JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Industry Message Forum Work-for-hire agreement. What is usual?

I recently asked a vocalist if she would be interested in collaborating. She agreed. She would have been listed as a co-writer and with an equal royalty split if the song were ever to be picked up by a publisher, even though she has/had nothing to do with the composition at all: the lyric is entirely mine, and the music, melody, and vocal guideline were provided to her.

When she sent me the scratch vocal two days ago, to my surprise she informed me she was now setting up on a work-for-hire basis. This would involve a fee plus a one-time payment of $750 if the song were to gross in excess of $5000. Fine. I have no problem with that. I have a similar Agreement (though they require a lower one-time payment) with a reputable demo agency.

However, on reading the vocalist's proposed Agreement, I note that in addition to the original fee plus a possible one-time payment of $750, the Agreement also stipulates that "if a contract is signed with a major recording or publishing company, I - as the "Artist" - would agree to use my "best efforts to cause the company to pay the Vocalist the difference between what the Vocalist has already been paid and the American Federation of Musicians session scale."

In addition, if the recording is used in a situation for which "the Artist receives a fee for Master use, if agreed, the Vocalist will receive a percentage of the 50% of the total of combined Synchronization and Master Use fee received by the Artist or a percentage of 100% of the Master Use fee (if paid separately) by the Artist."

Do these terms sound usual for a work-for-hire situation involving a demo? I didn't know it could get this complicated.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I thought work-for-hire meant a one-off fee (and, if agreed, a later one-off payment of a fixed sum), with the vocalist having no further claims on the song. I've already signed precisely this type of work-for-hire Agreement where things were cut and dried. In that particular Agreement it was stated:"The Vocalist agrees the his/her recording in no way constitutes a share or right, in whole or in part, in the legal or artistic ownership of the Work". And further, "In consideration of the compensation described in this Agreement, the Vocalist agrees to irrevocably transfer and grant to the Owner all rights, title, and interest in all copyrights arising from use of the sound recording and provided for under this Agreement... ". I presumed this was typical of a work-for-hire arrangement.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts/experiences.

Thanks!

Donna

Donna, how badly do you want to use this gal? What is she doing
all of a sudden changing your original agreement? A Collab is
a Collab. I'm sorry, but this just sounds like the first step of
trouble. As she gets more leverage on you, = more trouble etc.
Just my SPIDEY SENSES, picking up signals.........Gus

I think Donna its called ' having your cake and eating it.

OK she wrote the melody from what I can read and sung the song.

If you get a deal, she will no longer be the vocalist but will remain the melody writer.

But 'work for hire' I think IMO that has little room for movement unless you sign another agrreement with her.

If it was me, I would consider re-doing the whole song with another singer.

You could have a different melody done and engage a top demo singer for a fair price now and no more due.

She won't be able to do anything with the song cause it has your lyrics... but you can move forward..


Just my 2 cents Donna...

Thanks Gus and Roy for your feedback.

Roy, no she didn't write the melody. She had nothing to do with the composition at all. (I'll add that info to my post above.) Everything was in place: the music, the melody, even the vocal guideline. All she had to do was sing the song.

I believe she's new to this kind of thing, and with people now contacting her and wanting her nice vocals, she probably saw an opportunity to turn it all into a business. No problem there at all. That's her prerogative, and I understand it. But it seems she's not aware of exactly what work-for-hire means.

I'll be interested in other people's thoughts as well.

Interesting issue.

Donna

It helps to have some principles to guide your efforts, when doing this, Donna. I guess that's why you post too.

As far as I know, there are no general guidelines for this (there ARE a couple books, John Braheny, Jason Blume, Donald Passman, as the most frequently cited sources). Check out John's blog on cowriting http://johnbraheny.com/category/articles/songwriting-business/ .

It's business, and sometimes it's a hard bargain. So you have to consult your own gut, and sense how big a punch you're willing to take. Some like it rough

Personally, I would NEVER agree to the terms you describe - I'd rather trash the song and move on. It's only good business when there's a positive motivation to participate from all involved. It sounds like you're pushed over the limit on this one..

You have to realize that there are a million available vocalists, and they're all great, so the market is REALLY competitive! Take a look at fx. http://www.demosinger.com/index.php?logout=1 . Also Pure Vocals have a new offer on master fees (where you can use the tracks commercially) http://www.purevocals.org/Vocalistsx.html. Look under each singer.

I suggest using these fee's as guidelines for your deals.

Note that the terms looks sort of what you describe (a fee if the song grosses over a certain amount ect.), but without the cowriting part, which I think is disgraceful!

