JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Songwriter Message Forum royalties for musicians?

here's the link to the article....basically artists want to be paid royalties for airplay even if they weren't the writer....would love to hear your thoughts on this one...seems an uphill battle to me, an already struggling industry in a struggling global economy wants to charge radio more to play their song to hit status when they can't hardly sell enough advertising to keep their own doors open...wonder where BMI,ASCAP,SESAC stand on this issue? i'm sure the labels themselves would love to see it, maybe us writers should b*tch too and get a portion of every t-shirt sale that the big acts sell that has the name of our song on there i really don't blame them for trying to make more money i just think right now is the wrong time to push it through...maybe just ask for bailout money instead mj

http://new.music.yahoo.com/u2/news/complaint-says-top-musician-dissed-over-royalties--61989814

Man, would that get complicated Moker!

One thing to consider; musicians usually get paid upfront for their services, songwriters don't. This would definitely take another cut out of the songwriter's share of royalties (the money has to come from somewhere).

Best, John

i think it's referring to the touring artists whose version of the song is getting the air...still complicated,but i didn't read it that it was session guys but rather the touring performers who are after the additional slice

It may be OK if the writers would get a royality from the gate when artists perform. I understand artists get paid overseas but I don't know how much it is.

It would be a book-keeping nightmare at least and after all the accountants get paid the pickings left over may be mighty slim.

Sorta like Welfare. Let's give it to everybody. Of course radio may just stop playing music if it becomes law.

Moker

Our music publishing company initiated this task here in the philippines. I created a simple Excel file computation to make this so easy.

Actually right now we are asking our songwriters published on us to submit all the names of the people involved in their songs so these people can get a certain amount of royalties in the future.

Here is the link.
http://access2myusik.tripod.com/id21.html

WE call it the Unbundled rates of royalty sharing.

WE have a sample breakdown how royalties are distributed to all the people involved in a single song. This system is applicable in all sources of royalties in the future.

If you can see in the link I provided even song producer/director will get a share too.

Thanks for sharing this news.

Lynman

If the performing artist got a cut of the airplay royalties then it might actually IMPROVE the lot of the songwriter. Right now everyone wants to be the songwriter just to get a slice of the airplay (in some cases).

I actually think that the songwriters-publisher-artist split of airtime royalties makes sense.

Kevin

Kevin, that is an excellent point.

From what I understand, the performers royalties are new, separate royalties and are not to be taken from the share already allocated to the writers and publishers. If the latter is being discussed, it is a new initiative and not part of the original legislative push.

Also, writers do get a share of the ticket sales for live performances. That is what the fees the venues pay to the PROs is for, royalties for the writers and publishers. If artists are performing your songs live and you are not getting any royalties, you had better contact your PRO because they probably own you money.

When are musicians going to share in the cost of promoting the artist, production in the product, insurance for the travel expenses and overall costs of doing business? When they do that they should get a share of all other money coming in.

BMI,ASCAP, etc. are looking at it as an additional way that radio is going to go away.


MAB

At what point are the musicians the artists? Consider the Wrecking Crew or the Funk Brothers. They played as a band on more hits than the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, U2, and several more self contained recording bands combined. Yet they didn't make near the money individually. Then there are the Nashville A Teams.

Over the years, there are a handful of musicians who are responsible for the songs the world whistles, hums, and dances to. More than any group of writers, even Tin Pan Alley, a relatively small group of people have been responsible for a tremendous percentage of popular music. Yet, per person and per hit song the writers get a much larger share of the pie. Even the artists get a much bigger opportunity to capitalize on the publicity afforded by a hit song.

So, if the artists get a share of the performance fees (and logically, why shouldn't Kenny Chesney get paid by radio for playing a Kenny Chesney song?) then at what point to the musicians become artists? Interesting question. We'll see how it shakes out.

If it is decided that musicians get to share in the PRO cut, then I would predict that just as the artist right often cowrites, knocking out many songwriters, the artists would simply record with their road bands which might not be bad for the musicians.

Marc, I don't undersand this statement:

"BMI,ASCAP, etc. are looking at it as an additional way that radio is going to go away."

Do you mean that the PRO's are trying to get rid of radio?

It still seems to me that the musicians that are "paid for hire" are still left out of the equation. If kenney chesney recorded one of my songs, then airplay royalties would be split between the publisher, me and Kenney Chesney (with non paid for hire musicians probably getting some percentage out of Kenny's cut). It does get complicated in a hurry, though.

Kevin

I think that musicians deserve payment when they do demos and then the songs winds up being on a commercial recording / cd release.

I hope Mike Dunbar will explain more fully how this works, but in general, my understanding is that under the terms for Nashville union musicians, they charge only a small amount for demo work, but if that music is later put on a commerical cd, they are entitled to some additional payment depending on how many cd's are made. (This applies, for example, to the demo derby redordings).

Tom

Hmmm..I'd be GLAD to cut the Musicians in on the Airplay Loot IF they'd be Glad to cut the Demos "On-Spec"...heh! (Hey, Same Deal for the Producers & Engineers, too!) ;-):>

Since MOST artists make their bucks offa Concerts these days, I dunno WHY the hands are outstretched to cut into the Writers' Share more & more & more.

