# Should a library touch your PRO writer's share?



## mwarsell (Jun 22, 2017)

Yes or no?


----------



## muk (Jun 22, 2017)

No. They shouldn't, and you shouldn't let them do it.


----------



## chillbot (Jun 22, 2017)

No. Not even that one time when they bought you that drink and they seemed really nice.


----------



## guydoingmusic (Jun 22, 2017)

NO! 

It would be like Uber saying they own part of your car.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jun 22, 2017)

Only if I can touch a part of their publishers share.


----------



## John Judd (Jun 22, 2017)

Never.


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Jun 22, 2017)

I'm pretty certain that's illegal in the uk


----------



## chillbot (Jun 22, 2017)

So... maybe?


----------



## mwarsell (Jun 22, 2017)

Is the PRO split with a library usually 50/50? I.e. 50% writer, 50% library?


----------



## guydoingmusic (Jun 22, 2017)

ASCAP list a song as 50%writer and 50%publishing to equal 100% of the song.

Usually deals will split your publishing 50/50 - which would require the publishing to be 25% you and 25% whomever you've signed over the percentage of publishing to. 

Unless you cowrote the song with someone - the writers share should always be 50% of the whole.


----------



## chillbot (Jun 22, 2017)

I think that's a bit confusing... on a cue sheet both the publishers and writers share are listed as 100% each. There's a lot of ways it can be split but two common splits you will come across are:

100% publishing --> library
100% writers --> writer

or

50% publishing --> library
50% publishing --> writer
100% writers --> writer

Obviously the second split makes the writer much happier. But in neither case do you give up any of your writer's share.


----------



## hummingbird (Jun 22, 2017)

You can say it two ways.

Writing 100%, Publishing 100%

But most often it's
Writing 50% (divided between co-writers, if any)
Publishing 50% (divided between co-publishers, if any)

Should you allow a publisher to have more than their 50% share? I'd say No. These days many composers aren't getting any up-front fees (you sign this track we'll pay you $), it tends to be royalties after broadcast and, if applicable, sync for a quality placement. The publisher should be doin their job to promote and pitch your track and make their money that way, not whittle away at the little bit left to the writer.

Now, there might be an instance where someone will say yes to a lesser share of writing but... imo they are allowing the industry to devalue their contribution. Even if this was a non-exclusive deal I'd be very cautious.

==
PS - earlier this year I hooked up with someone who had a contact with a company who used a lot of music. It seemed exciting but then I found out they wanted a share of writing as a fee for pitching my fully composed and produced tracks to this entity. I was not comfortable and backed away.


----------



## guydoingmusic (Jun 22, 2017)

chillbot said:


> I think that's a bit confusing... on a cue sheet both the publishers and writers share are listed as 100% each. There's a lot of ways it can be split but two common splits you will come across are:
> 
> 100% publishing --> library
> 100% writers --> writer
> ...


Right... I agree. And ASCAP previously accounted for things just like you listed. However - now when you go to register a new work, they make it clear that 100% actually equals 50%.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 22, 2017)

Isn't it cool that so many people earn mony from other people, who do the essential work? Our system is sooo coll, yes, no? :-D


----------



## j_kranz (Jun 22, 2017)

I'd imagine it depends on the deal you sign. Most don't ask for this, but either way it should be worked out before signing anything.


----------



## afterlight82 (Jun 22, 2017)

Nope.


----------



## mwarsell (Jun 23, 2017)

Thanks for all the replies. Love this forum. Like an extended family 

So a writer should never get less than 50% of the total PRO royalties?


----------



## muk (Jun 23, 2017)

mwarsell said:


> So a writer should never get less than 50% of the total PRO royalties?



Exactly. The writer should never get less than 100% of the writers share - it's called _writers share_ for a reason. If the publisher wants a part of it it is often because they give away part of the publisher's share to the broadcasting company. That's in itself a shady practice. The broadcasting company has no right to any of the royalties. They should be paying to use music, not getting paid for it. But as a writer you can say that it's the publisher's problem if they do that, as long as they don't want to recoup that bad deal by taking part of the writer's share.
In any case the writer's share belongs to the writer. If a publisher wants part of it it's just a very bad deal for you.


