# PRO’s and Royalty Splits ( Comp. / Pub. )



## Notes (Apr 12, 2017)

Hi folks ,

I’m currently investigating what kind of royalty splits the various PRO’s offer their
members by default , when registering a work that includes *one composer* and *one publisher* .

Is it 50/50 .
Or … / … ?

While several European PRO’s collect both Performing Rights as well as Mechanical Rights for their members ( opposed to ASCAP , BMI ) the splits in these two categories might also be varying .


Because music royalties are so important it would be interesting to know if there are PRO’s out there
which are more in favour of the composers/lyricists and offering a higher split to them by default .

Due to the fact that here are so many composers from various countries it would be great if you could share this information .

Below I've included a PDF file that lists Performing Rights- and Mechanical Rights Organisations in various countries .

Merci beaucoup ,
Maurice


----------



## Gerd Kaeding (Apr 12, 2017)

GEMA

Performing Rights: 66,67% (Composer ) / 33,33% (Publisher)
Mechanical Rights: 60,00% (Composer ) / 40,00% (Publisher)


----------



## Notes (Apr 14, 2017)

Thanks buddy . 

Forgot to provide my own PRO's split:



SACEM

Perf. Rights: 66,67 (Comp + Author ) / 33,33 (Pub)
Mech. Rights for Broadcast : 50 ( Comp + Auth ) / 50 (Pub)



Anyone else out there to share the default splits of his/her PRO ?


- Maurice


----------



## muk (Apr 15, 2017)

SUISA

Performing rights: 66.67% (composer) / 33.33% (publisher).

Apparently that is in conformity with a european standard called 'CiISAC key'.

Mechanical rights: 60% (composer) / 40% (publisher), or 50% (composer) / 50% (publisher) 'if the publisher assumes the sound (and video) recording production costs'.


----------



## Notes (Apr 15, 2017)

muk said:


> SUISA
> 
> Performing rights: 66.67% (composer) / 33.33% (publisher).
> 
> Apparently that is in conformity with a european standard called 'CiISAC key'.



Ah , thanks for that hint ! Much apreciated.

- Maurice


----------



## muk (Apr 15, 2017)

No problem. Btw I misspelled it, it's called CISAC key. Sorry for that.


----------



## erica-grace (Apr 15, 2017)

Notes said:


> I’m currently investigating what kind of royalty splits the various PRO’s offer their
> members by default , when registering a work that includes *one composer* and *one publisher* .



My understanding is that the split is up to the composer and publisher, and that the PRO has no say in the matter.


----------



## Notes (Apr 15, 2017)

erica-grace said:


> My understanding is that the split is up to the composer and publisher, and that the PRO has no say in the matter.



Hi ,
as you can see from the examples above there are PRO's out there which - _when both the composer and the Publisher are regular members_ - split the royalties according to a certain key .


- Maurice


----------



## erica-grace (Apr 15, 2017)

Hi again 

First off, it is PROs (plural) not PRO's 

Secondly, I don't know what "split the royalties according to a certain key" means. The split is between the publisher and the composer(s). So, when I give music to a music library, the contract says that I get 100% writers, and the library gate 100% publishing. There is no "key", it is we who decide who gets what - ASCAP does not decide.


----------



## Gerd Kaeding (Apr 15, 2017)

erica-grace said:


> ... when I give music to a music library, the contract says that I get 100% writers, and the library gate 100% publishing. There is no "key", it is we who decide who gets what - ASCAP does not decide.



Concerning ASCAP and BMI in the U.S. :
Although the term _100%_ writer share and _100%_ publisher share is the common way a split is described
in the U.S. , it actually results in a 50/50 split of the complete royalty cake.



@Notes/ Maurice , you are with SACEM , right ?
I've sent you a PM . I need some contact info about them .


----------



## Notes (Apr 15, 2017)

Gerd Kaeding said:


> @Notes/ Maurice , you are with SACEM , right ?
> I've sent you a PM . I need some contact info about them .


okay , no problem


----------



## Notes (Apr 15, 2017)

erica-grace said:


> Secondly, I don't know what "split the royalties according to a certain key" means. The split is between the publisher and the composer(s). So, when I give music to a music library, the contract says that I get 100% writers, and the library gate 100% publishing. There is no "key", it is we who decide who gets what - ASCAP does not decide.



As Gerd said above ASCAP splits the performance royalty into 50/50 by default.
This is the "key" for ASCAP .

Of course other percentages might be negotiated seperately by the two parties ( comp. and pub. ) , but I wanted to gather infos about the basic split between composer and publisher each PRO has set .


----------



## erica-grace (Apr 15, 2017)

Gerd Kaeding said:


> Concerning ASCAP and BMI in the U.S. :
> Although the term _100%_ writer share and _100%_ publisher share is the common way a split is described
> in the U.S. , it actually results in a 50/50 split of the complete royalty cake.



Not necessarily. It's whatever the contract says between writer and publisher, which sometimes is a 50/50 split, and sometimes is not. Again, point being, this is not decided by the PRO, and there is no PRO "default". The PRO goes by whatever the cue sheet says.


----------



## Daryl (Apr 16, 2017)

In the UK (PRS) the only thing that is mandatory is that the Writers' share of Performance Royalties must be at least 50% of the total. This is why it is impossible to do a "buyout" when one is a PRS member.


----------



## Notes (Apr 16, 2017)

Daryl said:


> In the UK (PRS) the only thing that is mandatory is that the Writers' share of Performance Royalties must be at least 50% of the total. This is why it is impossible to do a "buyout" when one is a PRS member.


Thanks for the info Daryl !

Question : 
Is "PRS for Music" meanwhile collecting both Performance Royalties and Mechanical Royalties ?
Or is it still PRS = Performance Royalties , MCPS = Mechanical Royalties ?

- Maurice


----------



## Daryl (Apr 16, 2017)

They are two separate organisations and although for a while they operated under the same roof you still need to join both if you want to be a member of both. However, once you join MCPS you have to abide by their rules so it requires thought.


----------



## Notes (Apr 16, 2017)

Daryl said:


> They are two separate organisations and although for a while they operated under the same roof you still need to join both if you want to be a member of both. However, once you join MCPS you have to abide by their rules so it requires thought.


Thanks again for taking the time to provide the infos !

- Maurice


----------

