TAXI.com

My question is about whether or not to pay a percentage of YouTube revenue to session musicians? And whether any of that is administered via PROs like BMI or ASCAP?

This is directly related to a recent "indie" song release on YouTube, where I own all the song rights (copyright & publishing) and own the masters of the audio and video. I am the only person who paid money to get this project done.

Most everyone involved with the song and video has been paid by me for the labor, understanding it's a Work for Hire. Two players I paid $1.00 each and am giving them each a small revenue share from YouTube and other sources (music stores & streaming services).

The lead singer was initially paid as a Work for Hire and we also agreed to share some revenue.

Here's the wrinkle:

The lead singer says that in the past when he posted videos on YouTube, there is a place for him to apportion 6% of YouTube net dollars per *player*. This is presumably regardless of the Work for Hire agreements.

(I know that major labels have different terms, but again this is an indie release on my own label.)

So I am unable to locate anything from searching online to back up this 6% stuff for indie music, and don't recall ever hearing this before.

Anyone know anything about this? He is asking me for PRO (BMI, ASCAP) for the players to enter into YouTube which makes no sense to me. However I am paying attention because he's had a few videos in the million views range and generally seems knowledgable.

I saw some other, older discussions here where the writer/producer did Work for Hire with each session player, and avoided percentages entirely.

thanks in advance

I found this on splitting revenue from a channel or an individual video - https://www.usestir.com/support-answers ... plits-work

However, a Work for Hire is a Work for Hire. That signed agreement says that the person who signed it agrees and affirms that they have been paid up front and in full and that nothing more is owed to them & that the master belongs to you free and clear. Essentially, they received the agreed upon amount before any money was earned, and that's it. You can certainly share things out of the goodness of your heart but imo that's a bit of a slippery slope, especially if you are going to be releasing music, playing it live, or pitching it for film/tv. IMO you need to be clear that they have been paid.

If you agreed to pay them a share of future earnings, then the percentage owed to them should be in the agreement and that is what you should be paying.


just my opinion on the matter.
H

hummingbird wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 13, 2022 1:00 am

I found this on splitting revenue from a channel or an individual video - https://www.usestir.com/support-answers ... plits-work

However, a Work for Hire is a Work for Hire. That signed agreement says that the person who signed it agrees and affirms that they have been paid up front and in full and that nothing more is owed to them & that the master belongs to you free and clear. Essentially, they received the agreed upon amount before any money was earned, and that's it. You can certainly share things out of the goodness of your heart but imo that's a bit of a slippery slope, especially if you are going to be releasing music, playing it live, or pitching it for film/tv. IMO you need to be clear that they have been paid.

If you agreed to pay them a share of future earnings, then the percentage owed to them should be in the agreement and that is what you should be paying.


just my opinion on the matter.
H

I used to advise to offer this if you want and put any future percentages such as N% of future sync fees in a WFH agreement. However, someone I know had a song rejected by the critical library when they showed them a WFH agreement with that clause-- from the library's POV (and very reasonable) if you owe someone else money, it's not free and clear. So I never offer anything other than the once and done fee and caution against it. Not taking any chances that my being committed to someone else means my song is not truly free and clear.

Good point Casey!! Thanks for that info

Don't give a Library a reason to reject the track.

Complicated tangled deals with multiple parties will complicate things to the point they will probably pass.

Keep WFH as WFH. Go even splits on everything for genuine co-writes

Thanks everyone for your wisdom and assistance!