----------



## lux (Jun 23, 2017)

of course no. I never heard so far anyone chimin in with such kind of proposal. No serious publisher would do that.

As far as I know (at least with the major Pro's) the only way to leave part of your writing shares is registering a song as it was co-written. Like if you and your library guy wrote together the piece. Otherwise you always get 100% of your writer share, no matter what your private agreement with the library is.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jun 23, 2017)

mwarsell said:


> So a writer should never get less than 50% of the total PRO royalties?



Hell no!


----------



## Daryl (Jun 23, 2017)

wilx said:


> I'm pretty certain that's illegal in the uk


Yes, for PRS members.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jun 23, 2017)

hummingbird said:


> PS - earlier this year I hooked up with someone who had a contact with a company who used a lot of music. It seemed exciting but then I found out *they wanted a share of writing as a fee for pitching my fully composed and produced tracks* to this entity. I was not comfortable and backed away.



See, this is the problem here.

These "libraries" do not even understand the business model they are entering. They don't know how publishing and royalties work. They just see "if I take a percentage, I get a check". But are these companies really doing any work to get the music used? Do they know how to properly license the music? Do they understand the underlying rights that come along with being a music publisher? Do they know the rights of the songwriter?

I can guarantee you 99.9% of these fly-by-night companies will be out of business before they even start. They don't have an understanding of the business. They don't value their own assets (publishers share). So they are already losing out on the money that is rightfully theirs. 

No publisher should be paying a production company money or giving a production company royalties to use music. How does a publisher make money to stay in business if they are giving up half of their earnings? Even if the company takes 25% of the writer's share, they are still losing out on the 50% of the publisher's share that is rightfully theirs. And believe me, once the production company becomes the publisher, they will use the music however they want. They will use the music for free and get 50% of the publisher's share for nothing.


----------



## hummingbird (Jun 23, 2017)

mwarsell said:


> Thanks for all the replies. Love this forum. Like an extended family
> 
> So a writer should never get less than 50% of the total PRO royalties?



If the only writer, yes. When I collaborate, my share of writing is 25% (2 writers), or 16% (3 writers), for example.


----------



## chillbot (Jun 23, 2017)

It seems like there's no clear consensus about this.


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 23, 2017)

you guys have been living under a rock... 

thanks to several bigger libraries and some networks.. the way it happening is that the music library will get the tv show by offering the publishing to the producers and therefore the liibrary seeks part of the writers share. 

Also there are networks who have a deal with the shows where the show has to own the publishing. 

If I am not mistaken i believe one of the companies is jinglepunks who is acked by CAA. 

Since reality tv shows was the big outlet of music and perforamnce royalties and those have dwindle since the days of the writers strike.. they now have a surplus of libraries eager beaver to make placements. 

but yes, its happening and a lot. and we are all aware of the no-touchy of the writers share...


----------



## mc_deli (Jun 23, 2017)

germancomponist said:


> Isn't it cool that so many people earn mony from other people, who do the essential work? Our system is sooo coll, yes, no? :-D


I couldn't agree more.

Slightly OT but I think the same when I see "music tech" and "music start up" events - thousands of middlemen leeching off creatives under a banner of "innovation" while contributing the square root of f**k all meaningful or useful, short-changing punters and robbing the creators... er... mostly.)


----------



## hummingbird (Jun 23, 2017)

chillbot said:


> It seems like there's no clear consensus about this.



Should writers give up any part of the writer's share to get a deal? The answer is no.


----------



## afterlight82 (Jun 23, 2017)

If it's non-exclusive this is presumably only achieved by retitling. I'm of the firm belief that this will be stamped out fairly soon once it properly impinges on the fingerprinting technology ASCAP and BMI want to use. It's already illegal in some territories and mercifully lots of major networks have edicts to their subsidiaries banning any of use of such libraries.



gsilbers said:


> you guys have been living under a rock...
> 
> thanks to several bigger libraries and some networks.. the way it happening is that the music library will get the tv show by offering the publishing to the producers and therefore the liibrary seeks part of the writers share.
> 
> ...


