Best practices for contracts

[laurahg]

Can someone (Matt) assist me regarding contractual best practices? I was forwarded and won some business with a music library. Conversationally (no contract in hand yet), they are looking for publishing and I can publish with their ASCAP company or I can change the title of my tunes to afford them the publishing rights. I get the performer rights. Can someone weigh on this as pretty much the usual practice, what I should counter with if anything and what attorney I'm going to find that understands this part of the business (assuming my [music] attorney does not. So many thanks in advance. Of my many forwards, this one called me the next day! LAURA

[ddusty]

There have been a few threads on this before, you may want to do a search. Obviously no one here can give you legal advice, so you will need to consult a good entertainment lawyer. Any music library will require a percentage of the publishing (or all of it ) because they will need to get paid for there efforts. Having the song re titled is also becoming more common.Once you have the contract, take it to your lawyer and have them explain what each part means, then you can make an informed decision if the deal makes sense.Congratulations, and best of luck.

[laurahg]

Thx

[davewalton]

Quote:Can someone (Matt) assist me regarding contractual best practices? I was forwarded and won some business with a music library. Conversationally (no contract in hand yet), they are looking for publishing and I can publish with their ASCAP company or I can change the title of my tunes to afford them the publishing rights. I get the performer rights. Can someone weigh on this as pretty much the usual practice, what I should counter with if anything and what attorney I'm going to find that understands this part of the business (assuming my [music] attorney does not. So many thanks in advance. Of my many forwards, this one called me the next day! LAURAWell, first I should say "congratulations". Generally speaking, probably the most common arrangement is going to be a 50/50 split. They take publishing royalties, you take writer's royalties and the two of you split any licensing fees. In other words, you've already written the song, your work is finished. You sit on the couch while they spend the rest of their careers pitching your music, a job that never ends. You're really the one getting the better deal. It's always good to have an attorney that understands the business to review your contract, especially the very first one. It's very good if they'll do it with the idea of "teaching" you a little about the contract itself. Many contracts are pretty much the same thing and if you can familiarize yourself with what's what regarding a basic library contract, then you can recognize a "regular" contract vs one that's "odd".Personally, and this is my own opinion, unless you carry some serious credits and they want you more than you want them, I don't recommend trying to "counter" with some kind of offer that improves your stake while reducing theirs. A winning hand at bargaining requires leverage so if you're "countering" with nothing more than "I want more", well, that's not a winning hand. When your music generates a couple hundred thousand in royalties, then tell them you need a better deal. Until then, there's 100,000 musicians lined up behind you (including me ) that would all be happy with their standard 50/50 deal.HTH,Dave

[matto]

Quote:Can someone (Matt) assist me regarding contractual best practices? I was forwarded and won some business with a music library. Conversationally (no contract in hand yet), they are looking for publishing and I can publish with their ASCAP company or I can change the title of my tunes to afford them the publishing rights. I get the performer rights. It's normal for a music library (which is really a special kind of a publishing company in most cases) to want all or part of the publishing. The question is whether those rights are aquired temporarily (is there a reversion clause?) or in perpetuity, and whether the deal is exclusive (meaning they own the song outright) or non-exclusive (meaning they only get paid for the specific uses they secure for your song and you're free to continue doing whatever you like with it. Typically, when re-titling takes place the deal is non-exclusive.Just to use correct terminology here: You'd retain and collect the writer's share of the performance royalties, not "performer's rights"; ASCAP and BMI do not pay performers, only writers and publishers. The company would collect the publisher' share of performance royalties (sometimes called "the publishing").Besides the contract points I mentioned before, you should also find out what happens to sync and master license fees which the company would collected when they license your song(s), whether they're planning on also splitting those with you.Quote:what attorney I'm going to find that understands this part of the business (assuming my [music] attorney does not. So many thanks in advance. Of my many forwards, this one called me the next day! LAURAI think any music attorney who's up to date on current industry practices would understand this part of the business well enough to be able to explain the contract and it's various clauses to you. You can then use that information to make an informed decision.HTH,matto

[laurahg]

Dave - thanks so much for your insight. I appreciate it. I'm supposed to have a sample contract any time now, and I requested both, so I can make an informed decision on whether to re-title the tunes (3) or keep the titles and have them publish. I'm inclined to re-title, but need some feedback on this too. Thanks again, LAURA

[laurahg]

Thanks, Matt and thank, too, for all your contributions to this network. LAURA