10 members (Fdemetrio, VNORTH2, Gary E. Andrews, Perry Neal Crawford, couchgrouch, Sunset Poet, Guy E. Trepanier, bennash, Bill Draper, David Gill),
4,088
guests, and
270
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Welcome to the Just Plain Folks forums! You are currently viewing our forums as a Guest which gives you limited access to most of our discussions and to other features.
By joining our free community you will have access to post and respond to topics, communicate privately with our users (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free; so please join our community today!
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 75
Serious Contributor
|
OP
Serious Contributor
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 75 |
(On edit: Moderator, please feel free to bump this to the Industry Forum or wherever you deem appropriate.)
We received an offer for a non-exclusive publishing deal from Music Kitchen. Any advice on the company or the nature of the deal offered would be appreciated.
Dear ***,
Several months ago you sent in a CD for consideration for our music library. We are now back to listening to new material, and we would like to do a non-exclusive deal for your track "****".
The basic agreement is a non-exclusive licensing deal with a 50/50 split. You retain complete copyright ownership and control. What we do is re-title the tracks, and we become publisher for the re-titled track. But because many production companies these days are not paying anything or little upfront, the only way I can provide this service to some of my clients is to act as publisher, and make the publisher's portion of performance rights royalties for any TV or film uses I can place. The composer retains 100% of performance rights royalties, and we take 100% of publisher's share of performance rights royalties for any TV or film uses we can place. Any sync, license or upfront fees would be split 50/50. However, for any uses you place yourself (shopping the originally title cue), you remain the publisher, and we are not involved.
Renaming the cues for our library avoids any confusion with the same tracks having different publishers.
We also include a 90 day opt-out clause, for any reason. This is so if you end up "selling" a cue, or want to shop it exclusively, you have the option. We do this in fairness because we are not commissioning the music, nor paying any upfront fees for the works; we are not looking to own the works in whole or in part.
As part of the deal, we work hard to make sure ASCAP and BMI credit performances, and they result in payment. Using tools and tricks we've learned over the years, we have been able to recover tens of thousands of dollars for music used in problematic areas like commercials, promos, and infomercial use on television. Many composers never receive one cent from uses in these medias. We also complete and send electronically to the PROs the cue sheets, if at all possible.
I have been a fulltime composer in Los Angeles for over 14 years, and have an extensive network of contacts with the networks, production companies, and other music professionals. We are a relatively new library, but we are growing fast.
[This message has been edited by WThe Big Train (edited 09-19-2005).]
[This message has been edited by WThe Big Train (edited 09-19-2005).]
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 776
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 776 |
Using the 'alternate title' method is a legitimate industry practice for publishers to shop songs non-exclusively for licensing deals. In the contract above they would like to publish your song with an alternate title for which they will keep 100% of the publishing for only deals they negotiate. You will still get the writer portion of the royalties, plus half of any upfront money. It looks pretty standard and the 90 day opt-out clause is a nice touch. My band got a placement on primetime TV for one of our tunes that was shopped by a different publisher under a similar deal. I don't know 'Music Kitchen', but I'd take a look at their track record for placements and see if they have existing contacts that they'll be shopping to, or whether they're just starting. Hope this helps, Christine www.thedropband.com
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 75
Serious Contributor
|
OP
Serious Contributor
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 75 |
Thanks, Christine.
That's something like what I figured.
Do you think such an unexclusive deal copuld block a subsequent deal with a publisher or label or someone who wants an exclusive on the song or the album or the catalog?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 527
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 527 |
Obviously it would 'gum up the works' with another publisher...
If you were lucky (and good) enough to find a publisher who had any sort of contacts for getting a real 'cut' from a name artist, why would he (or the artist) want to take a chance doing the song, only to have someone somewhere else beat them to the punch in introducing the new song?
That's a lot of time and money wasted on their part, not to mention loss of face/credibility...
Or that fact that any faint hint of rights complications, hence a possible lawsuit (should one side or the other have success with the material first) sends most publishers and/or producers running in the opposite direction.
That being said, unless you've got some contact with a big name publisher, I wouldn't worry about it and go ahead and make the deal with the other company... who knows what luck you might have with them.
Just remember to tell anyone else to whom you're pitching the material of the agreement you have with this outfit.
And I would ask them for a clause with the right to opt out after two years, not merely within 90 days... just in case somewhere down the road you do want back the sole exclusive rights of publisher (assuming Music Kitchen wound up not doing anything with the material).
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 75
Serious Contributor
|
OP
Serious Contributor
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 75 |
Thanks all.
This isn't a pop song, but an instrumental that I glean they're looking at for commercial or TV licensing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 13,618
Top 10 Poster
|
Top 10 Poster
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 13,618 |
I took it the 90 day opt out as it probably would be similar to what some pros have to come into effect if a member wants to shift pros at any time Robert. They require 90 day notice before the intended change over for any of your works they currently are representing you on. Maybe it is meant as you put it though. Not reading the full agreement clouds that issue. hence the "show ya brief" suggestion. Your factor on the worry for any publisher is a major concern also. Graham ------------------ http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhenderson_music.htm
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 776
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 776 |
What it came down to for my band (in the deal I talked about above) is... we wouldn't have been able to get a primetime TV placement on our own, so it was worth it to give a publisher's cut to the one who negotiated the deal for us... To take the opportunitin hand rather than worry about gumming up the works for 'future' deals.
We always felt that we have enough material that we would have other things to sell.
Also, in terms of credits: we can now say that one of our songs (and recordings) was included in a Primetime TV show.
Licensing with an 'alternate title' worked really well for us.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 527
Serious Contributor
|
Serious Contributor
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 527 |
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">To take the opportunitin hand rather than worry about gumming up the works for 'future' deals.</font> Exactly... that's why my previous post stated: "That being said, unless you've got some contact with a big name publisher, I wouldn't worry about it and go ahead and make the deal with the other company... who knows what luck you might have with them.[This message has been edited by RobertK (edited 09-20-2005).]
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 75
Serious Contributor
|
OP
Serious Contributor
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 75 |
Thanks all.
I read the 90-day opt out as a one-time-only opportunity to cut and run after 90 days, not an ongoing opportunity to withdraw with 90 days notice. The deal is in the mail. We'll see.
|
|
|
We would like to keep the membership in Just Plain Folks FREE! Your donation helps support the many programs we offer including Road Trips and the Music Awards.
|
|
Forums117
Topics125,717
Posts1,160,950
Members21,470
|
Most Online37,523 Jan 25th, 2020
|
|
"If one man can do it, any man can do it. It is true. But the real question is, if one man did it, are you willing to do what it takes to do it as well?" –Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
|
|