----------



## chillbot (Jun 23, 2017)

gsilbers said:


> but yes, its happening and a lot. and we are all aware of the no-touchy of the writers share...



Of course this happens all the time. Desperate and poor writers (referring to both their finances and possibly the quality of their tracks) will do anything to make a few bucks in a overpopulated and watered-down industry. But I guess the question was SHOULD a library touch your writer's share.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jun 23, 2017)

chillbot said:


> But I guess the question was SHOULD a library touch your writer's share.



No, a library should not ever touch the writer's share.

Also, a production company should never touch the publisher's share unless they are actually acting as a music publisher and own the rights to the music.

What is the point of giving away part of my writer's share because a music library gave up a part of its publisher's share? I may as well cut the library out and submit my songs directly to the production company. 

The library isn't needed if they can't stay in business with their split of the publisher's share. These companies are going to go out of business because they are not run by people who know the business of music publishing. The production companies will eventually start acting as music libraries themselves and take control of the music. They will license the songs to other companies, collect all sync fees, and will not split them with the music library or the composer. 

Why? Because they have access to the music. These production companies will find a way to take control of the music and will force the the music libraries of business. The composer will only then be able to make PRO royalties. But wait, what happens when the production company does a direct license with a client? They get all of the license fee. The composer gets none of the license fee and also gets no PRO royalties. Score 1 for the production company and ZERO for everyone else!

It's a dirty game out here. Play to win.


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 23, 2017)

Well, WE all would like a Star Trek future but that aint happening. 

of course we see it wrong and we know better but big networks are asking to control publishing. and therefore the music libraries have to rely on part of writers share. also competition for lack of reality tv shows has now got producers being offered part of publishing or all publishing so again, libraries rely on part of writers share. 
do i think is wrong and know it happens ? yes, but its now more common since several well known companies are trying to undercut the competition. copmanies backed by bigger companies that understand how the back end works and have connections with networks and producers. 

just simple supply and demand.. if there were 100 reality tv shows a year for 5 years and each show relied on a lot of musicians which they where able to get a full juicy paycheck and now its about 20 reality tv shows.. thats now an overwhelmed supply glut which means a lot of composers will kind of be pissed when they agree.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jun 23, 2017)

gsilbers said:


> of course we see it wrong and we know better but big networks are asking to control publishing. and therefore the music libraries have to rely on part of writers share.



LMFAO!!! 

If it is wrong and you know better, why do it? What advantage do you gain as a result?


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 23, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> LMFAO!!!
> 
> If it is wrong and you know better, why do it? What advantage do you gain as a result?



I guess if it bring in some royalties.. pay rent? eat?


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jun 23, 2017)

gsilbers said:


> I guess if it bring in some royalties.. pay rent? eat?


Trust me, you are better off getting a day job. Your royalties are not going to be high enough to pay rent and eat comfortably from these low ball deals.

The people who are earning a living from music full time do not sign deals like these. You'd be better off cold calling music supervisors and production companies and pitching your music directly to the people in charge. Giving up a part of the writer's share isn't smart.


----------



## muk (Jun 24, 2017)

Just to make that clear, there are plenty of libraries around that land good placements and offer far, far better deals for composers. Why not spend a bit of time looking for these instead of accepting a terrible deal straight away? If you value your music, find a library that does the same.


----------



## mwarsell (Jun 26, 2017)

muk said:


> Just to make that clear, there are plenty of libraries around that land good placements and offer far, far better deals for composers. Why not spend a bit of time looking for these instead of accepting a terrible deal straight away? If you value your music, find a library that does the same.


Yes, incidentally, the library which I thought did this actually doesn't. I had misintepreted the contract. However, it still made a good conversation


----------

