# Work for hire - opinion?



## wonshu (Jul 18, 2011)

Dear all,

haven't been here in quite a while. Stuff has recently cropped up that made me forever lose what little sympathy I had for the let's-revolutionize-media-get-rid-of-copyright-and-all-this-BS

I'm trying to collect more arguments that is in our interest as creatives.

And one specific question I have is:

You guys in the US: are you actually happy with the work-for-hire system? Because I have a feeling that a lot of the "let's-change-stuff-folks" don't realize that Germany for example has a much stronger copyright law, that makes work-for-hire impossible, which in my opinion is a very good thing.

Opinions?

Best
-w.


----------



## David Story (Jul 18, 2011)

The only reason work-for-hire exists in the US is that composers can't organize. It's a form of legalized theft. The studio that gets the work-for-hire holds the copyright for 95 years, and they fight to keep every penny.

Truck drivers can organize for better working conditions, so can we.

In the responses here, you'll see attitudes that have kept the work for hire system in place, coming from composers themselves!


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 18, 2011)

David Story @ Mon Jul 18 said:


> It's a form of legalized theft.



Not if you get paid well, it's not. When an A-list composer gets paid $650,000 USD for his 'work for hire' composition - is that theft? When a composer who has nothing under his belt outside of a demo reel gets paid $1,000 to score a 15-min lo budget indie film that is going nowhere except festivals - is that theft? When a composer gets paid $15,000 for a 30 sec. TV spot that is a 'work for hire' - is that theft?

It's only theft if you, the composer let's it be theft.

Cheers.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 18, 2011)

Well, Riff's point is right. Nobody has to work for cheap or free.

I think worrying about work for hire, when in the context of studio work and network TV is a waste of energy, here in the US. Besides, if the composer's stuff is catchy, it can have another life, though often the show / movie has to be a hit as well for that to be remunerative.

For one-off production companies it's more negotiable. Even if it's just a licensing deal (not a work for hire), often the composer has to concede a sometimes-lengthy "hold back" period from the release date of the movie containing one's score. During that time, one can't allow the music to be used in another film. Sometimes the hold-back includes advertising, sometimes not. 

Honestly this is all supply and demand. If they really want YOU, there are many things that can be negotiated. 

However, there are so many composers in LA now that producers have to fight them off in the parking lots here in LA. It's like a locust swarm. 

There are so many composers nowadays and the synths / samples / production tools are so good and so inexpensive that for $20k just about anyone whose fingers work can produce something that sounds ok for 30 seconds or so. And often that's the maximum time a newcomer can expect an audition to last of any track on one's carefully mixed reel.

So the thing to do is something that's genuinely personal and original. As much as we admire the famous guys out there, working as imitators is likely to lead to a thin soup, unless one has the explicit backing of a famous composer to guarantee one can deliver.

The budgets are just too big on films for them to screw around with an unproven provider. TV's pace has gone from insane to beyond insane, so they need to hire someone who's handled it before and they know can handle it again.


----------



## rgames (Jul 18, 2011)

RiffWraith @ Mon Jul 18 said:


> David Story @ Mon Jul 18 said:
> 
> 
> > It's a form of legalized theft.
> ...



+1 to this and John's post.

Isn't most of John Williams' work done as work for hire? And Zimmer's? And pretty much every major composer working a major studio production?

They seem to be doing OK...

As was already said, it all comes down to how much you value your time.

Certainly the major-studio examples are somewhat misleading because work-for-hire for smaller gigs is less lucrative, but it's still up to you to decide.

But work-for-hire can be just fine.

rgames


----------



## bsound76 (Jul 18, 2011)

Most jobs in film/tv are work for hire. I know for a fact that the production sound, sound designers, dialog editors, sound editors, and even the sound supervisors are all work for hire.

And a lot of the sound people are unionized. That doesn't guarantee them work- it just guarantees them a minimum wage on a union job.


Just something to add to the conversation- I'm not sure how I feel about work-for-hire.


And I imagine (but don't know for a fact) that the picture editors, dp, makeup artists, etc are all work for hire.


----------



## midphase (Jul 18, 2011)

rgames @ Mon Jul 18 said:


> RiffWraith @ Mon Jul 18 said:
> 
> 
> > David Story @ Mon Jul 18 said:
> ...



