# Music Library



## rvb (Sep 20, 2017)

I am in contact with a Library that wants a 60% cut. Is this a fair deal? It seems like the composer/producer does all the work (the music, the different cut down mixdowns and the mastering) and still getting 40% for it all. I am wondering how others think about this. Since I may get to a rainy day at some point, I am considering just going for it. 

Thoughts will be much appreciated.


----------



## will_m (Sep 20, 2017)

rvb said:


> I am in contact with a Library that wants a 60% cut. Is this a fair deal? It seems like the composer/producer does all the work (the music, the different cut down mixdowns and the mastering) and still getting 40% for it all. I am wondering how others think about this. Since I may get to a rainy day at some point, I am considering just going for it.
> 
> Thoughts will be much appreciated.



Is this 60% of sync fees? 60% of royalties? Is there an advance payment? Is this for exclusive use? All these questions will contribute massively to whether this would considered a fair deal.

I'd expect some seriously good syncs for 60% though, most aspects of library music are split 50/50, this is still worthwhile if the library is getting syncs worth several thousand each time, not so much if they sell licenses for $30. You have to shift a whole lot of licenses in that case.


----------



## rvb (Sep 20, 2017)

Hey Will, thank you so much for replying. I meant that they are taking the 60% cut only sync fees. No advance payment, for exclusive use.


----------



## dannymc (Sep 20, 2017)

rvb said:


> Hey Will, thank you so much for replying. I meant that they are taking the 60% cut only sync fees. No advance payment, for exclusive use.



alot of libraries take cuts like that for sync. there are even some that do 70/30. but they justify it because those syncs can be in the thousands. you really have to make that decision yourself. in my limited experience libraries are very relucant to tell you how much certain sync fee's can bring in. 

some libraries do have a rate card on their website so you could look around for that and see if you can find out a bit more about their sync fee rates. 

Danny


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 20, 2017)

yes, it depends. if you know they will work on some tasty placements that will give some goos dough then go for it.

but seeing as they dont give upfront fee with exclusivity AND want 60% of license.. damn..

maybe let them know. hey, usualy excluse libraries pay SOMETHING upfront. and you are taking 60% of the sync cut!? 

and see if you can get 50%.

if they say no. then agree. send in a bunch of track. then change the trakcs a tiny bit and change the name.. send them to another library


----------



## R. Soul (Sep 20, 2017)

gsilbers said:


> yes, it depends. if you know they will work on some tasty placements that will give some goos dough then go for it.
> 
> but seeing as they dont give upfront fee with exclusivity AND want 60% of license.. damn..
> 
> ...


Did you actually succeed in changing the percentage with a library?
I don't think they'll change it. Imagine the admin nightmare if you have 100 composers, which some of them do. I think you either accept the contract or find somewhere else to host your tracks. 

In terms of upfront, AFAIK you can count the libraries on 2 hands that pay upfront. Pretty much only the majors do that.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Sep 20, 2017)

If they have a reversion clause, sign it. If it is a perpetual deal, walk away.


----------



## will_m (Sep 20, 2017)

rvb said:


> Hey Will, thank you so much for replying. I meant that they are taking the 60% cut only sync fees. No advance payment, for exclusive use.



You're welcome rvb. A 60/40 split with no money up front is a tough gig, you'd have to have a lot of faith that they can land you some good syncs. Also if it's a library that does a lot of T.V work then make sure you know the royalty situation. 

Personally I'd be wary of any library asking for exclusive tracks but not willing to pay an advance and also taking a 60% cut. They are taking no risk here, they can take on thousands of tracks and if the tracks get used then good, if not they'll move on but you lose all the time you put in and the right to use the work anywhere else too.

It worries me that there are libraries out there taking a higher cut than the creator of the work.


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 20, 2017)

R. Soul said:


> Did you actually succeed in changing the percentage with a library?
> I don't think they'll change it. Imagine the admin nightmare if you have 100 composers, which some of them do. I think you either accept the contract or find somewhere else to host your tracks.
> 
> In terms of upfront, AFAIK you can count the libraries on 2 hands that pay upfront. Pretty much only the majors do that.



yes, thats true to walk away and they wouldnt change it. then again, how many of us talk to each other about a specific library? so it could get negotiated. but again, walking away would be the most obvious answer. 

as for the upfronts, i coudlnt say for sure, but its not all of them. plenty offer upfronts but it would have to be libraries that work with shows and can they can get upfront for a show. but it depends on the company. i dont know too many in general.


