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: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,001
Top 100 Poster
|
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,001 |
To add a little more about another recent library that a co-writer wanted me to allow one of our songs into. I was against this particular non-exclusive, re-title library by the 3rd page of the agreement. There were so many things wrong with it, that I had to break it down for him to understand.
This morning he called to say that another co-writer he was trying to also bring into the agreement mentioned something on a later page, which I never got to. But it had to do with granting rights to a 3rd party to allow editing of music, to alter it, then allow that altered version to be re-titled yet again, finger printed and or watermarked.
Wow. In addition, there was an earlier clause that said the composer grants this library the right to wave fees to the PROs and determine if they should pay the composer.
That's a library that is claiming to be a haven for over 1800 artists - none of whom I've ever heard of. Seriously, that's a lot of artists getting duped into allowing free use of their work and allowing someone else to fingerprint it to collect on anything. That instantly makes that library's non-exclusive idea a load of BS.
Every non-exclusive library contract I've ever read has very similar terms. Some more than others, but the reality is, it's not smart business from the artist/composer's side.
Another composer I've co-written with once got a "major" Nashville library production house interested in a song we had written. The co-writer was desperate for a placement in a commercial. Which is what they promised. When I read the contract I nearly fell on the floor laughing. I called the co-writer back and said no way. They wanted to take all the publishing and a share of the writing. They wanted 75% of the upfront license fees. They wanted 75% of any sales from release of the song. Those were some of the terms that I remember off the top of my head and there were more that were equally as bad. When I contacted them and asked if there was room for negotiation, they said sure. When I came at them with fair terms that would make both parties money, they said nothing and never got back to us. Obviously they knew at that point they weren't going to be able to rip us off.
I realize this isn't going to change the minds of people that are dead set on re-titles. But they are bad business.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Forums118
Topics129,170
Posts1,186,183
Members21,480
| |
Most Online236,505 Jul 1st, 2026
|
|
|
"Do not endeavor to be the smartest kid in a dumb class. Instead, you are better off being the dumbest kid in the smartest class, where you will be challenged and you will learn. If you aren't growing, you are dying." -Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
|
|