Why do we always have to mention the exceptions or the extremes? Zimmer and Williams are the exceptions. They are the Bill Gates and Donald Trump of this business...not the norm. 

Amidst a handful of guys who do maybe even too well for themselves, there are thousands of hard working composers trying to provide for their families at what the market is willing to bear...which ain't very much. $2000 for a TV episode or $5000 for a feature film of the week isn't a convincing argument as to why turning over 100% of the copyright is fair. Could those composers hold out for higher up front fees? Sure. but without any unionization to keep everyone honest, they'll lose the gig over and over again to some uninformed yahoo who is more than happy to let himself get fucked over.

Sad...very sad!


----------



## lux (Jul 18, 2011)

does work for hire imply you dont get any royalty for public executions?


----------



## midphase (Jul 18, 2011)

You usually still get Writer's Share of the royalties (in the USA, they're split up 50/50 with Publisher's). But technically even the Writer's share needs to be specified in the contract since it can't be automatically assumed that the composer will necessarily collect it.

In essence, Work-For-Hire is a transfer of Copyright and Ownership. The employer becomes (for legal paperwork) the composer, they own the work in perpetuity, they can exploit it in any way they see fit, and at best the composer can collect Writer's Share of the royalties and get credited (both of these points need to be specified in the contract and should not be implicitly assumed).


----------



## lux (Jul 18, 2011)

if so, isnt work for hire the standard? I mean, I've always thought that as a typical asset. 

Dont the music libraries work that way?


----------



## wonshu (Jul 19, 2011)

What is ASCAPs and BMIs stand towards this issue?


----------



## midphase (Jul 19, 2011)

Non-exclusive music libraries can't own the copyright...so no, not all music libraries expect the composer to work-for-hire.

ASCAP and BMI have always been off-hands when it comes to composers' negotiations with their clients. Unfortunately this doesn't really help anyone (much less ASCAP and BMI themselves).

In an effort to curb companies trying to grab a hold of the Writer's Share as well, ASCAP has pledged not to pay any Writer's Share royalties to companies but only to individuals. This is a weak method of preventing companies from collecting royalties, I suppose it's better than nothing...but not by much. I don't think BMI has an equivalent exclusion.

Work for Hire has been allowed to become a sort of standard for a number of years now...producers like it because it allows them to do whatever they want with the end product without needing to negotiate additional compensation each time the production is sold to a new market or utilized for other purposes.

To some degree this is not a horrible thing (although a comprehensive license would be just as solid, and it is exactly how songs are handled in productions), the main issue is when very low-paying gigs expect the composer to sign a work-for-hire agreement for little to no money. If you're getting $50k for a film score that is a legitimate demand, if you're getting $5k...not so much.

Having said that...the question to be considered is also this -- if the composer retains ownership of the music, will he exploit it in other projects? In most cases unfortunately the answer is no, after a score is created, it's very rare for the composer to want to re-use it if he still owns the rights. The most obvious re-use would be to license it (non-exclusively since the music already is part of a film score) to a music library. I have heard of a couple of friends licensing a few tracks from scores they composed to a music library...but realistically speaking, film score cues don't really lend themselves to music library usage very easily.


----------



## rgames (Jul 19, 2011)

midphase @ Tue Jul 19 said:


> Why do we always have to mention the exceptions or the extremes? Zimmer and Williams are the exceptions. They are the Bill Gates and Donald Trump of this business...not the norm.


Correct, Kays, and I said as much in my post.

That point is that regardless of who it is work-for-hire is not inherently bad. It can be a fine arrangement.

Again, it's up to the composer to make sure it's a decent deal.

rgames


----------



## wonshu (Jul 19, 2011)

But if you could write copyright law over (I know, I know, it's a sort of stupid question) wouldn't you get rid of WFH?

Also, looking from the effect, you guys in the US still seem to do better than we are under the stricter law.

Perhaps it's better for companies to invest when they know they can buy everything lock stock and barrel for the rest of their existence...

It's a very confusing issue.