Hell, you could recently even get as valid a country vocal as anyone from Heather Cowles for 30$ (probably without the master rights, though, but Im sure you could get a better deal than the one you describe)!

I work with a singer, who's a former recording artist with a bunch of credentials, and I pay her back end 50% of potential licensing fees as well as a singers credit, for commercial work aimed at tv/film ect. I pay nothing upfront, and I've even heard of percentages lower than this, but I like win-win scenarios. Then I know she's motivated to do her best on every song. Im happy with that deal, and I belive she is too. At other times, I think you can get a vocal incl. master rights, for between 100-150$ (mostly including backing vocals). Male vocals seem to be a little more expensive, due to the lower competition, I believe.

These rates are about the same with pro studios, so take that as the 'industry standard'. A pro studio like http://www.nashvilledemostudio.com/articles.htm has master rights included in their fees, so there's no extra hassle. But be sure to ask in each case, as all studios will offer you the master rights for a reasonable fee. I've found that Nashville studios are among the worlds most reasonable places to shop for demos, they do a lot more than country, and the musicianship can't be beat!

The ground rule you ALWAYS should protect yourself with in a work-for-hire situation, is to NEVER give away any of your mechanical royalites (copyrights).. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER! The synchronisation/ licensing shares will be negotiable, depending on how instrumental the part is in selling the song and the credentials of the musician (a great vocalist is always the most important part of selling the song).

But business wise, it'll simply not be sustainable for you to give away royalties like that (unless you are ACTUALLY cowriting!). If it's all fun and so forth, do what you want and get the music out there for free, but you won't make a dime. You can have all the credentials you want, if that's your motivation, but they'll not make you a dime, either.

The only thing that'll generate income for you will be a song somebody wants so bad, that they are willing to risk something of their own to get it. THEN you know it's worth something.

In a market as competitive as todays, you should be able to make way better deals, Donna. Even as a lyricist, IMO. Not many are making money in the music business, so your expences should reflect that.

I suggest you stay away from deals like this, they're just not worth it.

Donna,

Please, please, please tell me this wasn't the person I recommended for for your Gorean song. I just spoke with her this week about working on a project with me and now you have me worried.

nobody can change the deal after its been agreed to and thats whats wrong with this.........she has to ethically-morally go with what was agreed to before her new rules.........I think thats the part that concerns me.........Mike Dunbar would be very good to have come in on this.......you yourself are a contractor as a writer/proof reader/editor-whatever-in your private writing business........you dont change terms or fees after an agreement......

Tom

Thanks so much for that input, Magne. Much appreciated, and I'll read through it closely again! Yes, I'm familiar with the Pure Vocals Agreement, as I've used a couple of their singers. It's quite a reasonable one, with singers making no claim on any part of the song or the Master.

Kevin, no worries, it's not your gal.

Tom, I agree. I was surprised when she came in after the fact and produced the work-for-hire scenario. However, since our original "agreement" was simply an emailed request from me asking if she'd be interested in a collaboration by providing vocals for a song that already had the music and melody - and she agreed to do so - there wasn't a great deal set in stone, so to speak.

Hence, I was willing to go along with the new scenario. She has a marketable commodity - her voice - and clearly people want access to it. So I guess she thought going into the work-for-hire demo business would be a good business opportunity. I don't begrudge her that at all. But those extra clauses kind of threw me for a loop. When I queried them, she said the Agreement was a "standard one". To give the benefit of the doubt, I think someone else must have told her that. In effect, if she insists on using this Agreement she may find she won't get a lot of business, at least not from people who know how important it is to hold on to Master/mechanical rights.

Unless she agrees to waive those clauses, guess I'll look for another singer.

Donna

Whew!

Donna, get yourself another singer. If she is such a great singer and wants to exploite it to the fullest, let her get a record deal and go for it. There are probably as many singers as there are songwriters, some good and some great,much like songwriters. A demo singer will be paid whether that song makes a pemmy for the writer or not, and most will not, so why should she take a share just incase it does make it. No, move on to another singer.

Thanks for your input, Everett. It's certainly clear that those two conditions are in general not acceptable.

To give the benefit of the doubt, I feel the vocalist is simply not well informed. She said she'd stitched together as generic a form as possible, and one similar to what's used by other work for hire companies. She may have picked the wrong ones to look at, or may have been badly advised, especially as it seems this work-for-hire decision was a fairly quick one.

It's only those two clauses ( 1) asking a major company to pay the Vocalist more money and 2) receiving a percentage of the Master Use) that alarmed me. The rest of the Agreement is perfectly "regular" and acceptable, giving the Artist permission and worldwide rights in perpetuity, etc. and stating that the Artist has sole and exclusive rights to copyright ...as the sole owner and author...etc.

