# Work for hire: same as non-PRO work?



## rgames (Sep 6, 2011)

I recently got an opportunity to do some library music for a group that only accepts non-registered submissions, i.e. they want tracks that are clear of any PRO affiliation. There's up-front pay, not great, but enough to make it worthwhile even without any back-end payments.

I've come across this type of setup before and haven't signed on (mostly because the up-front payment wasn't great for what they wanted). I've discussed it with some other folks and they pretty much universally dislike this type of setup.

However, in my mind, it's basically the same as a work-for-hire gig: in both cases, all I get is the up-front payment. So as long as the up-front pay is decent, who cares if it's PRO or non-PRO? I've only been collecting royalties for a couple years but I'm not averaging what I would be getting on a per-track basis from this deal.

This question is related to the thread a while back where we discussed the benefits of retaining ownership of the track. It's just a business decision - if all you get is the up-front, as long as it's good enough for what they want, then I don't see the harm in doing it. Yet it seems composers are almost universally against this type of setup.

Thoughts?

rgames


----------



## JohnG (Sep 6, 2011)

Hi Richard,

I think it's fundamentally different.

Typically, work-for-hire and this situation are really not the same, even though the starting point seems identical to your situation. Normally, even though a work-for-hire clause initially takes your PRO, copyright etc., normally the production company concedes back three key things (well, more, but these are to me the most important -- more than, say, two copies of the DVD and a one-sheet!):

a. Credit in the picture and in advertising where the writer gets credit

b. Your PRO rights (cue sheet credit which gives you the "composer's share")

c. Participation in any record deal

So yes, in both cases you lose the publishing and the copyright (to the music and the masters), but you do recover these key things in a typical work-for-hire situation. Stuff done 15 years ago still generates royalties every quarter, sometimes a not inconsequential amount if it was TV.

I assume what they are doing is hawking this stuff to TV. They are going to put themselves down as the composers and capture all the royalties, both on the publishing and composer side. 

Someone brainy told me taking the composer's share isn't even legal, but I don't know. There are conspicuous examples.

I would never take that deal unless it were ridiculous money up front. Ridiculous.


----------



## Mr. Anxiety (Sep 6, 2011)

Richard, I agree with John G on this one. Not only is it illegal to give up your writer's rights to a copyright, the ability to collect some back-end royalties is still worthy of consideration. I've done cartoon work where the front end was miserable, but the "carrot" of syndication or worldwide play was interesting enough to go ahead. After a few years, the PRO checks started rolling in and this property was playing all over the world.

I think these deals are different and I personally think it's fundamentally wrong to let other people claim your intellectual property, this is just my opinion. Don't contribute to the erosion of our bargaining power, and certainly not for a really average payday!

You can't underestimate the lives of these copyrights................ 

Mr A


----------



## bigdog (Sep 6, 2011)

John is right - it's illegal. Not to say it hasn't been done....there are indeed examples. To do this the upfront would have to be MASSIVE......all we have is really the cue sheet we can build over time. Over time it really adds up so we can live in a civilized manner.
dunno - I wouldn't touch this one. Maybe if you can re-use the same cues somehow?


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 6, 2011)

I agree with my esteemed colleagues that you don't want to surrender your PRO credits. Not to get too melodramatic, but for most of us in the composer world, that's considered traitorous to accept a deal like that, even if the money is high. You're essentially "crossing the picket line" and making it that much easier for the next producer or library owner to try and take advantage of the next guy.

It is perfectly legal, though. People coercing composers' writers credits has been going on for years. (Saban putting his name as sole composer on the Power Rangers theme and making literally millions of dollars that doesn't belong to him being possibly the most disgusting example.)

What's lately becoming more common than someone else taking your writer's credit, though, is that many shows and networks now insist on PRO exemptions, where literally no one gets the PRO royalties. E! Entertainment Network is a famous example of this and I'm told ESPN forces the same deal with anyone who composes for their network. I've turned down shows for both networks for this reason. For any of us who actually make a living at this, it's scary as hell. If we as a community don't hold our ground, then we have only ourselves to blame if the entire industry eventually tips.


----------



## Mr. Anxiety (Sep 6, 2011)

Mike has shared some extremely important thoughts regarding our livelihood.

I totally agree with him on this.

Mr A


----------



## rgames (Sep 6, 2011)

Yeah - I can't come to a conclusion on this one but the response here is consistent with the discussions I've had elsewhere.

This is not a case of the library wanting to steal the PRO rights or me signing the rights over to them - they are specifically marketing to productions that avoid any type of PRO involvement (like those Mike described), so nobody is getting royalties. So, technically, I still own the rights, it's just that those rights have no economic value (kind of like the internet model). This model lets the broadcasters negotiate lower payments to the PRO's - shows that come in with no PRO burden reduce the costs for the broadcaster and are, therefore, more attractive.

As far as I can tell, it is perfectly legal. I'm registered with ASCAP and ASCAP provides a "non-exclusive" arrangement with their members (unlike BMI, as I understand it). So I'm perfectly free to do whatever I want with my music, including working with productions that require no PRO affiliation. Based on my reading, I can even join other PRO's if I wanted to (though probably not in the US).

