# Publisher's laws in Canada - Is this deal legal?



## Valérie_D (Oct 11, 2021)

Dear fellow composers,

Thank you for chimming in if you know something about the laws in Canada regarding publishing.

One of my first library based in Montreal asked for 75 % of the royalties, so the publisher's share plus 25 % of the writer's share.

I have earned money from that library and I asked for a 50/50 deal but they were set on 75 % so I signed their exclusive contract.

I did earned money every year with this company but I heard Christian Henson talk on his youtube channel that legally, the publisher could not earn more than 100 % of the publisher's share.

Christian Henson is based in the UK and I am in Canada so I will ask SOCAN tomorrow and I am aware that I signed their contract but if anyone has informations regarding if they have the right to ask for 25 % of the writer's share in Canada, thank you for mentionning it.


----------



## RonOrchComp (Oct 11, 2021)

I am not familiar with Canadian law, but...

Many TV production companies, as with film studios, take the publishing, in whole or in part. Leaving the publisher to take some of the writers, otherwise they can not make a living.

Let's assume the law (in whatever jurisdiction) says what you say - that the publisher can not earn more than 100 % of the publisher's share. Well, if they give half of the publishing to the production company, they are not earning more than 100% of the publishing - they are earning less. If they take 25% of your writers on top of that, they are still earning less than 100% of the publishing, as the publishing percentage doe snot increase if they take part of your writers.

Unless the law says that the publisher could not earn more than 100 % of the_ total royalties_? Well, if they give half of the publishing to the production company, and take 25% of your writers on top of that, they are still earning 75% of the total royalties.

Ask the publisher if this is the case. They may not tell you how much they give to the production company (they may), but if they tell you that yes, they do give over some, there is your answer, and it would be within the law to do so.


----------



## DoubleTap (Oct 11, 2021)

Mark Ronson has done a documentary series about music production for Apple TV. One of the more extraordinary things about it was that he said that he did end up paying more than 100pc of the royalties on a song because of two separate sample clearances. So he loses money, he says, every time the song is played. 

He could be mistaken I suppose, or could get out of the clearance deals somehow, but he didn't say any of that on the show.


----------



## Valérie_D (Oct 11, 2021)

Hello, in my particular situation, there were no production costs, I just gave some albums to this library.


----------



## jcrosby (Oct 11, 2021)

Unfortunately this seems to be a somewhat recent phenomena so I don't know how it might/might not hold up over time, but from the perspective of it strictly being an _agreement between parties_, if you sign it, you've given them permission to dip into the writer's share.

Mind you I'm in the US, but I can't imagine the laws are any different... Christian may indeed be technically right; the publisher should only legally collect the publishing share. However if they present you with the agreement that specifies this and you sign it you've essentially made it legal for them to do this.

This is happening more frequently unfortunately. (Bigger libraries trying to syphon off writer's royalties). Mind you I'm no lawyer... But it's happening(ed) with enough larger, broadcast-focused companies where someone clearly thinks it's legal if you agree to it...

If you can't wiggle out of it, or the agreement doesn't require being renewed again later, I'd steer clear of libraries that do this in the future, as the more common this becomes the more likely it is for it to become normalized or something you see frequently...


----------



## dgburns (Oct 11, 2021)

You should contact SOCAN. Historically they remit 50/50 writer/publisher. I hold both a writer and publisher account, and there are a number of considerations as to why I do.
If all they are doing is collecting half of your performance royalty, you are givining up half your revenue for nothing to a publisher- SOCAN is doing all the work. If the publisher is actually trying to monetize on your works outside of performace royalty, then they should be able to explain in plain language. That’s a whole other thing.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 12, 2021)

Let me start by saying I'm not an expert on Canadian Copyright law.

However, in the UK the only reason the Publisher can't take more than 50% of Performance Royalties, is that most composers are members of PRS. There is no option to do ay sort of buyout, as that would contravene the agreement you sign when you join PRS. Furthermore, any music you write is automatically covered by this agreement, unless it is covered by a PRO in another territory, such as ASCAP.

So I would say that you are correct that your first port of call is to read your SOCAN contract, and speak to them about it, if there is any doubt.

One other thing. Please be aware that you are not legally entitled to any sync fees of any sort, unless your contract specifically says that you are. SOCAN, or PRS have nothing to do with this.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 12, 2021)

Contact your SOCAN rep, they’ll have some answers for you. Maybe try Jimmy St-Germain.


----------



## RonOrchComp (Oct 12, 2021)

jcrosby said:


> However if they present you with the agreement that specifies this and you sign it you've essentially made it legal for them to do this.



That's not the way it works. You don't "make something legal" by signing a contract. You only make it legal for them to do this, if it's already legal. ie - if there is no law prohibiting signing over x-amt of royalties.

If there_ is_ a law prohibiting signing over x-amt of royalties, and you sign over x-amt of royalties, that contract (or at least that part) is null and void. Remember - the law always supersedes any signed agreement.


----------



## Valérie_D (Oct 12, 2021)

Merci Ned and thank you all for your comments.


----------



## Valérie_D (Oct 12, 2021)

*I called SOCAN and they told me to ask The Canadian Intellectual Property Office




__





Office de la propriété intellectuelle du Canada - Accueil


Office de la propriété intellectuelle du Canada - Page d'accueil




www.ic.gc.ca


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 12, 2021)

Valérie_D said:


> *I called SOCAN and they told me to ask The Canadian Intellectual Property Office
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, very disappointing that they don't know. Jaw-dropping, in fact.


----------



## Valérie_D (Oct 12, 2021)

They simply told me that the rule within SOCAN is 50-50.

I spoke with one person so maybe they do know since in my mind, the SOCAN's royalties are probably distributed according to a law.


