TAXI.com

I'm in the process of modifying the Work for Hire agreement I found on John Braheny's website and I'm not sure how to address the following section:

2a. Not withstanding the foregoing, in the event that the recording embodying Musician’s performance is licensed for synchronization with an audiovisual production for which Artist receives a fee for Master Use, Musician will receive ________ percent of 50% of the total of combined Synchronization and Master Use fee received by the Artist or ________ percent of 100% of the Master Use fee (if paid separately)received by Artist

My agreement with the "musician" (actually vocalist) is a payment of 10% of the sync/licensing fee if/when the recording is used. I understand the difference between the sync fee and the master use fee but the section in his agreement is confusing to me as far as what to put percentage-wise in the blanks.

Any clarification would be much appreciated.

iMO you are pretty close. and since I am not an entertainment lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.........

i would fill in the blanks as:

10% of combined Sync / Master License

and 20% of Master Only license.....

as this would afford the vocalist the same $ in any case.

***its implicitly understood that for a piece of music to be used in a motion picture, there will always be a Sync and a Master Use License. And they each are usually for the same $$$. but depending on various factors, they might come as separate documents and separate checks, and they might be for different $ amounts.


HTH

When music is used in film/TV, there is almost always both a master use and a sync agreement. It's just that many times they are combined into one.

If your intention is to always share a fixed percentage of any upfront license fees for placing the track in film/TV, you might want to simplify it to X% of any master and/or sync fees. That way whether it's 2 agreements with two fees, one agreement with two fees, or one agreement with one fee, it's all the same. The musician earns X% of your upfront licensing revenue.

Casey

Andy and Casey...thanks so much for the replies. I really appreciate your insight and taking the time to answer my question.

Mike

You know, every one of us really should have become lawyers. Think of all the disclaimers we could avoid.

I wonder how many of us pay musicians above and beyond the recording session fees. Occasionally I've agreed to do this IF the up front money reached a certain threshold (i.e., $100 up front isn't really worth splitting). But for the most part I think it's much simpler for everyone if the session fee is the ONLY payment they receive, and of course this should be clearly spelled out in the agreement. Like mrbobolina, I've made exceptions for vocalists, because they clearly play a significant role in "selling" the song.

Any other thoughts about this?

Richard

Are these work for hire agreements examples of agreements that are worse than if you had no written agreement at all?

In other words, absent specific agreement are work for hire performers entitled to any royalties of any kind? They get paid on the clock, or by the job. That's it.

If I'm wrong, please let me know.

Rossmusic wrote:Are these work for hire agreements examples of agreements that are worse than if you had no written agreement at all?

In other words, absent specific agreement are work for hire performers entitled to any royalties of any kind? They get paid on the clock, or by the job. That's it.

If I'm wrong, please let me know.

The part of a work for hire agreement whereby you offer the performers a percentage is completely optional. Yes, you can pay someone by the clock or the job and that's it.

Not having a written agreement means you can't legally use the recordings in film/TV. The recording must be 100% free and clear as far as rights to ownership, potential future claims, etc.

NOT A LAWYER, NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Casey

Casey H wrote:

Rossmusic wrote:Are these work for hire agreements examples of agreements that are worse than if you had no written agreement at all?

In other words, absent specific agreement are work for hire performers entitled to any royalties of any kind? They get paid on the clock, or by the job. That's it.

If I'm wrong, please let me know.

The part of a work for hire agreement whereby you offer the performers a percentage is completely optional. Yes, you can pay someone by the clock or the job and that's it.

Not having a written agreement means you can't legally use the recordings in film/TV. The recording must be 100% free and clear as far as rights to ownership, potential future claims, etc.

NOT A LAWYER, NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Casey

Thanks Casey.

I wasn't thinking about this correctly. Even if you pay someone on the clock, you still have to be able to prove that you own the recording, or Master. In the old days the record company would own it. As songwriters hiring singers and musicians we have to ensure we can prove ownership of the recording.

There could be problems in other areas of self-publishing than film/TV if you were unable to prove ownership of the Master.

A proper WFH acknowledgment would make your ownership clear.

I usually pay a recording fee, and in the work for hire agreement specify an amount that will be paid to the recording artists as a bonus if the song is placed with a good up-front fee.

,
Suz