Like I said, I've only been collecting royalties for a couple years but, in all honesty, they aren't that great. Sure, I have a few tracks on broadcast channels that do OK, but the rest are on cable earning very little. So, if you look across all the tracks in my library (about 300), my average earnings per track is well below what it would be if I signed on with this library. Of course, they're under no obligation to accept everything I submit, but I'm no worse off by submitting to them and being rejected: I still own the track so I can license it via the other libraries I already work with. So, basically, all I'm doing is giving them right of refusal.

So I agree that it just doesn't feel right but I can't come up with the rational argument that explains why it's the wrong choice to buy in to this model...

rgames


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 6, 2011)

I just want to add my name to the list of those who would not do it.


----------



## midphase (Sep 6, 2011)

rgames @ Tue Sep 06 said:


> they are specifically marketing to productions that avoid any type of PRO involvement (like those Mike described), so nobody is getting royalties.



How do you know? Once you sign over the rights, they can do whatever they want to and sell to whomever they like.

Out of curiosity...are they paying you thousands up front? Because if it's in the hundreds I'll tell you right now you'll end up getting screwed, although I suspect that doesn't really bother you.

Are they also sharing any license fees with you? There are many members around here who routinely make 6 figures from licensing and PRO checks...keep that in mind as a reality check as far as what you seem quite ready to give up.


----------



## ajkeys (Sep 6, 2011)

Newbie to contracts and such as a composer, though I have received royalties from internet play. My question, is a composers union of any use in situations like this? I've heard it is a 'dead' issue, but, why should the composer take the hit?


----------



## zacnelson (Sep 6, 2011)

bigdog @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> To do this the upfront would have to be MASSIVE......all we have is really the cue sheet we can build over time.



Please forgive my ignorance, as I am uninformed in these areas but I enjoy reading these posts and trying to glean knowledge. What does the above quote mean? Was is a `cue sheet' in this context? I also saw a reference to `cue sheet' in another post.

Thanks


----------



## midphase (Sep 7, 2011)

Cue-Sheet = performance royalties which over time can amount to many thousands of dollars...sometimes even millions if your music gets on the right show.


----------



## zacnelson (Sep 7, 2011)

Thanks!


----------



## Markus S (Sep 7, 2011)

rgames @ Tue Sep 06 said:


> As far as I can tell, it is perfectly legal. I'm registered with ASCAP and ASCAP provides a "non-exclusive" arrangement with their members (unlike BMI, as I understand it). So I'm perfectly free to do whatever I want with my music, including working with productions that require no PRO affiliation.
> 
> rgames



Can you give more information about this? A link to an official statement from ASCAP or where it is written in the writer's agreement?

Thanks,

Markus.


----------



## rgames (Sep 7, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> How do you know? Once you sign over the rights, they can do whatever they want to and sell to whomever they like.



Aye, there's the rub! Yes, there is an element of trust that is required. However, as Mike pointed out, this model is becoming more popular - I've seen probably 10 - 15 similar opportunities over the last couple years. So there is good indication that they do not, in fact, intend to generate any royalties for anyone.

One thing I didn't mention, but is important, is the type of music they want: they're looking for production music, so this is not in-depth scoring. I think that's an important point - the types of tracks they're looking for have low odds of generating any significant royalties. Nobody's going to take one of these tracks and turn it into a theme song for a broadcast TV show. Possible, yes, but highly unlikely.

So, like I said, my emotional reaction is the same as yours. But when I try to temper that against logic, I can't reconcile. Again, I think it's important to consider the type of music they want.

Markus - look at the ASCAP membership agreement http://www.ascap.com/join/pdf/writerapp.pdf . All public performance rights are granted on a non-exclusive basis. See section 1. (b) - (d).

rgames


----------



## bigdog (Sep 7, 2011)

You'd be amazed at how much ANY kind of music might make internationally - it doesn't have to be a domestic TV theme. In particular, Japan, Italy, Germany come to mind. Also every little bit can get to add to your statement adds up over time. You want your statement to be an inch thick, not an inch long!

OTOH as several have said, if it's a BIG taste up front ( I mean several thousand - maybe 7500 - 10k) and you need the $, then maybe it makes sense. I just would try to avoid making a habit of it. Listen, whoever is asking you to do this thinks there is money on the back end - I wonder how THEY are planning to make $ from the music?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 7, 2011)

So, like I said, my emotional reaction is the same as yours. But when I try to temper that against logic, I can't reconcile. 
[/quote]

Yes, but you have demonstrated before that you are a right wing free market wacko 

Just teasing, Richard.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 7, 2011)

Taking the other side, for not entirely pure reasons. I don't have a problem with this ethically. Is it the same as work for hire? No. But it's a compromise, similarly.

The library you're talking about, presumably, expects to play in a market where back end will be minimal or non-existent. They're not stealing anything. They're saying, "get in this with us, this is how the wind is blowing, like it or not."

Feel free to chime in with "UNION NOW!" right about here.

I'm actually very surprised you're getting offered anything up front at all.