----------



## rgames (Jul 19, 2011)

wonshu @ Tue Jul 19 said:


> But if you could write copyright law over (I know, I know, it's a sort of stupid question) wouldn't you get rid of WFH?



I don't think so. WFH allows the hiring party to take the risk but you take the cash up front.

It's a good option to have.

By the way, I bet 90% of all workers are essentially "working for hire". If you go to work for Apple, or GE, or Boeing, or whoever, they own everything you do while you're on the clock. If you think up a new widget related to your job and file a patent, they own it.

So it's not like composers are alone in this issue.

rgames


----------



## David Story (Jul 19, 2011)

Wonshu,

So there you have it: US composers advocating for having their copyright taken, with no protections: no minimum wage, no reuse payment, no say in how their IP is used. They don't even get health care or pension, how great it is.  

A few make a lot of money, everyone else suffers. How many can thrive in this system?

You might be interested that US contracts specifically deny that EU moral rights exist in the US.

The sad part is there are guys who internalize the greedy producer value system. Some will be upset or dismissive of anyone who thinks that the system could do more for them. 

And some of these people aren't even the beneficiaries.






Your confusion is caused by false arguments. The strong laws help most artists in your country. The weak laws here help only a few. But those few are held up as proof that you'll succeed if you work under inhumane conditions. Not much different than a dictatorship.

Come visit, and you'll see the guys who can't afford to go to the doctor, even though they had a hit show a while back.





D


----------



## midphase (Jul 19, 2011)

I suppose it's not much different for low and middle class income people who fight to make sure that big corporations get all the tax breaks they can get even though it has no impact (or a negative impact) to the people's bottom line.

It's so weird...I don't get it at all.

I'm reading this book right now:

http://www.amazon.com/Psychopath-Test-Journey-Through-Industry/dp/1594488010/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311101271&sr=1-1 (http://www.amazon.com/Psychopath-Test-J ... 271&amp;sr=1-1)

It kindasorta explains some stuff, like for instance that most people have moral and ethical imperatives that prevent them from screwing over everyone else...and because of this they assume that people at the top do too. Unfortunately it appears that it is not the case more often than not, and the higher up people tend to get, the higher the occurrence of them exhibiting psychopathic/sociopathic behavior.


----------



## rgames (Jul 19, 2011)

David Story @ Tue Jul 19 said:


> with no protections


That's not true - we do have protections: ourselves.

If the gig's not good enough, don't take it. Who cares about minimum wage?

You're acting like there's supposed to be some law that guarantees you the right to make a living as a composer. Such a law does not exist in any legal system.

If all the gigs you can find are below what earns you a living then do something else.

It's pretty simple, really.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Jul 19, 2011)

I guess you took your own advice Richard!


----------



## midphase (Jul 19, 2011)

rgames @ Tue Jul 19 said:


> Who cares about minimum wage?
> 
> You're acting like there's supposed to be some law that guarantees you the right to make a living as a composer. Such a law does not exist in any legal system.



Actually that is not quite correct. We do have laws in place to prevent shameless exploitation of workers, we have laws in place to prevent substandard working conditions and even set limits on the amount of hours that a worker can legally be asked to work. Why none of those laws apply in the world of freelancers is, quite frankly, a puzzle to me.


----------



## bryla (Jul 19, 2011)

I like the fact in Denmark, that I will always have my copyright and it can never be taken away from me and I can't give it away.

The people that show my music to audiences will have to pay me for the use. That means that it is never the producers paying me. It's the networks, it's the cinemas, it's the radio stations, it's the festivals, it's the concert arrangers, it's not the people paying me to do the composing, so they don't factor that in.

I really can't see why this isn't good.

Of course you can make a deal with exclusive licensing, meaning that you can't use the music you made for a company logo, but if they use it in a tv commercial it's the tv station that pays for the use, as they pay John Williams every time they air Star Wars.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jul 19, 2011)

FYI

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf


----------



## rgames (Jul 19, 2011)

midphase @ Tue Jul 19 said:


> I guess you took your own advice Richard!



Yeah, well I try to do as I say... 

Maybe one day I can work full-time as a composer, I just don't have the balls to commit to it right now. The stern rebukes from my wife don't help...!

rgames


----------



## wonshu (Jul 20, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Jul 20 said:


> Maybe one day I can work full-time as a composer,



You're website looks like you already do (or at least should be doing.) =o 

Hmm..


