TAXI.com

I've tried to peruse similar topics here, sorry if this is the same ol' same ol' kind of topic, but I'm pretty pressed for time to make a decision on a library "offer", which is as follows:

-Composer receives 50% of "all pro-rata NET profits actually received" by the (sub) publisher.

-Exclusive IN PERPETUITY.

-No upfont $.

Now so far this deal appears patently lousy to me - the only 2 back end royalty related things that have me considering it are:

1) the (sub) library guy interested in the 3 tunes in question supposedly has an immediate need for music in this genre for a reality show.

2) The main associated library has been placing other tunes of mine in some reality shows on History channel, A&E, etc. , which I do appreciate (they got them from an altogether different sub publisher/library).

So do I ask for better contract terms, such as a 3 year reversion, risking the library completely losing interest?

Bejeebering minds want to know

Having recently found myself on the wrong end of an "in perpetuity" deal, I'd say that requesting a 3-year reversion is very reasonable. It would also be reasonable to include a provision that if the company is successfully getting placements for your pieces, you would give them the option to extend the contract for another 3 years.

Richard

Nice thinkin' there Richard about including their option of the extension based on placement success.

I had a production company once very willingly add some language in a licensing contract where they agreed to submit cue sheets, but I haven't yet encountered a library willing to bother altering contract language for 20, let alone 3 tunes. I guess I may be giving that a shot again though.

it if were me, and I had no other current outlets for that particular music, and it had a good chance of being placed by the publisher, I would probably go ahead.

caveat - if they are instrumental pieces, and you can crank out new ones relatively quickly.

If you are in love with these songs, do not sign.

Otherwise, go for it.