----------



## Markus S (Sep 7, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> Markus - look at the ASCAP membership agreement http://www.ascap.com/join/pdf/writerapp.pdf . All public performance rights are granted on a non-exclusive basis. See section 1. (b) - (d).
> 
> rgames



Thanks! The question is : non-exclusive can mean, that you can be member of other PROs at the same time, in example in Europe. I read :

"The Owner grants to the Society" [...] "The right to license the public performance of *every *such musical work
shall be deemed granted to the Society by this instrument for the term
hereof, immediately upon the work being written, composed, acquired,
owned, published or copyrighted."

That sounds pretty much exclusive to me, "every" meaning you cannot exclude single compositions. How do you go about this if you want to sell a direct license?


----------



## rgames (Sep 7, 2011)

Markus S @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> rgames @ Wed Sep 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Markus - look at the ASCAP membership agreement http://www.ascap.com/join/pdf/writerapp.pdf . All public performance rights are granted on a non-exclusive basis. See section 1. (b) - (d).
> ...



That's correct, it says "the right" but *not* "the exclusive right". So yes, you grant ASCAP the right to license *all* your music, but you retain the right to license that same music through other sources. It specifically says that the rights are non-exclusive in the following sections.

So I think you could, in fact, join another PRO in addition to ASCAP. The trick, though, is that I think most other PRO's require exclusivity. So you could, for example, license through ASCAP and a creative commons agreement but probably not through ASCAP and BMI because I believe BMI requires exclusivity. Not sure how the European PRO's deal with it. Regardless, it's not ASCAP that's stopping you from joining other PRO's, it's the other PRO's.

rgames


----------



## bigdog (Sep 7, 2011)

you can belong to more than one PRO as a PUBLISHER, but not as a writer.........

the best way to accomplish getting both ASCAP&BMI revenue as a writer is to partner with someone from whichever PRO you do not belong to. This can be done for certain projects, shows, bodies of work, whatever - where you feel it advantageous to monitor what each is doing with the same titles


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 7, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> midphase @ Wed Sep 07 said:
> 
> 
> > How do you know? Once you sign over the rights, they can do whatever they want to and sell to whomever they like.
> ...


But just because they're allowing themselves to be screwed out of back end royalties as well doesn't mean you should join the ship. Especially since their ship is working against us. Libraries like that make it easier and easier for productions (and networks) to avoid PROs, which you will ultimately come to regret.

As Kays said, there are lots of composers (myself included) who routinely make six figure incomes from PRO royalties alone. I assume that one day you want to be one of those composers. But if you, and people like you, jump on the non-PRO bandwagon, then you're contributing to the eventual elimination of performance royalties.

I understand that these aren't great tracks, but 90% of what plays on TV isn't "great tracks." For instance, my Oprah royalties are around $100k/year, but with few exceptions, the cues were done in under an hour or two each. The quality of composition and production is irrelevant. Slow piano melodies over cliche string pads pays for my house.

I also understand that a little money is better than no money. But bear in mind that you're selling not only your music, but your professional ethics as well. I know that sounds harsh, but the one bright point we as composers still have is performance royalties. (Considering the fact that up front fees for film and TV have already dwindled so severely.) Like I said earlier, it's like watching a brother cross a picket line.


----------



## Mr. Anxiety (Sep 7, 2011)

Amen brother!

Sorry...... couldn't resist.

Good points yet again Mr. Greene

PRO royalties bought my house too...........

Mr A


----------



## rgames (Sep 7, 2011)

Yeah, I'm with you guys. Like I said, I agree on an emotional level. But you guys are generating a *lot* more royalties than I've seen since I started collecting them. So you've got to understand that from my viewpoint, the royalties aren't a very good source of revenue. However, I understand and agree with your viewpoint on the philosophical level.

So I'll just skip it, but where I sit right now, that's actually a bad business decision.

Keep in mind that I never intended to abandon my PRO completely, this was just a potential side gig to make a few extra bucks.

Of course, in 10 years, if the PRO model disappears and this company becomes the new Extreme Music, I'm coming after you guys!

rgames


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 7, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> rgames @ Wed Sep 07 said:
> 
> 
> > midphase @ Wed Sep 07 said:
> ...



Standing ovation, Mr. Greene.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 7, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> Yeah, I'm with you guys. Like I said, I agree on an emotional level. But you guys are generating a *lot* more royalties than I've seen since I started collecting them. So you've got to understand that from my viewpoint, the royalties aren't a very good source of revenue. However, I understand and agree with your viewpoint on the philosophical level.
> 
> So I'll just skip it, but where I sit right now, that's actually a bad business decision.
> 
> ...


Whilst I don't disagree with the statements made by others, you do have to consider that in all walks of life the Status Quo will be fought for most vigorously by the people who have profited the most from it. There is no guarantee that it will ever work for you. If people tell you to turn down work because in their eyes it erodes their own future income, ask for some compensation for making your magnanimous gesture. I can tell you immediately what they will give you, and it will involve the use of two fingers. :wink: 

D


----------



## PMortise (Sep 7, 2011)

+1 Jay.



rgames @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> ...So I'll just skip it, but where I sit right now, that's actually a bad business decision...