I'm confident the vocalist will agree to delete the irregular sections, especially when I explain in what way they're not acceptable. If she does, I'm sure we can work well together. If she chooses not to, it's not the end of the world. There are other singers.

Donna

Donna you lost me a bit there...
- quote ----------
The Artist has sole and exclusive rights to copyright ...as the sole owner and author...etc.
--------- ------------------------

Why would a vocalist want this.. surely the copyright remains with you...

What if the singer givies up singing does that mean you would not be able to offer the song to another singer...

Sorry if I got that wrong.. just seems odd to me...

Is she a top runner Donna...

God Bless roy

God Bless Roy

In this case, Roy, "Artist" refers to the copyright owner.
Different Agreement forms use different terms: one might use "Artist", another might use "Owner". In the form in question, the term "Artist" refers to the owner of the work/the copyright holder. So, nothing sinister there.

She has a lovely voice, and strikes me as being a decent person.
Our communication has been pleasant and co-operative.
I simply feel she was ill-advised or became ill-informed a couple of days ago when she decided to start up a home demo business.

UPDATE: In the meantime, this little "wrinkle" has now been smoothed out. The two irregular clauses have been dropped, so the form is now a "normal" work-for-hire agreement. As I suspected, she wasn't familiar with a "regular" work-for-hire Agreement. It appears she put the bits and pieces together, not realising that those two "irregular" clauses were at odds with what was in the rest of the document. I didn't think there'd be a problem, but wanted to put it to the jury here first.

Donna

.

That is a very nice web site!!!!!

Sorry Donna I didnt know that...

I suppose everyone deserves a chance to put things right.
Which I see is now sorted..

You website is great Donna but I find it so hard to read the black text on the background image.....Maybe if it was bolder..
Or color change for higher inpact

If I highlight it with te mouse it turns white and is easily read...

God Bless Roy

Donna, yes, those two clauses were not consistent with the accepted definition of the term "work for hire." It's good that this got ironed out. Very interesting thread. In the future, we're going to see singing talent, who are the most important and recognizable aspect of a song's recording, looking for ways to be included in the song's potential.

Looking at this from the singer's point of view. Let's say she signs a "work for hire," and then is offered a contract with a major label who is looking to invest millions of dollars in her career. Having many recordings floating around, some of songs that might not be very high quality (not yours, but...well...you can imagine what some could be), recordings that are, legally, able to be released for sale, broadcast, licensing etc., diminishes the singer's value to the label. Why should, for example, Sony invest millions of dollars into a singer who has hundreds or even thousands (or even a small number) of songs ready to flood the market once they have a major hit?

It's a new problem, created by the "work for hire" model. You'll find singers with tremendous potential either refusing "work for hire," or finding creative ways to control or profit from their work.

All the Best,
Mike

It has happened a number of times.
Early in almost every singer's career they do demos.

There are hundreds of Garth Brooks, Trisha Yearwood, (I have four Gretchen Wilson songs) that float around out there. Someone could release them as a collection of songs that singer did.

That can't be done legally. Good posts.

MAB

Marc,

Back when Garth was doing demos at Okie Acres, we didn't use "work for hire" agreements, they were all "demos." Now, songwriters want recordings that they can exploit in any market.

If Garth had signed a "work for hire" agreement on your song that predated his label contract, it certainly could have been legally released. That's the paradigm change that brought about the original topic here.

Well, I see the political controversy (different interests over a longer period of time).

And when it comes to valid political principles, I think the ones wanting the money for their services should take the risk. After all they can just choose not to do work-for-hire, if they are worried about their future - songwriters can't stop writing, if they want to be in the game.

There are just so many singers world wide who can do a great track, that songwriters can just find another if the demosinger won't agree to reasonable terms.

It's like when you take a loan (the demosinger needs money), and it's due (the demosinger pays the interest).

I want the demosingers to succeed as much as anyone, but I can't/ and won't, fight greedy record companies.

As is the multinational record companies doesn't seed too many crops at the moment, and in Denmark they are now pushing the songwriters to accept lower royalty rates for downloads.

It'll be a boring world, if songwriters won't make money anymore..

Magne, the problem is these days, the songwriter is becoming an independent label. I don't blame them for wanting to find every way possible to exploit their songs. There simply will be singers who are willing to do "work for hire" projects, and singers who will not. Many singers will, I'm sure, look for creative ways to find a middle ground. That is what the singer in the O.P. seems to have been doing.