----------



## Markus S (Jul 20, 2011)

Personally I have no problem with work for hire. It depends on the context and the fee paid. The European law is not the problem, but the PROs. 

Many clients think the PROs are some kind of representation of the government or the copyright law, but they are not. They are private societies, that you allow to represent your copyrighted material or not (there is no obligation to join these societies).

They are exclusive and extremely restrictive (at least SACEM from my experience, maybe the GEMA has changed now). In example you have no choice if you register a song or score with them or not. Once a song is registered with them, their rules apply for the royalty collection. This is why they have divided the market into two segments, making a really difficult market to survive in even more difficult :

- royalty based revenue (TV, Radio, film in Europe)
- buy-out market (one time fee) : Industry films, video games, web.

We should at least have the choice to do a work for hire or not - meaning being able to exclude composition we don't want to be represented by their society (or markets where we do not want to collect royalties), to be able to serve both models.

The exclusive arrangement may have been a good thing once, but on the global market European composers are at disadvantage now. Maybe this has to pass by a reform of the copyright law, allowing you to get past the very restrictive agreement with the PROs.


----------



## wonshu (Jul 20, 2011)

Au contraire.

We should try and get the other uses (at least the ones with the huge multiplier potential like Games) back into the PROs.

Your theory of "chosing wich work will be represented how" only makes sense superficially.

The only (!!) reason that the PROs have any weight at all in the negotiations with the networks, producers and the new media powers is that they represent the "world repertoire".

I know we're all "against" monopolies. But this isn't really a monopoly per se. It's an association that the composers formed for a feight that can't possibly be won by the individual.

And as such, I think we should work on strengthening the PROs.

As to the internal workings of the PROs: I agree whole-heartedly that they need internal reform when it comes to monitoring and payout etc.

It's important however to differentiate between internal and external affairs.

Best
Hans


----------



## Markus S (Jul 20, 2011)

wonshu @ Wed Jul 20 said:


> Au contraire.
> 
> We should try and get the other uses (at least the ones with the huge multiplier potential like Games) back into the PROs.
> 
> ...



Well, I don't agree. The other uses ARE necessarily IN the PRO already, since there is no other choice for PRO members. But they are so badly integrated that it is impossible to "legally" access these markets. But does the PRO use it's weight to find a solution that suit everybody? Why do video game publishers avoid systematically European PRO members if the PRO has so much weight that they can negotiate anything they want? Do they even try seriously?

Btw. it is not true that they have "all" the repertoire, since they only have the repertoire of their members. So anyone from any other continent or any non member in Europe can offer a deal they feel is right anyway. This is why the market is divided.


----------



## wonshu (Jul 20, 2011)

Markus S @ Wed Jul 20 said:


> Well, I don't agree. The other uses ARE necessarily IN the PRO already, since there is no other choice for PRO members. But they are so badly integrated that it is impossible to "legally" access these markets. But does the PRO use it's weight to find a solution that suit everybody?



That's a different question. Why isn't it effective is a different point than saying: oh, I'd rather have a collective behind me when talking to a "Verwerter" (no suitable translation found...) for example: networks, TV stations, record companies.



Markus S @ Wed Jul 20 said:


> Why do video game publishers avoid systematically European PRO members if the PRO has so much weight that they can negotiate anything they want? Do they even try seriously?



I don't know. Historically I believe, that the games people were completely different people from all other media people and they just plain didn't know and then simply refused to negotiate / pay and then found composers who were willing to fill the void. Actually, in the beginning I think most of them were the "tracker" composers. Which was a different breed of musician, completely outside the regular music industry.



Markus S @ Wed Jul 20 said:


> Btw. it is not true that they have "all" the repertoire, since they only have the repertoire of their members. So anyone from any other continent or any non member in Europe can offer a deal they feel is right anyway. This is why the market is divided.



Technically correct, although with cross-licensing and territorial collection agreements this argument isn't 100% sound.

But as we can see by what's going on in Germany with the negotiations between GEMA and YouTube, having for all practical purposes the "world repertoire" puts quite some pressure on YouTube.

