Publishing Deal ????????

[lucky]

Quote:Not if it's a non-exclusive deal. In that case you would keep 100% of the revenue you generate, and the publisher splits what they generate with you.If it's a full-on exclusive deal then you would have to share all income with the publisher, and you would actually need his permission to do all the things you mention above, technically speaking.There's also a thing in the middle, where a publisher will ask for exclusive representation of your music to a certain market only (such as, e.g. film/tv). So you can't do anything with it relative to film/tv, but you can do everything else.So, In a non-exclusive we keep Revenue we generate from all source's including CD sales, Record deal, Concert's etc.? Publisher only collect's Royalties from Publisher generated source's.Sounds fair to me,Thanks,Lucky

[ephlat66]

Can I express AGAIN my gratitude for the educational resource that is this forum!It seems like there's a lot of concern over the "reversion" clause. Let me see if I understand this:A reversion clause is to protect the writer. It allows the writer to essentially "unsign" with a publisher in the event the publisher doesn't place the song, causing it to generate revenue. I imagine that as with any industry, there are those in music publishing who are fantastic at their job (placing songs and thereby generating revenue) and those who are mediocre. The desire of a writer to shorten the "trigger" on a reversion clause comes from the fear (reasonable or not) that either a) the publisher is of the mediocre variety, or b) the product itself may be difficult to place.I may be way off here, but let me see if I can draw an analogy.Let's say you want to sell your house. You try it on your own for a while, but since you don't really know the ins and outs of the real estate business, you decide to hire a professional, so you begin to interview real estate agents.The first one comes in and says "I'll be happy to sell your house, and I can get the one million dollars you want for it! Sign this six month exclusive listing contract, and when you do, I'll have TWO listings! (I'll even discount my commission if you think it's too much!)"The second one comes in and says "I'll be happy to sell your house, but in my experience, it's not worth as much as you think. I will only represent you in the sale and invest MY time and capital in marketing it if you either reduce the price to $600,000 OR make certain improvements and repairs. I close fifteen deals per month, and i can tell you it may take a year to get the right offer, so I must insist on a twelve month listing agreement."So which is the better listing contract? Six months or a year?It seems to me that the publisher has a vested interest in getting the song placed. There is no "publisher's share" if they don't find a "buyer" for it. So, worrying about the length of the reversion clause as though it were a deal-breaker by itself seems short-sighted and a great example of "scarcity mentality" and "planning to fail."A much more important consideration, I would think, is the qualifications of the publisher. If you're dealing with a top professional, then the reversion clause is the least question. A top professional understands that there will be costs associated with representing your material, and that it will take time to recoup their investment and turn a profit (for BOTH parties). Check their credentials, check the language of the contract with a qualified attorney, sign the damn thing and then WRITE AND SUBMIT MORE MUSIC!Dontcha think? Just one real estate agent's opinion!