I'm not sure which of the major labels are greedy. The word "greedy" always seemed to me more of an epithet than an objective adjective. I've been accused of being greedy because I want to get paid for my work. I don't think I am, but then I'm not the one who used the word. I don't believe wanting to protect against future releases, possibly of an inferior nature, which could flood a market and affect future return on investment...considerable investmeent...is greedy. Others may disagree.

I would recommend that singers and musicians offer a different price for demos than for masters. This gives the songwriter the option of paying much less for a recording. Frankly, I don't know how many songwriters actually make any money from paid downloads of their songs that were sung by professional singers. Nor do I know how many are making money from licensing. I would guess that very few make any money and that, of those who do make any money at all, very few make enough to pay for the recordings. If my sister were a songwriter interested in getting major cuts, I would recommend that she write songs that fit her target market and negotiate a lower demo rate for her song recordings and concentrate on networking and pitching. If she were interested in selling as an indie and licensing for various apps, then I'd recommend she write songs for that target market, pay master rates, and concentrate on networking and pitching in those areas.

Just my opinion. I always appreciate your thoughtful perspective.

Mike

"I don't believe wanting to protect against future releases, possibly of an inferior nature, which could flood a market and affect future return on investment...considerable investmeent...is greedy."

I think this is greedy, IF you want the money for the work as well. The best way to protect yourself from this, is not to do work-for-hire, which is a perfectly valid approach. But if you actually agree to work for hire, I belive it's wrong to have your cake AND eat it as well.

This is not really a problem, though, as it's perfectly negotiable when the work-for-hire agreement is agreed upon. And as long as there are fierce competition, you can't get away with rip-offs as a work-for-hire, at least not with informed writers. I believe it's a VERY small minority who even does this, and I have not met anyone with this agressive a business approach to this date (but I know how to handle it, if I do).

Personally, I do both. I have some demos, that I only use as publishers demos, but I find myself look for more and more work-for-hire, because the expanded market opportunities to pitch it for tv/film/libraries. These are demos I do myself, though, not studio demos.

I prefer to have an end product, I have a variety of options for (and I want to practice doing my own stuff as well).

Magne, I believe you misunderstood me. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear. I did not mean that the singer wanted "..to protect against future releases, possibly of an inferior nature, which could flood a market and affect future return on investment...considerable investmeent..." I meant that the RECORD COMPANY would want to do that.

I just don't see that as greedy. The singer is looking at making a few hundred dollars doing "works for hire." It is their decision to make...is a few hundred dollars (the "bird in hand"} worth risking a major career (the "bird in the bush?") That's up to them. But for the record company, who is quite possibly investing a lot more than a small fortune in an artist, I don't see it as greedy to expect that the artist is not contracted to dozens of small independent labels waiting for the company to make the artist famous so they can cash in.

Right, I see..

Actually the whole concept of 'greed' is built into the way businesses works. A business is not a serious business if it doesn't do whatever it takes to get the best bottomline it possibly can. So I don't see 'greed' as an individual character trait - and that's also what makes it dangerous IMO.

I've never met a demosinger, work-for-hire or not, I would characterize as 'greedy'. Most musicians are struggling financially, and just wants enough to keep doing music, like songwriters. Big companies are not happy with just that.

I DO understand that record company concern, but I think it's pretty far out. After all, artists changes labels all the time, and it's not much different than that.. an old label releases old recodings, now there's a chance to consolidate when the artist has become popular.

You can even build in a clause, that you can't release new material with the artist, once the artist gets a major deal. I would find that acceptable within the work for hire paradigm.

In particular - I don't use work-for-hire because I want to lucrate on a musicians future popularity, but in order to get my own SONGS ahead! If the conditions change, I'm certainly on the artists side, and don't want to stand in the way for record deals ect.

AND, if one of my songs with the artist already is licenced to a film ect., it's also a potential credit (depending on the context) that can help the singer get a record deal, so those things are not just compromizing. If nothing happens with the song, I think it's ok not to release it with the artist on, after a major record deal, so the song doesn't get ahead just based on the change in status of the singer.

And in the end, if it's REALLY that imporatant for the record company, there's always the option of a buy out.

So, I think it's all about making a proper work-for-hire agreements. One that BOTH protect the songwriters AND the work-for-hire musicians interests, not an either-or. REAL business = win-win IMO. Everything else is fake..

The only thing I know about "work for hire" is that if you do work for a (major) label ~ they own all the rights.... http://www.jakeblakeproject.com on the AMI internet jukebox

I like the website too. I am glad things worked out for you and the vocalist.