Question about submitting to TAXI # S060711RK

[jeffchurchwell]

I have a question for matto or anyone who has had experience with splits on publishing. I am interested in submitting to listing S060711RK (description follows):NEW LISTING - 1960s/1970s-sounding CLASSIC ROCK SONGS & INSTRUMENTALS a la the Eagles, CCR, CSN&Y, the Kinks, Janis Joplin, Grateful Dead, Allman Bros., etc. etc. are wanted by an established Music Library/Publisher that has worked with TAXI for years. Their deal is basic for instrumental tracks -- everything is split 50-50 [they retain 100% of the publishing, you retain 100% of the writing royalties]. But for vocal songs they sign, you actually keep a portion of your publishing -- it’s a 75/25 split of the publishing royalties [instead of them taking all 100%, they only retain 75%]. Broadcast quality needed [excellent home recordings are OK]. Please submit one to three songs online or per CD, include lyrics. All submissions will be screened and critiqued by TAXI and must be received no later than July 11, 2006. TAXI # S060711RKJeff again: my question has to do with the 75/25 publishing split on songs with vocals. The song or songs I'd like to submit are already represented by a publisher: namely, me. I am my own publisher under ASCAP (Hat's Too Tight Music). Can I even submit to this listing, given that the lister is a publisher? Is there such a thing as a co-publishing deal? I can't see any way to alert the screener or the lister in advance that my submissions are already published. Would that come back to bite me if the songs got forwarded and I then had to explain my position? What am I NOT thinking about that I should be?Any thoughts, folks? Thanks.Jeff

[jeffchurchwell]

Drifting along with the tumbling tumbleweeds...

[andreh]

Jeff-I'm just speculating here, but I would think the only time you wouldn't want to submit for a listing is if the song or music in question is already on an exclusive contract with another publisher. Obviously, you don't want to be violating any contracts you have out there.By submitting your song, at the very least you'll be opening the door to a potential contact, even if you can't work out a deal for that particular song. And you could always give up the publishing rights on that song if an appealing offer warranted it.I wonder what the logic is behind songs with words having a better publishing split. Maybe out of respect to the lyricist?Andre

[jeffchurchwell]

Andre,Yeah, I'll probably go ahead and submit on this one. I have a book called "A Songwriter's Guide to Publishing," by Randy Poe, which describes co-publishing and makes it sound as if it's a common occurence. And my overall take of the songs' royalties would be 62.5% of each song co-published, which ain't hay. It's the exclusivity issue I'm concerned about. I thought once a song was published, it STAYED published in perpetuity (unless I bought out the publisher (or sold my remaining publishing rights to the publisher), which would mean I'd only ever get that percentage. Can someone tell me whether that's correct? And again, is there anything else I'm not considering? Thanks, and thanks for the response, Andre.Jeff

[matto]

Jeff,I apologize for not seeing this before. There have been other threads about this, but basically...being your own publisher doesn't change anything cause as a writer you already own all the rights to your songs including the publishing rights, until and unless you sign them over to a third party, regardless of whether you have your own "publishing company".Most companies that work on getting music placed in film and tv are publishers and will want to collect at leats part, or often all, the publisher's share of royalties, at least for the placements they secure...otherwise, why would they do any work on your behalf? (the only exception to this is music supervisors who typically get paid by the production company and therefore aquire no interest in the compositions they use).Whether you should submit to this listing depends on whether you would be open to a co-publishing agreement like the one that's mentioned in the listing, or not.Sorry I didn't see this before, but it looks like there's still time to submit at least.matto

[jeffchurchwell]

matto,thanks for the clarification. I was slowly working toward that conclusion, I just needed to get feedback. Thanks to you and Andre for responding. And yes, there's time for this listing, I will probably go ahead and do it.no worries on the seeming delay, you're a busy guy.Thanks again,Jeff

[timejunkie]

Always try to retain as much of your publishing as possible.Also go for a reversion clause that states if they don't place the song in 24 months all publishing reverts back to you.Your publishing rights are your bread and butter, don't give them up if you don't have to.Cheers,Chip

[davewalton]

Quote:Always try to retain as much of your publishing as possible.Also go for a reversion clause that states if they don't place the song in 24 months all publishing reverts back to you.Your publishing rights are your bread and butter, don't give them up if you don't have to.Well, yes... sort of. The publishing rights are the bread and butter of the publisher. If you are your own publisher (by that I mean that you are consistantly placing your own tracks into the mainstream and making good money doing so) then the publishing rights are your bread and butter. Otherwise, I believe that publishing rights are the bread and butter of the publisher that is actually doing the work of making endless phone calls, chasing down leads, putting up with cancelled meetings, etc, all part of the work of getting your song placed. I'm sure Casey will give me an "AMEN!" on that. Personally, I have no problem with the more-or-less standard arrangement where the publisher gets the publisher royalties. Maybe I can negotiate a "better" deal, but to what end? It comes back to the "50% of something is always better than 100% of nothing".I think that this philosophy becomes more important as the stakes get higher. If you're dealing with an upstart music library that hasn't yet placed a song, then it really doesn't matter. If you're talking about an established music library that can put you into prime-time network television, then their standard deal is going to be a good deal for you. I have to say that the deals that I've been offered and have made so far all pretty much look the same. I'm not seeing the "shark" deals where I'm getting my ass taken to the cleaners. I'm sure they're out there but I haven't seen them in the mainstream and/or low budget film/television music scene. One of the biggest benefits of this forum is that it has helped me recognize a "normal" deal, giving me a good, centered frame of reference. Since I'm not a superstar, a "normal" deal is a good deal for me. Dave

[timejunkie]

Yes publishing is always a touching subject of disscussion. It really depends on what you are doing with your music. If you believe you are going to have a #1 record as a recording artist then it makes sense to keep as much as you can.On the other hand is you are shopping songs for TV/Fim etc.. then yeh it makes sense to hand it over to the publisher and let them do the grunt work for 50% of the pie.I think Brett Michaels of Poison had the right idea he retianed his publishing and I'm certain his bank account is much better off for it. Those 80's "hair band" guys aren't so dumb after all!