto

gunter · Post by **gunter** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 11:41 pm

Quote:Here's something a publisher at the Road Rally had to say (I'm paraphrasing): "We do all kinds of deals, from deals where we own the song and get 100% of the publishing, to co-publishing where we'll get maybe 25% of the publishing. Writers always think it's in their best interest to hold on to as much of the publishing as possible, but that's not necessarily always the case. Think of it from the publisher's standpoint: If I have two songs in my catalog that are up for the same major movie placement and for song A the writer gave us 100% of the publishing, while for song B the writer only let us have 25%, guess which song I'm going to be pushing more..."In this case the songwriter who gave up all his publishing will end up with a major movie placement, a significant amount of cash and a killer credit, while the "smart" guy who held on to 75% of his publishing gets nothing.Reading matto's posts is always very educational!Thanks a lot matto!

davewalton · Post by **davewalton** » Sun Nov 20, 2005 7:13 am

BUSINESS 101I'm an "old guy". These are just my experiences and may not be applicable for everyone. Also, this assumes that the person you're dealing with is generally reputable.Essentially in almost any given situation, there are beggars and choosers. More often than not, failure to successfully conclude any negotiation comes about as a result of the beggar being unrealistic about which category he or she fits into. If I believe that I'm the chooser, when in reality I'm the beggar, I'm likely to ask for unrealistic concessions from the chooser. The chooser won't give me those concessions because they don't have to. The deal ends, but only for me. The chooser ultimately makes a deal with someone else, so I'm the only one that winds up without a deal. And without any credits from that lost deal I'm the ultimate beggar once again when negotiating the next potential deal. And so it goes in a never-ending cycle. I'm thinking I'm "winning" each battle but I'm losing the war.My advice, FWIW. Be realistic about your power to negotiate a deal. Concentrate on getting a deal and then doing repeat business with that person or company. It's MUCH easier and you become more of a chooser. Don't think that the most recent best song you wrote is your best song. Next week, next month, next year, you'll have a new "best" song. A deal that gives 100% of publisher royalities away is only a bad deal if you realistically could have placed that song into more venues than the publisher (not likely). And last but not least, credits are the most valuable currency for future paid projects. I'm feeling a little fiesty this morning.

davewalton · Post by **davewalton** » Thu Nov 24, 2005 3:38 am

Quote:Be cautious if someone offers you a deal and the word "exclusive" is in the deal. "Exclusive" is more the rule rather than the exception. Don't hold out too long for simultaneous "non-exclusive" deals with Sony, Capitol, and Atlantic. Happy Thanksgiving!Dave

How many are both writers AND publishers?

How many are both writers AND publishers?

Re: How many are both writers AND publishers?

Re: How many are both writers AND publishers?

Re: How many are both writers AND publishers?

Re: How many are both writers AND publishers?

Re: How many are both writers AND publishers?

Re: How many are both writers AND publishers?

Re: How many are both writers AND publishers?

Re: How many are both writers AND publishers?

Re: How many are both writers AND publishers?

Who is online