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 20, 2017)

will_m said:


> You're welcome rvb. A 60/40 split with no money up front is a tough gig, you'd have to have a lot of faith that they can land you some good syncs. Also if it's a library that does a lot of T.V work then make sure you know the royalty situation.
> 
> Personally I'd be wary of any library asking for exclusive tracks but not willing to pay an advance and also taking a 60% cut. They are taking no risk here, they can take on thousands of tracks and if the tracks get used then good, if not they'll move on but you lose all the time you put in and the right to use the work anywhere else too.
> 
> It worries me that there are libraries out there taking a higher cut than the creator of the work.




to me, this deal smells like a discovery network type of deal. they like to keep publishing so it could be they need that 60/40 split upfront AND exclusivity. the other option would be to share the writers share. 

hopefully one day there will be enough of a union-type group with composers and musicians who can lobby congress to pass rules for these sort of stuff.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 20, 2017)

NEVER surrender your writer's share. I don't see that the OP has written anything about that, just the sync fees.

Another question is whether they are going to record with a live orchestra or live players; if so, they have serious commitment to selling your track. Besides, it usually will sound a lot better so you have more likelihood of making money with it.

A "bad" deal would be: perpetual contract (picture five years go by and you haven't received a dime); no upfront payment and no investment in the music -- no recording costs for the library; less than 50%.

Under those bad deal circumstances, unless you or someone you trust has worked with them before, it would be easy to say 'no.'


----------



## Daryl (Oct 1, 2017)

will_m said:


> It worries me that there are libraries out there taking a higher cut than the creator of the work.


We take 66.67% of all mechanicals and sync fees, but obviously the writer gets 50% of Broadcast Royalties. We might increase the percentage in the future, but as we've currently spent a huge amount of money developing the catalogue, we can't afford to be too generous. However, please bear in mind that albums can cost up to £30K, we have to plan recoup our costs somehow.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 1, 2017)

Daryl said:


> We take 66.67% of all mechanicals and sync fees, but obviously the writer gets 50% of Broadcast Royalties. We might increase the percentage in the future, but as we've currently spent a huge amount of money developing the catalogue, we can't afford to be too generous. However, please bear in mind that albums can cost up to £30K, we have to plan recoup our costs somehow.



LMFAO!

I guess the composer's investment in his time and equipment must be zero, so the composer can afford to take the hit on the mechanicals and sync fees.

Please tell me this deal is non-exclusive so the composer can hustle his/her music elsewhere as well. If it is exclusive, yikes!!!

These deals get worse and worse out here. I wouldn't even call them deals these days, as no money or advance is being offered. It's a gamble. Might as well go to Vegas and play some slots. At least you can get free booze and a cheap dinner orshow after listening to a time-share opportunity. You'd probably make more money and have a better time than waiting for a placement.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 2, 2017)

Desire Inspires said:


> LMFAO!
> 
> I guess the composer's investment in his time and equipment must be zero, so the composer can afford to take the hit on the mechanicals and sync fees.


Nope, but it certainly isn't £30K...! The only equipment the composer requires is manuscript paper and a pencil. Not that expensive.

As far as exclusive, why would we spend so much on recordings, if we were going to allow the composer to "hussle" the music elsewhere? I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Oct 2, 2017)

Daryl said:


> I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.



Agreed. Do what works best for you.


----------



## muk (Oct 2, 2017)

Just to clarify, Daryl always uses live players on his albums, no mockups. So he is a lot more invested than usual for library albums as he has to make the recordings happen and pay for them. Not a very common case for music libraries anymore. If all a library does is titling, tagging, maybe mastering, and hustling the music then it'd be much harder to justify the sync fee cut.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 2, 2017)

muk said:


> Just to clarify, Daryl always uses live players on his albums, no mockups. So he is a lot more invested than usual for library albums as he has to make the recordings happen and pay for them. Not a very common case for music libraries anymore. If all a library does is titling, tagging, maybe mastering, and hustling the music then it'd be much harder to justify the sync fee cut.



I only answered in this thread to show that you need to do your homework before deciding whether or not a deal is good for you.


----------



## GtrString (Oct 2, 2017)

rvb said:


> Hey Will, thank you so much for replying. I meant that they are taking the 60% cut only sync fees. No advance payment, for exclusive use.