Bravo, Richard. If the resolve to skip these kinds of predatory deals were standard among every composer (or aspirant such as myself) this wouldn't even be a conversation. And what a day that would be.

It ain't an easy place to sit, but the alternative would be "penny wise and pound foolish".

EDIT: It'll eventually erode his own future as well, Daryl.

My 2c.


----------



## midphase (Sep 7, 2011)

Richard,

Asking other composers if it's ok to sign away your writer's share is a bit like asking if it's ok for you to download Albion from a torrent site. You're going to get a negative response and it's the only type that should be expected.

The day that royalties go away is the day that music composition as a professional career disappears, it's really that simple. Whether that eventuality is unavoidable is certainly debatable, but there is no logic in trying to bring it upon us more quickly.

You represent a dangerous segment of music creators, the one where your main source of income is drawn from another field and where music composition is an additional revenue stream which is a nice bonus (and hence not as critical to your survival). This is true for other fields, for instance look at all the amateur photographers who are slowly but surely putting some of the pros out of business.

Ultimately you do what you feel that you need to do, but if you choose to go ahead and compose for a company like the one you mention, please don't try to rationalize in your mind that you're not doing any damage to the industry because in the long term you will.

Everything that Mike said is spot on, just like the rest of America, the majority of the professionals trying to make a living writing music are not the handful of fat cats at the very top but guys like him who are just trying to pay the mortgage and offer their families a modicum of financial security.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 7, 2011)

Under what circumstances are you able to broadcast and not fill out a cue sheet? I know certain networks have become notorious for it, but I'm not sure I understand what makes it possible. 
I thought royalties were statutory -- and now there's a way around them. 
What's the way? And are there several ways?


----------



## rgames (Sep 7, 2011)

Yes, Daryl, I understand what you're saying as well, and it is a consideration.

However, here's where I wound up with my thinking:

I make less than 10% of my income from my music, and the time I would devote to this gig wouldn't have a big impact on that percentage, so I don't need it. Plus, it's music that I'm not particularly interested in writing. The only reason I was thinking about it was because it is a better deal than what I'm getting right now and it's a relatively new library, so I have the opportunity to get in up front. Yes, the deal is not anywhere near as good as what Mike and others are getting, but I'm not getting that. Maybe I will someday, who knows (I've done the math, doesn't seem likely...).

Like I said, I started collecting royalties a couple years ago and, so far, they're not very lucrative. I've had a bunch of stuff placed with Harpo, as well, and in two years I think I've made about $10. Yippee. If I had submitted those tracks to this deal, I would have made a *lot* more money.

However, even though it would be a better deal, it's still not good enough for me to jump in, especially given that it might reduce opportunities for others. Like I said, I don't need this gig, so if I can do a small part to improve the lives of other composers, then that's worth more than the extra cash.

The interesting thing in all of this is that if I were trying to make a living only as a composer, then it would be hard *not* to take this gig given what I see for revenues from royalties. The opportunity could, in fact, produce some real income for someone who wanted to do it mostly full time (that was never my plan but I am told there are folks making more than $50k a year from this gig). So for someone in my position without the benefit of alternate income, I could see it being a viable gig.

So Mike, Jay, others: I know I'm not alone - there are a bunch of guys like me who don't see the royalty stream as very lucrative. But they need the cash, so when these opportunities pop up, it's hard to turn them down. Maybe you guys have been at it long enough to have the "ins" that get you the best deals. Maybe the folks who have only been at it a few years don't get those kind of opportunities any more.

Just keep that in mind before you pass judgment.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Sep 7, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> You represent a dangerous segment of music creators, the one where your main source of income is drawn from another field and where music composition is an additional revenue stream which is a nice bonus (and hence not as critical to your survival).



I was typing my previous post when you posted that - see above. I understand and agree.

rgames


----------



## Daryl (Sep 7, 2011)

PMortise @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> +1 Jay.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well your argument is the same as saying that you would never score a film for no fee. If you are at the start of your career of course you would. However, it could easily be argued (and often is from financially successful composers) that to do so is to destroy the industry.

The difference here is that Richard is being asked to accept the same deal as an arranger or orchestrator. Neither get Royalties, even though they are often providing some of the actual music in the compositions. They have to save for their old age and pension the same as anyone else, as they have no Royalties to fall back on.

I haven't said that I agree with what's being asked, but I do think that it's easy to think of the "Good of the Industry" when you actually have money coming in. When you don't, it's less easy to be altruistic.

D


----------



## madbulk (Sep 7, 2011)

It's partly the "I would never score for no fee thing." And maybe it's partly stemming the tide. Or tides... there's the devaluation of music in general and there's the evolution away from these old laws that protected composers. 
Work for Hire is evil. Non-PRO music broadcasting is evil too. But progress marches. 
Differentiating between "the good fight" and "theirs is but to do and die," not black and white.

So I'm thinking it comes down to what you believe, as Richard said, things will be in 10 years. I think Richard's sacrifice will be in vain. So I wouldn't ask him to make it.


----------



## reddognoyz (Sep 7, 2011)

Never Ever EVER EVER give up your writers share. EVERRRRR!!!!!! 

No NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.


Do not give up your writer's share. Repeat until you are clear on this.


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 7, 2011)

madbulk @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> Under what circumstances are you able to broadcast and not fill out a cue sheet? I know certain networks have become notorious for it, but I'm not sure I understand what makes it possible.
> I thought royalties were statutory -- and now there's a way around them.
> What's the way? And are there several ways?


A network or local TV station pays annual fees to BMI and ASCAP for performance royalties to cover music by ASCAP and BMI composers. (A separate license from the sync fee, which is a license to use the music in the first place.) This is required by law *if* that TV station or network uses ASCAP or BMI music.

But if the TV station promises to use no ASCAP music at all, then they don't have to pay the fee. Or if they have certain shows on their schedule where the music has been made exempt, then they get a discount or credit from ASCAP for those hours.


----------



## RiffWraith (Sep 7, 2011)

So, I agree with alot of the sentiment here, but allow me to ask a Q.

Richard is being asked to write cues for a library, with x-dollars up front, and no royalties later - regardless of how these cues get used, and how often. Correct?

So, what is the difference between him (or anyone else) doing that, and someone being asked to write cues for a film, with the fee up front, and no royalties later - because, with an occasional rare exception, there are no royalties when the film gets played on network/cable/whatever anyway. So outside of the $ amount, what's the difference?


----------



## bigdog (Sep 7, 2011)

" because, with an occasional rare exception, there are no royalties when the film gets played on network/cable/whatever anyway"

not true! If the film gets played (broadcast) there WILL be royalties for sure. Now they may not be as big as we might like, but there will be some money. As the film goes on and is played in other markets around the world, the airplay could grow substantially. Some of the rates for domestic cable are indeed appalling, but when the same film plays in another market, it could be a nice taste. Plus, a film's life in syndication can really be surprising, given that the appetite for for certain kind of product varies in different parts of the world, and even in different eras - ie, a film that was not popular when it came out could BECOME popular 5-10 years later.

The other difference would be that the film would not take the music and continue to get it used every way possible without giving the composer cue sheet credit. In Richards situation, that is what is sounds like this library is going to do, so they should pat him WELL up front, as they are essentially buying him out of his writers share.


----------



## rgames (Sep 7, 2011)

RiffWraith @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> So, what is the difference between him (or anyone else) doing that, and someone being asked to write cues for a film, with the fee up front, and no royalties later - because, with an occasional rare exception, there are no royalties when the film gets played on network/cable/whatever anyway. So outside of the $ amount, what's the difference?


That was basically my take on it and the reason for the title of the thread - I think it's basically the same as work for hire. Of course, legally they are different, but in terms of cash flows I think they're more alike than different. John made some good points about the distinction but I still think the difference in cash flows is not likely to be much in most cases. It is, of course, correct that the movie *might* generate royalties if it's ever broadcast.



> Or if they have certain shows on their schedule where the music has been made exempt, then they get a discount or credit from ASCAP for those hours.


This is the type of setup that this library is supposedly targeting. Apparently the station can save some pretty big dollars by doing this, so there's a strong financial incentive for shows to set themselves up this way.

The other point that I think is getting glossed over in this discussion is the fact that more and more shows are being watched online, where nobody gets a cent in royalties. If everything goes to the internet, then I don't understand why we should fight to keep our ownership of the royalties: there are none. We had this discussion a while back in a different thread.

rgames


----------



## bigdog (Sep 7, 2011)

regarding internet uses - "I don't understand why we should fight to keep our ownership of the royalties: there are none."

again - not true! the pros are working furiously to remain relevant (as well all are) and are well aware of this issue. I believe there could be something in place on the ASCAP side - not sure though. I have started to see income from internet uses on my statements - so far for ads that have used cues from my library.


----------



## JohnG (Sep 7, 2011)

BigDog is right. 

You do get royalties when movies air on TV and cable. In some countries you get (large) royalties when your film shows in theatres.

In the US prime time on a network station a single screening is worth thousands (if it's a horror / sci fi flick with 80 minutes of music. For example).

But here's the main thing, maybe along the lines of what Mike G is expressing agita over: 

In the bad old days a studio could buy your song and your performance and then make $10mm out of you while you got nothing at all, or close to it. 

And that's what many fear will come again if we are careless.


----------



## rgames (Sep 7, 2011)

It also occurs to me that we should distinguish between being hired as a composer for a film or TV show and working for a music library.

If you're hired to write the music for a TV show or film, then sure, the back end payments can add up.

For library tracks, though, I think the situation is very different. It's rare for one of those tracks to get more than 15 sec of air time, many are on the order of 5-7 sec. So each one generates a *tiny* amount of royalty income. Take the example I gave above: I've had 10 or 15 placements with Harpo Productions and they've generated something like $10 in royalties in two years. Plus, the sync fees weren't that great, either. Yes, I have other placements that do much better, but I have a lot that are comparable to those with Harpo. So just imagine how much better off I'd be if I had taken some up-front cash for those tracks instead of hoping for back-end royalties.

So sure, I've kept my ownership of those tracks. And with it I can buy my kids a Happy Meal every two years.