----------



## jcrosby (Oct 12, 2021)

RonOrchComp said:


> That's not the way it works. You don't "make something legal" by signing a contract. You only make it legal for them to do this, if it's already legal. ie - if there is no law prohibiting signing over x-amt of royalties.
> 
> If there_ is_ a law prohibiting signing over x-amt of royalties, and you sign over x-amt of royalties, that contract (or at least that part) is null and void. Remember - the law always supersedes any signed agreement.


Well what has happened with one library I know of that has started trying to do this lately is that if the composer signs the agreement the library re-registers the work with a completely new title and assigns 1/2 of the writers share to a 3rd party who is registered as a composer with BMI, ASCAP, etc.

Bands, and co-written works split writing shares all the time, as far as a PRO is concerned it's just a new title registered as a co-written work.. So in that regard I'm pretty sure that if you sign an agreement allowing them to designate a 3rd party as a co-writer they absolutely can get away with it legally...

Perhaps Valerie is referring to it happening differently in her case?


----------



## Valérie_D (Oct 12, 2021)

jcrosby said:


> Well what has happened with one library I know of that has started trying to do this lately is that if the composer signs the agreement the library re-registers the work with a completely new title and assigns 1/2 of the writers share to a 3rd party who is registered as a composer with BMI, ASCAP, etc.
> 
> Bands, and co-written works split writing shares all the time, as far as a PRO is concerned it's just a new title registered as a co-written work.. So in that regard I'm pretty sure that if you sign an agreement allowing them to designate a 3rd party as a co-writer they absolutely can get away with it legally...
> 
> Perhaps Valerie is referring to it happening differently in her case?


I don't think it's the case here, only sub-publishers are mentionned in my SOCAN catalogue.


----------



## Valérie_D (Oct 13, 2021)

Good news, I spoke with the library and the royalties are 50/50, they told me that it was legal to sign the synch 75/25 but that recently, they decided to go with 50/50 with the sync as well for future albums.


----------



## dgburns (Oct 13, 2021)

Valérie_D said:


> *I called SOCAN and they told me to ask The Canadian Intellectual Property Office
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I think the publisher realized that a split of more than 50/50 would not be respected by SOCAN, and seeing as SOCAN is really the only PRO in Canada, it would not make any sense to go up against them. In Canada, the copyright board sets the tariff rates that SOCAN can collect on behalf of it’s members. The strength of the society is the strength of colective bargaining. We collectively have SOCAN negociating on our behalf to collect those performance license fees from all the music users. The collection of these license fees is not a frivolous endeavor, it takes alot of hard work, big data, and good collection people and lawyers. It all happens behind the scenes.
The other organization to look up is CMRRA. They administer a different side of music licensing. But for most composers doing A/V works, the performance royalty stream is really the only one that matters.
I don’t think the 50/50 split is a ‘law of Canada copyright thing’, I think it is part of the SOCAN framework, that everyone agrees to when they sign up to become a member. just like you also agree NOT to accept a blanket buyout for your performance royalties from a music user ( broadcaster say ) if they try to bypass dealing with SOCAN and go direct to you.

anyway…


----------



## Valérie_D (Oct 13, 2021)

*They had the 75/25 deal only for the sync fee and respected from the start the 50/50 standard pro distribution.


----------



## RonOrchComp (Oct 14, 2021)

jcrosby said:


> Well what has happened with one library I know of that has started trying to do this lately is that if the composer signs the agreement the library re-registers the work with a completely new title and assigns 1/2 of the writers share to a 3rd party who is registered as a composer with BMI, ASCAP, etc.
> 
> Bands, and co-written works split writing shares all the time, as far as a PRO is concerned it's just a new title registered as a co-written work.. So in that regard I'm pretty sure that if you sign an agreement allowing them to designate a 3rd party as a co-writer they absolutely can get away with it legally...
> 
> Perhaps Valerie is referring to it happening differently in her case?



I hear you, but still - you can't make something legal by agreeing to it in a contract, if the law already says that something is not legal.


----------



## muk (Oct 16, 2021)

Valérie_D said:


> *They had the 75/25 deal only for the sync fee and respected from the start the 50/50 standard pro distribution.


As far as I know that's perfectly legal. Not a good deal though.

If a library wants part of the *writer's *share, my advise is to walk away immediately. Never write for libraries that take part of the writer's share.

The standard deals in the world of production music are a) no upfront fee. The writer get's the writer's share, the library get's the publisher's share. Sync fees are split 50/50. b) an upfront fee (the amount varies). The writer get's the writer's share, the library get's the publisher's share. Depending on the upfront fee, you get either nothing of the sync fees (library keeps 100% of sync fees), or a part that is smaller than 50%.

Anything that is worse than these two deals, and I would think really hard whether they are worth it. There are hundreds of libraries that offer this standard deal, so I'd need some pretty good reasons to accept worse. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Valérie_D (Oct 16, 2021)

Thank you all for your advices!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Oct 19, 2021)

Valérie_D said:


> Good news, I spoke with the library and the royalties are 50/50, they told me that it was legal to sign the synch 75/25 but that recently, they decided to go with 50/50 with the sync as well for future albums.


Highway robbery, isn't it? I got screwed like this once years ago. SOCAN wasn't much help though, as I had already agreed to it in the publishing contract. Live and learn I guess.


----------



## robgb (Oct 19, 2021)

I don't know the law, but on that kind of deal I would personally have said thanks but no thanks -- although it's probably better than your average book publishing deal.


----------



## cc64 (Oct 31, 2021)

Hi all. Just to add to the confusion in Europe France Germany etc...You can't assign more than 33% for the publisher.


----------