If it is exclusive with no advance payment, there has to be a reverse clause in the contract (often 3 years). The industry standard is to get upfront compensation for an exclusive deal. If it is not a reputable library with verified placements, the reverse clause is your safety for being able to retrieve the work if it only hangs there, or are put into a blanket drive to build their portfolio. (Well, this also applies if it IS a reputable library).

These type of terms most often come from new libraries, that needs to build a catalogue without too many expenses. Worst case scenario for you is to sign an exclusive contract in perpetuity, then the library put your track on a blanket drive. In that scenario you will never see a dime, because you arent let in on blanket subscriptions, and in the new streaming reality there is no backend for the composer. So you end up in a situation where your music works for the library in terms of contributing to their portfolio, and if it ends up in a show on Netflix, HBO or any other streaming network, you'll see handouts that comes nowhere near an upfront compensation. And if you dont have a reversion clause, you have lost control of that track forever.

So be mindful.. we live in times where the middle men have a very rough time, and they put up a fight to survive.


----------



## R. Soul (Oct 3, 2017)

GtrString said:


> The industry standard is to get upfront compensation for an exclusive deal.


Industry standard?
As far as I'm aware the vast majority of libraries don't pay upfront. It's pretty much only the majors that actually do. 
Here in UK I think you can count the libraries that pay upfront on one hand actually.


----------



## GtrString (Oct 3, 2017)

R. Soul said:


> Industry standard?
> As far as I'm aware the vast majority of libraries don't pay upfront. It's pretty much only the majors that actually do.
> Here in UK I think you can count the libraries that pay upfront on one hand actually.



Maybe a bit clumsy put, yes, but if not you would want a reversion clause. That is like betting on a library or publisher for a while. Point being, you need to be compensated if you sign away your rights. Why wouldn't you?

If you get neither, it's like giving your work away for others to exploit, free of charge. I'm sure there are lots of players who would try to pull a stunt like that. If it goes, it goes, but what's in it for you?

Libraries and publishers are in the business of legal rights as much as music. It's something to be aware of, as there are no control of who can start a music library or publishing company.. this also means that composers and musicians, pros and amateurs alike, are not protected by anything else than their own knowledge of music business. There are quite few experts in intellectual rights in the world, so there is a lot going on in this grey area that can trap you.

I know it is hard to put your heart into the business as much as into the music, and this is a challenge for all, for sure. Not claiming to have the golden eye here, just trying to raise awareness of things that may go under the radar..


----------



## dannymc (Oct 3, 2017)

R. Soul said:


> Industry standard?
> As far as I'm aware the vast majority of libraries don't pay upfront. It's pretty much only the majors that actually do.
> Here in UK I think you can count the libraries that pay upfront on one hand actually.



care to share which ones they are? i haven't com across any UK libraries that pay up front yet. 

Danny


----------



## R. Soul (Oct 3, 2017)

GtrString said:


> Maybe a bit clumsy put, yes, but if not you would want a reversion clause. That is like betting on a library or publisher for a while. Point being, you need to be compensated if you sign away your rights. Why wouldn't you?
> 
> If you get neither, it's like giving your work away for others to exploit, free of charge. I'm sure there are lots of players who would try to pull a stunt like that. If it goes, it goes, but what's in it for you?
> 
> ...


I must admit, I've never really looked into reversion clauses.
I was under the assumption that it's mostly not included in the contracts due to the fact that most libraries have a large group of sub-libraries that represents them in other countries. Some have close to 30 - 5 Alarm for example, have even over 70. And to be able to withdraw your tracks not only from your library but their whole network, would be quite a task, so they generally avoid it. Or perhaps I got that wrong?

DannyMC: Only ones I know for sure is Universal and KPM. I think BMG, Cavendish and Extreme do as well, but I have no experience with those.

Btw.... In case you didn't know I'm Arcana on Gearslutz


----------



## muk (Oct 3, 2017)

Warner Chappell does too, usually. Bear in mind that a sync fee split can be more lucrative for you in the long run, especially if the upfront fee is not very high.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 3, 2017)

Reversion clauses can be problematic for all the reasons mentioned above, but also when a compnay has paid for a recording, you will never get a reversion clause.

However, for me the golden rule is make sure that the risk is shared. This may be an upfront fee (re-coupable or not), it could be paying for recordings, or a combination. A Publisher has to justify the amount that they take, and if they are putting nothing into the pot, you are at a disadvantage. It's not about percentage, it's about shared risk.


----------