Do you guys see where I'm coming from? What's the counter-argument, other than the philosophical one? I'm not saying the philosophical one is wrong, I'm just wondering how you guys would rationalize it to someone who needs the cash.

Also, consider this fact: there are a number of libraries that take no part of the royalties; they collect only on the license fee. So, clearly, I'm not the only one who wonders about the value of the back-end payments for library work.

rgames


----------



## madbulk (Sep 7, 2011)

You're not.
Where WILL we be in ten years? With fewer networks that pay ASCAP only during primetime or not at all?
Or with a expanding marketplace made up increasingly of new media that ASCAP will still be chasing around trying to forge an agreement.
They got Netflix. And I was pleased to hear it. But guess what is happening to Netflix? Competition from hulu.
So ASCAP is working on hulu too.
Guess what will kill Netflix AND Hulu... the collective force of everything else, now known and not. And ASCAP won't have deals with any of them.
I'm just making this up. So tell me I"m wrong!


----------



## RiffWraith (Sep 7, 2011)

Ahh, you do get royalties when movies air on TV and cable? Really....ok, I was not aware of that.

Alright, then that's the answer to my Q.


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 7, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> For library tracks, though, I think the situation is very different. It's rare for one of those tracks to get more than 15 sec of air time, many are on the order of 5-7 sec. So each one generates a *tiny* amount of royalty income. Take the example I gave above: I've had 10 or 15 placements with Harpo Productions and they've generated something like $10 in royalties in two years.


You're likely getting ripped off by whatever middleman is submitting the tracks to Harpo on your behalf. Each placement (5 to 15 seconds each is typical) should be paying you over $100 in performance royalties. Per airing. That's what I'm getting and it's not like I have some special deal or something.


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 7, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> It also occurs to me that we should distinguish between being hired as a composer for a film or TV show and working for a music library.


No, because other than the upfront fee, the deal should be the *same* whether you're working for a music library or whether you're the named composer for a show.

You should get 100% of writer's share either way. And you likely won't get the publisher's share either way. (If the studio hires you as composer, then the studio takes the publisher's share - if they use a library, then the library takes the publisher's share.)


----------



## David Story (Sep 7, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> Do you guys see where I'm coming from? What's the counter-argument, other than the philosophical one? I'm not saying the philosophical one is wrong, I'm just wondering how you guys would rationalize it to someone who needs the cash.
> rgames



Yes, you sound desperate and short-sighted. The counter argument is: Cave now and there won't be a later.

Selling yourself cheap is what every unscrupulous businessperson hopes you'll do. It comes back to bite you and your friends. This deal is not okay, even if the company is charming.

The answer for someone who needs cash is unemployment benefits for composers. Or a day job, as you have. It's civilized.

Smart business deals are an investment.


----------



## rgames (Sep 7, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> You're likely getting ripped off by whatever middleman is submitting the tracks to Harpo on your behalf. Each placement (5 to 15 seconds each is typical) should be paying you over $100 in performance royalties. Per airing. That's what I'm getting and it's not like I have some special deal or something.


I guess I need to give ASCAP a call tomorrow...

I don't see how I could be getting ripped off - the info is straight off my ASCAP statement. I'm on the cue sheet as both writer and publisher. Each is worth fractions of a credit.

If you're getting $100 you must be getting something like 15 credits per placement.

And that's for a single play?

Dunno, man, I've talked to other folks whose experience is similar to mine. Can't explain that one...

rgames


----------



## cc64 (Sep 7, 2011)

Hi Richard,

well it depends if Mike's cues have been used on Oprah's show then that is prime-time on a national broadcast from one of the big three. If you're cuts where placed on something that Harpo produced but was playing on HGTV or the Food network for example that would be cable and maybe local or statewide and that would explain the difference between your ASCAP statements and Mike's.

HTH

Claude


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 7, 2011)

Are these Oprah placements? (Not some other low level Harpo related cable show like Claude mentioned?) If so, then you should be getting somewhere in the hundreds of dollars per minute. (Syndication is highly variable, so even ASCAP can't give you an exact per minute amount. But for perspective, I checked a couple weeks ago and even lowly MTV pays $35 per minute for background underscore.)

I think I know what's going on, by the way. It's your middleman (probably not ASCAP) that screwed you.

Scan a royalty statement with a placement on it, send me a pdf, and I'll be able to tell you what you should have gotten paid for it. THEN you can go to your middleman and ask what's up.


----------



## midphase (Sep 7, 2011)

I'm with Mike,

My ASCAP checks are quite nice and most of it comes from small little incidental library type cues and not big movie stuff.

If you're not seeing a whole lot of ASCAP checks coming your way, you need to ask yourself if the music libraries that you've been working with are any good!


----------



## rgames (Sep 7, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> Are these Oprah placements? (Not some other low level Harpo related cable show like Claude mentioned?) If so, then you should be getting somewhere in the hundreds of dollars per minute. (Syndication is highly variable, so even ASCAP can't give you an exact per minute amount. But for perspective, I checked a couple weeks ago and even lowly MTV pays $35 per minute for background underscore.)