I just think that most PROs caved in too quickly. But that's not an argument against a PRO. That needs to be addressed internally.

We're getting a little off topic here, because I wanted to know the feeling towards the "every man fends for himself" argument of the equation.

Best
Hans


----------



## Markus S (Jul 20, 2011)

wonshu @ Wed Jul 20 said:


> Markus S @ Wed Jul 20 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know. Historically I believe, that the games people were *completely different people *from all other media people and they just plain didn't know and then simply refused to negotiate / pay and then found composers who were willing to fill the void. Actually, in the beginning I think most of them were the "tracker" composers. Which was a different breed of musician, completely outside the *regular *music industry.



Good one..


----------



## wonshu (Jul 20, 2011)

Markus S @ Wed Jul 20 said:


> Good one..



How do you mean? I don't understand the commentary.


----------



## Markus S (Jul 20, 2011)

wonshu @ Wed Jul 20 said:


> Markus S @ Wed Jul 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Good one..
> ...



Games people are no different from other people (and perfectly capable of negotiation) and the games market is as much a "regular" market for music as any other, or who is to decide which market is regular or which one is not? Found the comment a bit weird, that's all. I would expect from a PRO that they offer something for their members to make the work in this exciting market easy and comfortable, but we are still waiting, at least here in France.


----------



## wonshu (Jul 20, 2011)

Yes, I suspected that you took "regular" as an qualitative expression. It wasn't.

I was just trying to say, that the musicians who created music for the first games back in the late 70s early 80s weren't the guys performing on Michael Jacksons album. But they were the electronic pionieers and as such not part of the music industry. Because the industry ignored them.

I think you understood me backwards.


----------



## David Story (Jul 20, 2011)

"Stand together or hang separately."

There is strength in numbers. More clout in collectives. In the US actors get health care through SAG. Composers get nothing, they pay top price. At least in Europe, there's health care for virtually all, for all professions. Big time collective bargaining.

The PRO vs buy-out in Europe is interesting. It seems that producers are able to turn artists against each other in the EU also. Divide and conquer. 

PROs and unions can become dysfunctional or corrupt. They need engaged members. But every man for himself is savagery, with an elite on top.

It seems todays composers are among the least able to see the value of collective bargaining, at least in the US. I think it's the DIY model, where engineers tell you that you can do it all with a computer. 

Who needs people? We do. 

A sample isn't an orchestra. No give and take.
Take-it-or-leave-it isn't a negotiation. No give and take.

Back to work.


----------



## midphase (Jul 20, 2011)

I wish VI Control posts had a "Like" button!


----------



## David Story (Jul 20, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Jul 20 said:


> I wish VI Control posts had a "Like" button!



+1
Frederick?


----------



## rgames (Jul 20, 2011)

There seems to be a sentiment that composers are out on their own in terms of benefits like health care, retirement, etc. That's absolutely not true: anyone who is self-employed is in *exactly* the same boat. That includes a lot of doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, small business owners, etc. They don't have a union, do they?

In order to get health care, and retirement, and whatever else they want, they make sure their rates cover those needs. If they set their rates at that point but can't get any clients, then they do something else. There's no law that says they have a right to make a living as a doctor, or lawyer, or accountant, or engineer, or whatever.

Likewise, there's no law in any country that says you have the right to make a living as a composer. If you can't, then do something else.

It's very simple, folks.

If you like the SAG deal better, then go be an actor! 

rgames


----------



## wonshu (Jul 21, 2011)

While I agree with you Richard, I also think, that this is our world and society and there's also no law that says we can't and shouldn't organize and use everything possible to strengthen our position.


----------



## midphase (Jul 21, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Jul 20 said:


> There seems to be a sentiment that composers are out on their own in terms of benefits like health care, retirement, etc. That's absolutely not true: anyone who is self-employed is in *exactly* the same boat. That includes a lot of doctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers, small business owners, etc. They don't have a union, do they?



Actually that is not entirely true. Doctors, Lawyers and Engineers actually do have unions in several states. Further, 4 out of the 5 categories that you list are generally employed by larger organizations and have job benefits through those. Small business owners generally manage to obtain health care coverage as a small business to benefit their employees. 

