publishers share

[lukeyfingers]

Hi all! This is my first appearance on the forum after being a member for around six months or so. What a strange experience to date - excitement, disappointment, frustration... I have read with enjoyment some of these posts and thought that I'd pipe in and offer my present dilemma.I was fortunate to have two of my instrumentals forwarded early in the year and I received - only last week an email from the music library stating that they are interested in signing some this music. It's a non - exclusive deal where they ask that I assign 100% of the 'publishers share' over to them. I'm wanting to find out whether this is standard practice for music libraries. I am presently having an music attorney take a look at it but I'd be interested if anyone has had similar experiences with these type of companies. Thanks.

[Casey H]

May 11, 2009, 5:16am, lukeyfingers wrote:Hi all! This is my first appearance on the forum after being a member for around six months or so. What a strange experience to date - excitement, disappointment, frustration... I have read with enjoyment some of these posts and thought that I'd pipe in and offer my present dilemma.I was fortunate to have two of my instrumentals forwarded early in the year and I received - only last week an email from the music library stating that they are interested in signing some this music. It's a non - exclusive deal where they ask that I assign 100% of the 'publishers share' over to them. I'm wanting to find out whether this is standard practice for music libraries. I am presently having an music attorney take a look at it but I'd be interested if anyone has had similar experiences with these type of companies. Thanks.Congrats! Yes, that's very standard. The publisher's share is 50% of the whole performance royalty pie, so you are splittng that revenue with them It's good that you are reviewing this with a music attorney. Make sure the attorney is familiar with music library contracts, especially non-exclusive re-titling ones which I suspect this is. Have the attorney explain what each clause means so you have learned a lot for next time. Be careful of the the attorney "bloody-ing" the contract with too many requested changes, many of which don't really matter anyway. Some out there are deal-killers, others very good. When it comes to asking the library for any changes, try to make sure you are only asking about the really high priority ones, if there are any.I can't give you legal advice but if you want general info and opinion feel free to PM me. (Not in lieu of the lawyer review). Please leave the name of the library out of any correspondence with me if you can.Best Casey

[lukeyfingers]

Thanks Casey. You are exactly right regarding this being a non-exclusive re-titling contract. It's reassuring to know that this kind of split is fairly standard. I'll be sure to go through each clause with the attorney and aim for not too much 'bloody-ing' as suggested.Much appreciated,Lucas

[mazz]

I had an attorney who was obviously not very familiar with non-exclusive "re-titling" deals, which are, for better or worse, very common these days, look over a contract for me. He was pretty leery of the re-titling aspect and if I had let him take his red pen to the contract, it would have killed the deal. So Casey's warning about making sure the attorney is up on the most recent types of deals in libraries is well worth heeding.Congratulations on the deal. After only six months of membership, that's a very nice accomplishment!!Mazz

[chriscarter]

All good advice.I might add, that I have never done one of these where they get 100% of the so-called 'publisher's share'. Yes, they ask, but they have always backed of it. YMMV.

[guscave]

Just to clarify; When publishers say 100% publishing they are not talking about your writer's share (hopefully). Since total publishing consist of 100% writers share and 100% administrative share, on a 50/50 split deal you get 100% of the writer's share, while they get 100% of the publishing administration side.The reason it's written like this is because a publisher may split a portion of his share with a sub-publisher just like you might split your share with a co-writer.

[chriscarter]

That said, be very careful. I have seen plenty of contracts written on the 100% method (as opposed to the old-skool 200% method). Sometimes it's vague and I request (or add myself) language to clarify.BTW - ASCAP has been on the 100% method for a while now, making things more confusing.

[mojobone]

+1 to all of the above, and signing some music is an excellent first step; keep steppin' 'til you get paid, brother, and welcome to the fold.