TAXI.com

Taxi forwarded one of my tunes to a library in January. The library contacted me last week and asked for three more. I shipped off some new tunes and they accepted all three!I just received a contract from them and was curious if anyone is familiar with these two clauses and what you may think of them. I realize you aren't lawyers so I will not hold any one responsible for any action I may take. I just want to know what some of you who have more experience think.6. "the Library" shall not be required to pay monies to or otherwise compensate COMPOSER for any reason, including but not limited to the licensing, mechanical, synchronization, and or any other income that may be accrued by "the Library" resulting from the licensing, exploitation, and distribution of COMPOSITIONS embodied in the LIBRARIES.(a) Notwithstanding the foregoing, proceeds from any single or individual track (non-blanket) license fee will be split 50/50 with COMPOSER.Am I missing something? It seems as if the two clauses are in conflict. Thanks,mewman

May 12, 2009, 6:11pm, mewman wrote:Taxi forwarded one of my tunes to a library in January. The library contacted me last week and asked for three more. I shipped off some new tunes and they accepted all three!I just received a contract from them and was curious if anyone is familiar with these two clauses and what you may think of them. I realize you aren't lawyers so I will not hold any one responsible for any action I may take. I just want to know what some of you who have more experience think.6. "the Library" shall not be required to pay monies to or otherwise compensate COMPOSER for any reason, including but not limited to the licensing, mechanical, synchronization, and or any other income that may be accrued by "the Library" resulting from the licensing, exploitation, and distribution of COMPOSITIONS embodied in the LIBRARIES.(a) Notwithstanding the foregoing, proceeds from any single or individual track (non-blanket) license fee will be split 50/50 with COMPOSER.Am I missing something? It seems as if the two clauses are in conflict. Thanks,mewman-- means you only get synch fees if your individual composition is licenced. if the entire library is licenced (a blanket licence) you don't receive synch fees (but you get your back end (royalties).

^^^Exactly.

... I should add, if this is the library I think it is... several of us are signed to that library, and saw no issue with this.

Thanks Vikki and Chris. Your input is greatly appreciated.Mewman

Learning!!! Keith

So it appears that a library such as this would be pushing to primarily obtain blanket license fees as this would be a more viable option for clients and a convenient way of avoiding the payment of 50/50 proceeds to the writer for the single or individual track. I can understand that contributing to a an entire library (blanket license) would increase one's chances of a placement, but, this would be at the cost of forfeiting the up front split. Why is this not a concern?

May 16, 2009, 2:07am, lukeyfingers wrote:So it appears that a library such as this would be pushing to primarily obtain blanket license fees as this would be a more viable option for clients and a convenient way of avoiding the payment of 50/50 proceeds to the writer for the single or individual track. I can understand that contributing to a an entire library (blanket license) would increase one's chances of a placement, but, this would be at the cost of forfeiting the up front split. Why is this not a concern?If this is the library I think it is, they have made many placements for members which resulted in back-end ASCAP or BMI (or other PRO) checks. I have a friend who has received quarterly BMI checks of over $1000.... Not saying that's typical, but it is very possible in a few years.Everything's tradeoff... Here the trade is blanket licensing for more placements. Up-front license fees are shrinking rapidly with there being so much music out there. Some TV networks who, even if you work with them directly, are paying $0 up-front. The bigger source of income is usually on the back-end anyway. I'm not saying no license fee is the most desirable thing in the world-- just practical realities.A library such as this (might be this one) placed my music on FIVE TV networks so far. I've earned a few hundred and more will come in. One placement was on a major network with international distribution so a lot more is expected. And while I'm not getting RICH on this money, listing the credits on my bio and including them in industry correspondence has been very helpful. It opens doors.Signing tracks to a library which pays no license fees but has a solid track record of placements is better than signing with one who offers everything but can't get the job done anyway.Best of luck! Casey

May 16, 2009, 2:07am, lukeyfingers wrote:So it appears that a library such as this would be pushing to primarily obtain blanket license fees as this would be a more viable option for clients and a convenient way of avoiding the payment of 50/50 proceeds to the writer for the single or individual track. I can understand that contributing to a an entire library (blanket license) would increase one's chances of a placement, but, this would be at the cost of forfeiting the up front split. Why is this not a concern?it's really up to the individual songwriter/composer if they are willing to sign tracks non-exclusively in this manner. Seems to me that, everytime a blanket licence is issued, any number of tracks in the library could be used. That means your track is being pitched every single time a blanket licence is issued. Every time your track is pitched, you have a chance of a placement. Every placement garners royalties. If the library has a good rep and is very active, I can't see the downside.As to the question of synch fees - you DO get your share of synch fees if your *individual track* is licenced.

It seems to me that in the end, the issue is always the same. If someone likes my music, they will pick it. Ultimately, I would prefer that the music was placed exclusively and I got a piece of any blanket licensing. I mean, without my music as part of their library, they would have no product to push. This business is not known for putting the artist first, however. Just read Donald Passmans book!On the other hand, these non-exclusive, I own my copyright deals sound good in some ways but are not so sweet of a deal in others. I already have piles of music laying around my studio that I can do whatever I want with and that is owned by me. Again, in the end, what matters is if the stuff gets placed and I get a credit and check. I've pretty much decided to just say thank you, sign these agreements (three different libraries now!) and pray I attract some attention and get my music chosen for SOMETHING (like the theme music for a wildly successful TV sitcom!). If the publisher is legit, they are out there working to get my stuff included in the pile of music they distribute. All I can say is PICK ME, PICK ME!!!Mewman