Composers are one of a handful of groups out of hundreds of different job positions in the entertainment industry who do not have a union, nor are they granted health insurance or retirement in the same way that full time employees of productions companies are.

You are absolutely right that the predicament in which we all find ourselves now is mostly due to our own lack of self worth and willingness to work for less and less money and for contracts which ask more and more out of us...se we agree there.

But to say "it's this way or the highway" shows a lack of empathy and willingness to change some of these discrepancies which I don't agree with.

I also have a hard time understanding when individuals fight for the rights and fair treatment of corporations. You have to realize that the opposite is not true, it's not like Paramount, or WB, or Ford or Intel's board of directors are constantly agonizing over how to treat their employees more fairly. Why do we continue to extend this concern and fight (and vote) for big corporations to obtain more and more power while historically the opposite has not been true?

Richard, I think your heart might be in the right place, but I find your hardline and blind support of capitalism to be short sighted and ultimately self-damaging...there is no doubt that things are heavily out of balance currently with middle class suffering because of the past decades staunch support of unbridled capitalism driven mostly (but not exclusively) by conservatives.

We do however agree on the point that change has to come from ourselves, it is time that composers -- individuals or as an organized union -- wake up and stop taking on jobs that are simply not financially rewarding enough. That way, sooner rather than later the demand will outgrow supply and a more fair balance might be restored.


----------



## Mike Marino (Jul 21, 2011)

Good discussion here! I sort of agree with all three of you.

Richard, I agree COMPLETELY with your sentiment and point of view. I also agree with Wonshu and Kays with regard to trying to organize into something that might be able to help composers gain benefits. The worst that can happen is that the other party says "No." The point where I step off this train is when I start hearing that we, the composers, have a Right to benefits because everyone else has them...and that it's only Fair. (I'm not hearing that at this point so I'm still game.)

@Kays:


> there is no doubt that things are heavily out of balance currently with middle class suffering because of the past decades staunch support of unbridled capitalism driven mostly (but not exclusively) by conservatives.



I don't know what you're saying here. I didn't want to pounce on this with a misunderstanding of your statement. Would you mind clarifying?


Good discussion guys.


----------



## rgames (Jul 21, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Jul 21 said:


> Further, 4 out of the 5 categories that you list are generally employed by larger organizations and have job benefits through those. Small business owners generally manage to obtain health care coverage as a small business to benefit their employees.



OK - I'll disagree with you on that one. Every time you pass a doctor's office or a lawyer's office and it has one or two names on it, that's a small business with a doctor or lawyer who is self-employed just like most composers are. I think the majority of doctors and lawyers are self-employed - even doctors who work in hospitals are often contractors, so they're self-employed, too. I'll agree that engineers are, generally, not self-employed. But many are.

Look - I'm not saying don't get together and find strength in numbers. I'm just saying it starts with the individual, so don't shift your focus away from yourself to some other group who's supposed to do the critical thinking for you.

I've dealt with unions on both sides and I didn't like them from either position. On the member side, why would I relinquish my decision-making authority to a group who may not have my best interests at heart? Unions are no different than governments, or corporations, or churches, or any organized group: their ability to keep their members' interests in focus is too easily lost. However, *I* can certainly keep my interests in focus, so why do I need a union?

Unions (and other protections like minimum wage) are good for low-skill workers who need to be protected from exploitation. These are people who have tried to do a lot of different things but just can't make it work, so they're stuck with low-skill work. Yes, those people need assistance and protections (see, I do have compassion  ). But that's not composers (or is it?).

The bottom line is that it *always* comes back to the individual. Just because you're part of an organized front doesn't mean everything is dandy. You still need to think for yourself.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Jul 21, 2011)

Mike Marino @ Thu Jul 21 said:


> @Kays:
> 
> 
> > there is no doubt that things are heavily out of balance currently with middle class suffering because of the past decades staunch support of unbridled capitalism driven mostly (but not exclusively) by conservatives.
> ...




