Well known Library taking part of writers share...

[DesireInspires]

Sorry Charlie. The game has changed.

Adapt accordingly.....

[Kolstad]

PMA will come out with a public statement about giving up writers shares soon. Morgan (from PMA) wrote that composers should stand their ground on Facebook earlier in July, so OP could try to contact them. They will help you out on this issue.

[JohnnyP]

PMA will come out with a public statement about giving up writers shares soon. Morgan (from PMA) wrote that composers should stand their ground on Facebook earlier in July, so OP could try to contact them. They will help you out on this issue.

Thanks for that info Kolstad. Morgan's a wonderful advocate for us but I hadn't heard the PMA was going to release an official stance on this subject. I did attend some raucous PMC meetings out at the Lowes in the fall of '18 and '19 so I had a general sense of where a majority of the writers that attended that seminar stood.

Here's a case in point for not taking the buyout/dilution of your writer's share from a few months ago..

I was offered the option of a buyout on one of my songs by a huge streaming company, you know the name. The song aired for :45 seconds on an episode in April and the 10 episode show was the most popular show on the network. It was a sync fee of between 5-10k and I had the option to just fill in an amount for the buyout. I opted to keep my back end.
The sweetest part is this placement was through a sync agent. She received 35% of the sync, I received 65% of the sync plus I received 100% of the writers and 100% of the publisher's share.

I know this example may be a bit like comparing oranges to tangerines but my point is to hold on to as much of the interest and control of your creative work as possible.

[stevebarden]

Holy crap, you guys, is this what it has come down to?

Please. Please, please, please DON'T EVER ACCEPT LESS THAN 100% WRITER'S SHARE.

Are you feeling desperate? There is never a good reason to give in to this. I get it that the economy is struggling right now and everybody is just trying to stay afloat. But by taking less than 100% of YOUR MONEY you hurt not only yourself but the entire industry. Don't contribute to this horrible business model.

Sure, there will be desperate composers who will agree to this just so they can earn something. But here's what happens:

1. You will never again be offered 100% of writer's share by this company once you accept this - even if their business becomes profitable again.

2. What happens if in one year, or two years, or five years things aren't much better and they decide they now need 60%, 70%, or more of your writer's share? They know you're desperate and will take whatever they offer.

3. The more people that agree to this sets a precedence. You've now contributed to the demise of the industry.

How can you get around this? Become invaluable. Write great music. If you are only capable of writing shitty music then you will never be able to demand what you're worth. Work hard and improve your skills. Put together albums of 10, or 20 tracks of GREAT MUSIC that the INDUSTRY WANTS and can be marketed immediately. Make it easier for them to sell your music and harder for them to refuse to pay you what you're worth.

[Casey H]

Thank you Steve for a voice of reason!

Casey

[Kolstad]

Another angle here is also, if libraries begin to take writers shares, they basically can play writers out against each other, with the argument «well, if we just had 5% more of the track, we would pitch it to our best opportunities» ect. Its a slippery slope, and that beast will eat up the composers who signs with them. I feel sorry for those who are tricked into this by their own mind.

[cosmicdolphin]

Write great music. If you are only capable of writing shitty music then you will never be able to demand what you're worth. Work hard and improve your skills.

Amen to that, some folks seem to rock up here thinking Taxi is an easy way to make 'mailbox money'.....then you listen to crap they're churning out ...If only these people put a fraction as much effort into learning some music skills as they do promoting themselves.

[DesireInspires]

Amen to that, some folks seem to rock up here thinking Taxi is an easy way to make 'mailbox money'.....then you listen to crap they're churning out ...If only these people put a fraction as much effort into learning some music skills as they do promoting themselves.

I wouldn’t say that. Promotion is definitely the better way to get work. Plenty of talented guys and girls are not successful simply because they are not getting noticed. A composer should be finding out ways to stand out from the crowd. Making good music is simply not enough.

[cosmicdolphin]

Amen to that, some folks seem to rock up here thinking Taxi is an easy way to make 'mailbox money'.....then you listen to crap they're churning out ...If only these people put a fraction as much effort into learning some music skills as they do promoting themselves.

Making good music is simply not enough.

I'm not talking about people who make good music here

[AlanHall]

This has been an awesome and scary thread to follow, better I get a grip on this now rather than later. Thank you all for the opinions and points of view on this. As a newbie - and relative outsider - I have these thoughts:
If the library wants 50% of the writer's share (and is not giving up 50% of the publisher's share - I've heard about that arrangement sometime in the past) it sounds to me like a co-write arrangement. So what is the library putting on the table to make that appealing? Do they have support services that enable a songwriter to call in and say (for example) "I'm stuck on this verse, gimme some ideas of how to finish the last four lines" or "Be a pal, and bring me a nice cuppa coffee"? If a library wants part of the writer's share then they need to do part of the writer's work. What part of the writing are they collaborating on? If the answer is none, then the writer's response aught to thoughtfully weigh that.