# Music library deal/contract - what'd you do?



## mwarsell (Oct 26, 2017)

I've been contemplating upon working with them, but after receiving this contract, I'm not sure anymore. The lib has a long reputation of U.S. cable TV background music provider so they know what they're doing. They have blanket deals with these stations.

Key points:

-Composer get 100% of author's backend PROs
-Library X gets 100% of publisher's share
-Exclusive deal
-When/if they sell a catalog, Lib X composers share in 25% of the net profit from the sale
-licensing: composer gets 25%

Then the small print which makes me feel quite uncomfortable:

They want all copyright of every song in perpetuity and throughout the Universe (yes even on Saturn and Pluto) and even after termination of contract they will keep the copyright for the work's age (70 years?).

Hmm. What would you do if you were an aspiring library composer?

edit: it's the work-for-hire loophole in the copyright law


----------



## ColonelMarquand (Oct 27, 2017)

Composer gets 100% sounds weird but I think thats normal

Library gets 100% of PS sounds normal.

Exclusive just means you can't place your tracks (the ones they have of yours) with anyone else.

Don't understand what you mean on point 4

Licensing; writer gets 25%. I think this might mean Sync fees. 25% is poor imo.

In perpetuity copyright sounds normal.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Oct 27, 2017)

I would be skeptical about giving up ownership if all you're getting is the backend and a measly 25% for licensing. Once you sign the music over to them, they own it and you can never use it again.


----------



## kclements (Oct 27, 2017)

Is there a reversion clause? If not, I would ask for one, and then the deal isn't too bad. (I agree that 25% of Sync isn't great, but it is better than nothing, which a lot of libraries are offering now. I might ask for a bit more)

If they want to own the copyright, I would normally ask for some upfront payment. 

But it depends on the library, their placement history, how much are they getting for Syncs, does your sync include any blanket deals they have, the type of music you are writing, what is their client base..... a lot of things go into it. Most often, it isn't as black and white as the agreement may seem.


----------



## JohnG (Oct 27, 2017)

A lot of good points above; @kclements is right that "a lot of things go into it."

If you are writing, for want of a better expression, simple / easy to produce music (as if there is any such thing), then maybe you take a risk with some material and see what happens? I actually never heard of only 25% for a sync fee (I thought 40-50% was standard) but someone else is writing that some libraries give nothing for sync licenses. Sounds awful.

I really only know my own situation; I mostly write reasonably involved pieces with "big sounding" material and lots of notes. I labour over those pieces for sometimes many days, even a week at a time. In that context, if I'm surrendering copyright for good, I want there to be some commitment from the library OR a reversion clause, or both. "Commitment" could take the form of paying for an orchestra (best, in my view) or a decent up-front fee.

Otherwise, they have no incentive even to screen properly the material they get. They can just say, "sure, we'll add it to the catalogue" without even bothering to listen attentively and consider whether, in fact, the material is genuinely suitable for their customers. If it's free, they just add it and forget it.

That creates a problem for the composer. Without a fee or paying for players, their only cost up front is the paperwork, which is trivial. Under that circumstance, they could be (not saying they are, but...) careless about your material, relegating it to page 300 of their website, failing to put it in the right category where it stands a chance of getting a license, or actually even neglecting it completely. "whoops..."

So that would be my main concern. If they have no cost to acquire the material, there is no obvious incentive to weigh whether in fact they are ever likely to license your music or do any work at all to market it.



ColonelMarquand said:


> In perpetuity copyright sounds normal.



Not really, unless they are paying you something, or paying for an orchestra to record.


----------



## Uncle Jesse (Oct 27, 2017)

25% licensing fee is not really a fair arrangement imo mate. The small print sounds pretty harsh as well.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 27, 2017)

"licensing: composer gets 25%"

This is on the low side, but possibly not if they are paying for all recording and mastering costs. If they are not, you need to get them to justify why they are taking such a large percentage.

Net profit means nothing without more details, so expect to be stiffed on that one.

What do you mean by "termination of the contract"? Is this a rolling contract, or a specific work by work contract? if termination is a question of not offering you more writing in future, then as they are still Publishers for your existing tracks, they still have to offer them for licence and you will still get paid.

Is the share of mechanicals/sync based on receipts? Do they have an army of Worlwide Sub Publishers? If so, how much % are they allowed to take before it reaches your Publisher?


----------



## muk (Oct 28, 2017)

The most common deals for exclusive in perpetuity I have heard of are either no upfront and a 50/50 sync split, or a variable amount of upfront money per track and the library keeps 100% of the sync fees. You can ask for a reversion clause, but these are getting more and more rare apparently. In perpetuity seems to be the norm now. It's just too much of a hassle for the libraries (especially the big ones) to keep track of it. Plus, if they are giving away the whole catalogue on hard drives to cable networks they can't have tracks withdrawn from their catalogue later on.