The show was Oprah but it was local, not cable or broadcast. Details on one: CA 10%, Day Part N/A, 5 plays, BG, 0:09, 0.002 premium credits, 0.006 total credits. Payout: $0.05, or one fat penny per play.

To compare better to your example of MTV, here's one from a track that was on the TO show on VH1: CA 100%, Day Part P, 9 plays, BG, 0:27, 8.496 credits, Payout: $65.77, or $7.30 per play.

Here's the thing about both of these, though: they don't play for very long. Each of these showed up on 2, maybe 3 statements. So it's not like they're sitting there for long periods of time generating revenues. Basically, you get a few plays then that's it. That's why I think we need to think differently about library tracks: of course you are correct that the royalties are the same when they get used, but library tracks are used much differently than purpose-written score for a show or film. A TV show or film that hired a composer is going to stick around much longer and generate revenues for a long time; shows that use mostly library tracks seem to disappear pretty quickly, so the back-end payments really aren't worth much.

Also consider the fact that only about 1/6 of my library actually generates any royalties and it's pretty easy to see that it makes much more business sense to just sell everything up front and take the cash.

As I said, I've only been doing the library work for about three years, collecting royalties for about two, and I've done exactly as you're recommending: I keep ownership of as much as possible. Maybe things will get better but I constantly hear about guys doing buyout, non-PRO, and RF deals who are making 10x - 20x what I've made in that time period. So, again, keeping all the rights isn't particularly satisfying, at least right now.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Sep 7, 2011)

You need to find yourself a better music library to work with...sounds like these guys are not hitting up the big shows.

Also...FYI...I've been collecting royalties for TV shows like Pimp My Ride for well over 5 years, once they run through the course of the airings here in the US, they seem to pick back up in the UK or elsewhere...so it's not necessarily true that having cues on a non-custom score show doesn't yield lasting revenues.


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 7, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> The show was Oprah but it was local, not cable or broadcast. Details on one: CA 10%, Day Part N/A, 5 plays, BG, 0:09, 0.002 premium credits, 0.006 total credits. Payout: $0.05, or one fat penny per play.
> . . .


Of course it's local. That's how syndicated shows work. Unlike network shows, where times and stations are fixed (during prime time,) syndicated shows are sold locally, city by city. ASCAP doesn't have a "Syndicated" section, because any given syndicated show may have only one station running their show, or they may have a hundred. So it's all under "Local Broadcasts."

Oprah doesn't make custom episodes for each city, so if you have a placement, it airs _everywhere._ Which means it should be along the lines monetarily of what I described earlier.

If it's only a few cents, you're either mistaken about it being a cue used in Oprah, or else you're being ripped off. If I'm making a hundred per cue and you're making pennies, then something's wrong. Send me the damn pdf of a statement (recent as possible) and let me read it myself. I dare say I know a little about what to look for in a royalty statement. Your choice, though. If you'd rather just keep explaining why you think selling out makes sense for you, then there's not a lot more I can say.


----------



## rgames (Sep 7, 2011)

midphase @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> You need to find yourself a better music library to work with...sounds like these guys are not hitting up the big shows


Or maybe my music just sucks and that's the best I can hope for 

Pump and Crucial are the only two that have gotten me decent placements. I've tried probably 15 different libraries over the past few years and quit submitting to most because they don't do much for me. I'm still submitting to new libraries to see what happens (hence this thread). Never gotten in the door at any of the really big name libraries, so that could be it...

rgames


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 7, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> It also occurs to me that we should distinguish between being hired as a composer for a film or TV show and working for a music library.
> 
> If you're hired to write the music for a TV show or film, then sure, the back end payments can add up.
> 
> ...



i understand and symphazise. 

u might strike a balance by doing fast "mockups" of your work but using different melodies and changes. 
or do practice work and give it to them. 
if they cheap... u cheap  
and save the good stuff for better opportunities.


----------



## midphase (Sep 7, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> Or maybe my music just sucks and that's the best I can hope for



Nah...especially when it comes to reality TV quality is not that important. I've made a good earning from cues which were little more than a drum beat and a bass line, kinda sad actually but it fit so well under the drunken ramblings of Snooki.


----------



## rgames (Sep 7, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> rgames @ Wed Sep 07 said:
> 
> 
> > The show was Oprah but it was local, not cable or broadcast. Details on one: CA 10%, Day Part N/A, 5 plays, BG, 0:09, 0.002 premium credits, 0.006 total credits. Payout: $0.05, or one fat penny per play.
> ...



Well, obviously there's more personal info on a complete statement than I care to share with someone I know only through a web forum. I'm sure you're a great guy, though 

So here are a couple snippets that show the placements I mentioned above:

http://www.rgamesmusic.com/temp/Statement.jpg

rgames


----------



## Daryl (Sep 8, 2011)

David Story @ Thu Sep 08 said:


> rgames @ Wed Sep 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you guys see where I'm coming from? What's the counter-argument, other than the philosophical one? I'm not saying the philosophical one is wrong, I'm just wondering how you guys would rationalize it to someone who needs the cash.
> ...