I mean that big business and corporations (and the people who run those organizations) have gained too much political/financial influencing power. Capitalism is a good thing, up to a certain point. When it reaches a critical mass where the majority of the population begins to suffer because of the unbalanced distribution of wealth, that is a bad thing which might have short term benefits for people at the top, but will eventually come back to bite them in the ass. I think we are witnessing an unprecedented loss of good jobs and the destruction of the middle class (this is true for all industries and not just ours).

I think that it's perfectly understandable when the "captains of industry" push for lower taxes and less government oversight...but when I see lower-middle income families pushing for the same corporate benefits, I get very confused.

Anyway...no need to divert this topic too far. As I said, I do agree with Richard on some points, mainly that we have to fight for just compensation at the individual level. I disagree with him on the non-usefulness of having a union. Sure, being part of a large collective bargaining group means that interests specific to myself will not always be on the negotiation table, but overall the benefits far outweigh the downside. I have never heard any of my union represented director, editor, producer, DP or even sound designer friends complain that they wish they had no union.


----------



## Mike Marino (Jul 21, 2011)

Cool, thanks for the explanation. I see what your saying. Capitalism is great when done responsibly. But, then again, so is living in the middle class.


----------



## midphase (Jul 21, 2011)

This type of chit chat is a lot of fun and engaging (sometimes even too much), but ultimately we have no real control over what's going on in the business and the best thing we can do is actually follow Richard's advice and hold on to our value and not let desperation set in.

Recently I was asked to compose a score (front to back, almost non-stop orchestral) for a made-for-TV movie for $1k by a production company (when I say made-for-TV, they actually don't have a deal in place with any network...so it might very easily end up being a straight to Netflix release). Did I mention they also needed it in 2 weeks?

I turned it down with as much politeness as I could muster towards these exploitative assholes. Unfortunately I have no doubts that they will find some desperate (and very short sighted) composer who will undoubtedly agree to such ridiculous terms.


----------



## Mike Marino (Jul 21, 2011)

Agreed Kays. They frequently pull me away from what I should be doing, lol.

Sorry to hear about that deal. Keep the faith brotha!


----------



## wonshu (Jul 22, 2011)

Although I would have liked the discussion to go more into the copyright / royalites / how to better use PROs to our advantage direction.


----------



## midphase (Jul 22, 2011)

Ok...a couple of points about Copyright etc:

1. Try if you can (especially on small budget films) to persuade the production company to let you issue a very comprehensive unlimited license rather than a buy-out. There is a way that you can word your contracts to make it sound like it's a buy out without it being an actual buy out.

2. Even if you lose the copyright, try to collect both the composer and the publisher share of the royalties. 99% of the time, these small production companies have no idea what that is and when I prompt them for their publishing company information they either don't have one or never furnish me with one. I make it a point to not let a cue sheet go out without both writer and publisher info on it...so if they don't provide me with one I put mine on there rather than have that money go to waste (ASCAP and BMI collect both regardless).

3. Keep in mind that the majority of us will not actually re-use cues for anything other than they were written for. This is particularly true for cues that were produced a few years ago with sample libraries that don't sound as good by today's standards. 

4. Lastly, if you really love a piece of music that you wrote and it happened to be a buy-out. Just rip yourself off! Seriously, I'm not saying copy and paste everything, but change just enough things to make it very hard for someone to possibly sue. Actually on that note, there has never been a case of a film composer being sued because one of his soundtracks sounds too similar to one of his other ones (if that was the case Zimmer, Horner and Elfman would be in major trouble). It's practically impossible to prove in court and nobody would care enough to sue unless you were making huge money...and if you are, they why are you bitching about buy-outs?


What I would really love in the USA is that the government would make it impossible for a composer to ever turn over his writer's share of royalties. There is always the risk that a greedy production company wants to collect your writer's share...if that's the case you have to stand your ground and say "no." Trust me, nothing good can come out of working for such a company, and despite how much you might want/need the work, or how much you think this might be your big break...you really need to hang on to this one right. One time I was asked to compose the opening theme for a TV show. The production company wanted to collect my writer's share. The exposure was good since this was a national show with lots of fans, but I said "no." The production company eventually caved in and let me have my writer's share which resulted in me collecting a substantially larger amount over the lifetime of the show. I say stick to your guns and realize that agreeing to crappy contracts can have negative repercussions over the entire industry.


----------