But, that's JMO..as a Writer.

Best Wishes,
Stan

Interesting. Like actors who are paid when the tv show they were in is rebroadcast... performers of music would be paid for broadcasts of their recorded performance...?

There are different scales according to the Nashville Musicians' Association. There's a scale for demos (demonstration recordings which can't be sold), a scale for limited pressing (under 10,000 units such as cds pressed), and for full master (unlimited pressing). The major labels and the bigger indies pay for unlimited pressing. A musician getting paid master scale for unlimited pressing, such as a major label uses, would get a little less than $100 per song. The biggest of the session musicians can negotiate a little better and might get a little less than $300 per song.

The USA is about the only country in the civilized world that does not pay the artist and label for airplay. This does not affect the songwriter's or publisher's share of royalties. I don't agree with the musicians getting a royalty for airplay. They are the only ones guaranteed to be paid for their work. If the CD does not sell or get airplay, the artist and label and writers and publishers don't get paid, but the musicians do get paid for their work.

If this royalty does come about, it might benefit songwriters indirectly. Right now the artist are trying to write and get cut in as writers to collect royalties, the song might not be the best available, therefore it might get little airplay. If the artist can look and obtain the best songs available, even if their name is not included as writer, they just might get a lot more airplay and make their money on artist royalties.

Mike,

I was at both ASCAP and BMI last week and they are struggeling with the same debate. We have a struggling market where no one is wanting to pay for anything and they are having trouble collecting as it is. If more restrictions and requirements come along, they will simply change formats to avoid even more taxing of the income. And a little bird told me that Clear Channel may be filing for bankruptcy next week. The downfall of the automakers take away a lot of advertising revenue.
BMI and ASCAP are trying to concentrate more on Ring Tones, and finding places like Gyms that use music to try and make up for downfalls that are coming everywhere like a freight train.
Look for the next government bailout to come soon which means control of content. In addition, there are bills working through congress to police the Internet as well.
And look for artists except for the very top of the heap to stop recording any outside songs. Musicians are paid up front for everything they do and assume no liability for failure. they are still paid. Artists and writers are not.
An artist derives the majority of his or her income through merchandising. Touring is very expensive. So T-shirts, hats, etc. have been the main way to make income for many artists. Brooks and Dunn, Gretchen Wilson make around $200,000 per night on that. But there are very few of those size artists.

MAB

interesting points of view folks, thanks for all your comments...i haven't changed my mind yet...i still think it's a bad economy to try and push through another slice for anyone, and we're talking about the touring artists here getting more if they didn't write the song, not the writers getting less...digital has in all practicality cut the size of each sale way down...instead of a $15 cd we now sell a .99 cent download...the session players chose their vocation- they are in that market because they wanna be...big radio is so political now i have a strong hunch this has all been handled by lobbyists and the outcome is a moot point, i don't believe any bailout bucks are going to come the way of the entertainment industry, the public in general is sick up to the ears about hearing about bailouts, the Obama administration doesn't have many more bailout accounts to pull from, if they keep going to the well it will adversely effect public opinion and they will only let that dip down so far...tough spot in alot of ways, any industry who survives by a large portion of their revenue coming from ad $$ is hurting in a big way...i would be curious as to who was in the room when this whole snowball was dreamed up? and who appointed Bono posterboy be well...moker

Hmm, frankly the bailout for many musicians is already here. Unemployment insurance is giving many artists/musicians the freedom to do their thing and get a reliable paycheck. (tongue only partly in cheek)

-Ethan

in spain there is an association called AIE (ASSOCIATIONG FOR MUSICIANS) rights are NOTHING to do with the author rights that are collected separately and they never interfere with them. It's a different collecting that they take from radios and tvs and other streams (not from concerts actually) and they go to the "PERFORMERS", basically you have a right like so when you make a solo, or you are the "singer" of a song, so you get a fee as performer when the song is broadcasted, this fee has nothing to do with the author rights which goes exclusively to the writers.

I've jumped both sides of the fence on this one, but I think I've finally landed on the side that asks why would we change an agreement about musician compensation only after a song makes a lot of money? If it's a work for hire, the deal is made and done--you play your part, get paid and go home. If the song earns ten bucks, you still got paid. If the song earns a million you still got paid...only now, you want a piece of the big pie.

I don't see where that line is drawn...it appears to be a movable line that only gets moved when the song is a success. So I'm back to square one, thinking the way it is now is fair enough.

If it's going to change, it should be on a contractual basis...but how can you go back and decide that original deals are no longer fair, no longer valid? Does it only count for successful songs? Would we go back and have the musicians on songs that made people go broke pay some money to the songwriters to even out the load? Doubt it.

I think this would fall under Related (neighbouring ) rights. These are right outside of the copyright for composers lyricists and publishers. In Trinidad we have a organisation Rerapp (Related rights agency of producers and performers). This organisation covers the rights of producer and performers while our PRO songwriters etc.

So even though I do a cover of a song I get royalties for my version of the performance. I think this is great as musicians who play on a cd or at a gig will receive something as well.