Anyway. The sync split is lower than it should be for this kind of deal. But most probably it won't matter too much, as they are doing blanket deals. If there is a blanket deal there are no sync fees, and you won't see any substantial money from a blanket deal anyway (too many composers involved in the library usually, and much too low blanket fees. If these get split among the library and all the composers, it'll only make for a few dollars, if even that).
So, the important question is whether you think that this library will net you regular placements so that you earn some royalties. Do they have good subpublishers? Do you think they are actively going to market your tracks, or just having them sit there in their catalogue? Do they have a history of regular placements?


----------



## Carles (Oct 28, 2017)

I'm relatively new in town, so my knowledge about the business is quite basic but perhaps that simplicity may be useful here.

The deal typically is to get two type of income, performance royalties and sync/mechanicals.

-Performance- ones are collected and distributed by the PRO's, so your points 1 and 2 are actually a single point. You should get used to see both (writer's/publisher's) together. This is a standard deal, sometimes expressed as "100%" sometimes as "50%" thus there is some confusion in there.
This is usually expressed as: (for you) "writer share 100%" and (for them) "publisher share 100%".

But is also usual to see (not in the contract but in an e-mail body or announcement) "a 50% deal" (which should refer to 100%writer's/100%publisher's regarding performance and possibly 50/50 regarding sync/mechanicals, so 50% on both type of royalties).
Anyway the contract has to be clear about what is what independently on what's expressed in the e-mail body or announcement).
If the deal says "50%" followed by "writer's share" so "50% writer's share" that's not a good deal (you will likely never see the publisher sharing part of their publisher's half with you). You should always keep your 100% writer's (which is 50% of the performance income after fees and so on).

-Sync/Mechanicals- are paid by the publisher to you (after they get paid first!).
This is apparently your points 4 and 5 and usually expressed with a less confusing percentage. No "writer's share" and "publisher's share" terminology here, just "this % for you and this % for me" from the sync/mechanicals total (after fees and so on).

In this case, 25% is half what you should expect so it's technically speaking low (usually is 50/50) but there are many factors can could change that perception (the publisher could run with serious expenses paying advances or musicians, or recordings or advertising, or all of these together and needs a better chance to recoup). But also is not only invested money by them, it might happen that having tracks in a library with good reputation could be beneficial for your career, or they are really good sellers, or just any other convenient scenario so depending on the circumstances any percentage could work for you, just try to make sure that is not abusive (some libraries seems to be quite "smart asses" about).
If the publisher is investing nothing and is not a good seller either or has no any advantage versus the other guys offering a 50% deal then you shouldn't go with them but the 50% ones obviously.

Regarding the "small print" described above I do not see anything wrong with that. Is just the most standard definition for your 3rd point ("exclusive").

To add more confusion about how the business works, there are different schemes, notably non-exclusives (typically "royalty free" based on a usually low pre-cleared sync license) vs exclusives (typically PRO's-based plus sync/mechanicals) but you can also find non-exclusives based on PRO's and all sort of deals in between ("smart asses" included). Even the royalty free term itself is confusing as these tracks could effectively collect royalties if the music is performed and the client fills up a cue sheet as these royalties are not paid by the client but typically TV stations (or live playing or whatever the performance is). However some royalty free libraries to "sell" even better the idea of "free" to their clients do not accept tracks registered in a PRO so you don't have any chance to collect any performance royalties at all.
Also, UK based libraries and USA libraries (and their respective PRO's) do operate differently.

It's all a bit confusing. I'm not even sure that all what I've expressed above is actually true, but I think that's roughly how it works.
Hope it helps to understand what is what though.


----------



## dannymc (Oct 31, 2017)

Carles said:


> I'm relatively new in town, so my knowledge about the business is quite basic but perhaps that simplicity may be useful here.
> 
> The deal typically is to get two type of income, performance royalties and sync/mechanicals.
> 
> ...



how are you getting on in your journey Carles? landed any placements yet with the libraries you work with? 

Danny


----------



## Carles (Oct 31, 2017)

dannymc said:


> how are you getting on in your journey Carles? landed any placements yet with the libraries you work with?


Hey Danny,
Yes, to date I've got 115 Tunesat detections and that's only USA and Europe if I'm not wrong. In the PRS distributions activity in other territories is consistent too.

Royalties are growing every quarter, still far from the equivalent of a salary, but it's too early so no surprise on that.

The payments I've got so far correspond mostly to a group of about 40 tracks (95% from my very first publisher, those that are more than 1.5 years released) being placed about 30% of those 40 tracks.
Now, between released, no long released and pending to be released, I've gathered about 190 tracks (so far). Hopefully these 150 additional tracks should make some difference within 1-2 years.
Hard to tell, but I'd say that things are working as they should. This is patience game


----------

