TAXI.com

I've been with TAXI for about a year now and have had 7 songsforwarded. I just recently received my first offer. I was somewhat shocked that the licensing company (it's based in So. California) would not share in any of the publishing. That's right. They're willing to split the up-front licensing 50/50 - but they want all of the publishing % for whatever they negotiate.The agreement/contract however, is non-exclusive - But isn't 100% of the publishing beyond extreme? Does anybody have an opinion or experience with licensing that they are willing to share?

This is a very common scenario, particularly with libraries and publishers.

Thanks for sharing that...I suppose it's open for negotiation (to some degree) if you'resomewhat established....

Maybe, if you're somewhat established, but I think that's a pretty standard deal. Usually the non-exclusive deals come with some sort of revision clause anyway, which means you can get it back if it doesn't do a certain amount of business after a certain amount of time.If you're pretty established, you might be commissioned to write for a library (i.e.: they actually pay you to write for them). In that case, it's a work for hire which means they own the copyright (and the publishing) forever. You still get the writer's share of the performance royalties (50% of the total) but they own all rights to that music. Again, a pretty standard deal, even if you're established. Danny Elfman doesn't own any of his film scores, he has to get permission from the film studio that owns the score (the ones who paid him to write it) to have an orchestra play them at a concert!!Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.Mazz

Thanks for elaborating on this topic...

I would add that (at least in my understanding) being the publisher is all about dealing with permissions and licensing of a song, while being the writer (words & music) is about who created and owns the song.Splitting who handles the permissions (e.g. splitting the publishing responsibilities and income) would create so much more work, as everything would have to go through 2 or more people every time a business or decision matter related to the song comes up (and there are lots of these). Hence, usually having one publisher for a song is pretty standard -- and is the most simple and efficient way to handle the biz side of how a song is used.As someone who has expanded my role of being a publisher on behalf on numerous collaborators on a particular project, I'm beginning to experience just how much publishers do. They really earn that 50% of the income!As long as the publisher offers you non-exclusive rights (other than for the use for which they are representing your song), then you should be well protected -- and well represented by the publisher who is there to ensure your success along with theirs.At least that's how it seems to me.Best regards,Suz

Another way to think of it, in addition to Suz's astute comments:If a publisher has 50% of the publishing, they might not be as motivated to push that piece as they would another one that they own 100% of the publishing on. That's not to say they wouldn't, but, if they have two similar pieces to choose from, both equal in quality, I would venture to guess they'd pick the one they could make more money on. Wouldn't you? This is business, after all!!Mazz

Even if things don't work our as desired, congrats on at least getting an offer. Seven forwards and an offer in your first year is a situation a number of first year members would not mind being in.Hang in and keep up the good work!GB

there's absolutely no way to argue with those facts and figures. what is - is. fair or otherwise ...but at the risk of sounding just a little bit jaded on the side of the musician here, and yeah, I know my heart lives in dreamworld, but what if - just what if ... the licensing company didn't have music to negotiate with?in as much as it might be a standard deal and better than nothing ... if the downline handlers had 100% of nothing, where would they be?but that's impractical and impossible and yeah I think I'll just shut up now ....

When you refer to "publishing" in a non-exclusive deal, that usually means the publisher's share (50% of the pie) of performance royalties (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, SOCAN, etc)... Typically you haven't given up the true publishing rights to your music.Yes, this is a very common scenario- they vary- sometimes they will only take 50% of the publisher's share.... But bear in mind that the publisher's share is 50% of the PRO revenue to start with. The writer's share is the other 50% anyway- that's always yours. I had three tracks on TV this year from a library that pays no share of upfront license fees and takes the entire publisher's share. I received only "back-end" checks from ASCAP..... Couldn't be happier... Without this library (which lists with taxi, BTW), I would not have had these successes. 50% of something is way better than 100% of nothing. If the library has a good track record, it's worth taking the deal assuming all other factors are OK.HTH Casey Casey