WARNING! Newbie Contract question!

[seanhenry]

Really wet behind the ears guys, so bear with me.......I just recieved my first contract to sign but i am worried about a few paragraphs and was wondering if anyone could help me out in clearing this up for me? The Publisher is offering 25% of the takings not including money collected for public performance, Is this standard? Would appreaciate any help at all, because lets face it, i aint got a clue!!!Sean

[sgs4u]

I ain't no lawyer, but I think it means you can't license this particular song, to the other entities mentioned. You are allowed to still pitch it yourself, to any end user. They just want exclusive rights as a library I guess, so they don't have to worry about your same song showing up in some one's INBOX, from a different competing entity. They're Ok with it, if it happens to be you that they have to compete against. It's not really that wacko, they're just protecting their own interests. I'm not sure about this interpretation, but it also looks like if you sign this song over to them (your publishing), and you find a placement for it by yourself, they might be expecting that you have to pay them 75% of whatever fees you can generate. I don't want to sound any alarms, but if that's actually the case, then this might not be a good deal, if you are hoping to pitch it yourself as well. Getting 25% of $100 is chump change, but 25% of $10,000 is a nice frikkin deal. If you know these guys, and you wanna work with them, it's up to you. They're only talking about 1 song. Write some more!

[seanhenry]

Yeh the thing is its a 6 track deal and im worried being a newbie that im an easy target. Apreaciate the help Steve, Thanx for your time.

[Casey H]

Hi SeanFirst, congrats! Any offer means you have quality tracks.It's best not to post verbatim wording from a party's contract on a public forum. That is their intellectual property and if they happened to see that on a Google they might not be happy. Paraphrasing key points and/or asking for help by PM works well here.If you PM me (email better), I can give me my NON-LAWYER thoughts on the contract, based on my own experiences. It looks like they only pay 25% of upfront license fees while 50% is more the norm. From what you posted, the agreement is exclusive as far as music libraries- they don't want you to pitch it to competing libraries and cause problems for them. However, they allow you to pitch it directly to film/TV music supervisors, for example.So please get in touch and I'll see if I can offer any advice. And sometimes even a contract that pays less than others is still a good thing... especially when compared to tracks collecting dust... Many factors...Talk soon! CaseyPS Sean & Steve: Can you please remove the specific contract wording?

[gitarrero]

just a quick note: the % of the upfront sync license also depends on what kind of market is approached. for a straight licensing-company 50% is often the case. however, if a company deals more with buyout-music (meaning: they sell CDs) then 25% isn't a bad deal.also, I'm not a laywer; this is just an out-of-context note.martin

[mojobone]

Umm, I suspect the deal is 50%, which is as standard as anything gets and 25% for "...DERIVATIVE WORKS", my emphasis. I don't think our boy is in any hot water for posting, he neither identified the authors nor did he post the contract in its entirety.I believe the contract allows him to continue to submit the songs to artist listings but not to libraries.Disclaimer: I am not a music business attorney, nor did I sleep at Holiday Inn Express last night.

[mazz]

The key here is the term "Derivative Work", which means the work which lives under the title they give it. You can still market the piece under the original title to anyone you want except other music libraries and entities mentioned. If you happen to know a music supervisor personally (a third party as defined here), you can still pitch to him directly. If you know an agent-type that pitches to a number of music supervisors (third parties), you can't pitch it to him. That agent-type is competing with the music library, as stated in the contract.My interpretation only, I'm not an attorney. Just friendly advice.Good luck,Mazz

[Casey H]

Without seeing the whole thing (privately) I can't tell, but as mazz noted, they may be using the word "derivative" to mean a re-titled version. In that case, it could very well mean they are offering 25% of license fees as opposed to the more common 50%. There is a publisher out there that Taxi works with (don't know if that's who this is) that offers 75/25 deals. When evaluating an offer you have to look at everything. Does the company have a good track record of placements? A good reputation? Can you find out other people's experiences (sometimes hard)? How long is the term of the contract? Is it "In Perpetuity" (forever)? Any reversion and/or exit clauses? Are you getting performance royalties for airplay? (Very important!)25% of something is better than 100% of nothing. So if all other things look good, it could very well be worth considering. Some of us have taken deals with no up-front license fees and been happy with the credits and, more importantly, some checks from ASCAP or BMI down the road. I have tracks in a library that does not pay the composers any share of the up-front license fee. But ASCAP checks are coming in and my resume looks a lot better. Casey

[sgs4u]

Aug 12, 2008, 12:38am, seanhenry wrote:Yeh the thing is its a 6 track deal and im worried being a newbie that im an easy target. Apreaciate the help Steve, Thanx for your time.Write more songs. If these guys liked those 6, then there are other that will like your music as well!The only thing you need to worry about is that your own fear will cause you to be so suspicious that you pass up an opportunity. You are not an easy target. IMHO, the job that publishers and music supervisors do seems to me much more delicate, and scarey. Maybe that's just me, tho. Casey, this bit of contract language on the forum can't be a problem, unless the big guy says delete it. The only thing I would be concerned about is that what our new friend has posted, might not be the whole picture. I know this matters to you, but it's also important to me.

[Casey H]

Aug 12, 2008, 10:07am, sgs4u wrote:Aug 12, 2008, 12:38am, seanhenry wrote:Yeh the thing is its a 6 track deal and im worried being a newbie that im an easy target. Apreaciate the help Steve, Thanx for your time.Write more songs. If these guys liked those 6, then there are other that will like your music as well!The only thing you need to worry about is that your own fear will cause you to be so suspicious that you pass up an opportunity. You are not an easy target. IMHO, the job that publishers and music supervisors do seems to me much more delicate, and scarey. Maybe that's just me, tho. Casey, this bit of contract language on the forum can't be a problem, unless the big guy says delete it. The only thing I would be concerned about is that what our new friend has posted, might not be the whole picture. I know this matters to you, but it's also important to me. Hi Steve There is no official rule against posting that... well, maybe-- since it is someone else's intellectual property (same as copyright)... Most of who have been around for a while (matto, myself, Dave, etc) try to discourage people from posting exact language. I'm more concerned about protecting the person who posted it than anything else.... If I had offered you a contract and then found it posted on a message board, I'd probably withdraw my offer. It's private and if someone didn't respect that I might not want to work with them. I can't say all music library folks would feel that way, but I'll bet some would.My request for you to remove the specific wording was just that- a request. Not my call... Casey