Right, so you never give away the Publishing, unless the recipient can prove that they have the infrastructure to exploit your music over and above the original commission? And when they don't fulfill their legal obligations in this matter, you always repossess your music?

I also assume that you don't use any sample libraries, because you are so concerned for the industry that you wouldn't want to participate in the decimation of both the recording industry and the session musician profession, not to mention be responsible for many studios closing down?

See, it's not quite as simple as you think. :wink: 

D


----------



## ajkeys (Sep 8, 2011)

> I'm still submitting to new libraries to see what happens (hence this thread)



I had to finish this thread tonight! So many sides to this one...Thanks Richard for putting it out there. My neighbor David Raksin (RIP) was one of the best in the business. He didn't own the rights to one of his biggest hits, the theme to the movie "Laura". So there is perspective on the rights issue. The mantra has to continue "keep your writers rights"...but, who says you have to keep everything? 

You are like a lot of us composers today, writing for a market, just as composers of the past were doing. The only thing that has changed is that there are more composers, but there are also more outlets...cable, internet, TV, and movies. I believe composers can still get their price, even if that price is named by a library for a small project.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 8, 2011)

ajkeys @ Thu Sep 08 said:


> > I'm still submitting to new libraries to see what happens (hence this thread)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I believe that while Raskin did not own the copyright so not the publishing, he did own his writer's share.

It is certainly never been uncommon for composers not to won the copyright and therefore the publishing but giving up the writer's share means actually having your name removed from the cue sheets, etc. and no writer should do that IMHO.


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 8, 2011)

rgames @ Wed Sep 07 said:


> So here are a couple snippets that show the placements I mentioned above:
> 
> http://www.rgamesmusic.com/temp/Statement.jpg


This is what I needed to see. There's some great stuff here, so thanks for posting it.

First, before I get to Oprah, I can't help but notice that you made $168 for a single cue on some VH1 show I've never heard of. Not NBC, not Fox, not even TNT, but VH1, for God's sake! For one 27 second cue on what I assume is one episode! That's gotta tell you something about the possible PRO income you could make, even at the low end. You do intend to write music that will air, right? Well, this is the tip of the iceberg for what you can expect from PRO royalties.

Now, regarding the Oprah cue, the first thing I notice is that you seem to only have 10% of the writer's share. I'm not sure what's up with that, and in this particular case, the difference between a nickel and 50 cents doesn't really matter anyway. But in case these guys get any future cuts for you, you might want to look into this now, rather than later. My guess is the library owner listed himself as 90% writer.

Okay, now regarding this being an Oprah cue and why the royalty is so low . . . drum roll . . . I don't think it's an Oprah cue. It's probably a commercial or some other odd use that some individual local station did. But it's unlikely to be a cue that was used as part of the show itself. (At least not as released from Harpo Studios in Chicago.)

The first thing that jumped out at me (besides the fact that you only made 5 cents from one of the most watched daytime shows ever, yet made $168 from a VH1 show that no one's ever heard of,) was that your Oprah cue only showed up on one line of your ASCAP statement. All Oprah cues should be on four lines, one each for the "Day Part" categories of M (morning,) D (daytime), P (prime time, which is 7 pm to 1 am,) and N (stoner hours.) Also, the fact that "# of Plays" is only 5 is a red flag. That's way low.

You don't show it here, but another thing is that all Oprah cues show up not only in "Local TV - Per Program," but also in "Local TV - Blanket." There should be both.

Here's what I would do: Contact whoever got this placement for you and ask them what's up. If it's a local commercial, you should have gotten a piece of the license fee. (Approach it from that angle, because you want to box them into a corner of saying that it was definitely a cue used on Oprah.) If they insist that it *is* a cue that was used in the show, then report back here and I'll tell you where all your money went. Which will be a perfect illustration for why you need to be careful about what rights you sign away. (Hint: Oprah PRO royalties are mostly paid through MRI, not ASCAP.)


----------



## ozmorphasis (Sep 8, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Thu Sep 08 said:


> (Hint: Oprah PRO royalties are mostly paid through MRI, not ASCAP.)



Mike, thanks for spending time discussing this. I find it very interesting as I am new to the library scene. Especially, I want to thank you and Richard for keeping the discussion online rather than PMs. This is very good to read.

I am totally unfamiliar with MRI, unless it comes with a radiologist. Can you expand a bit on your "hint."

As an ASCAP member, what should I know about MRI?

Richard, thanks for bringing up this discussion. 

O


----------



## bigdog (Sep 8, 2011)

I am not aware of MRI either...please explain...


----------



## madbulk (Sep 8, 2011)

Mike's the best. I've never even met the guy. But anybody tries to get at Mike Greene -- and Mike is gonna say the list is long -- is gonna have to get through me by golly-- provided I'm in the general vicinity.


----------



## midphase (Sep 8, 2011)

MRI:

http://www.televisionmusic.com/Joomla_1.5.15/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12 (http://www.televisionmusic.com/Joomla_1 ... icle&amp;id=12)


----------



## David Story (Sep 8, 2011)

Daryl @ Thu Sep 08 said:


> Right, so you never give away the Publishing, unless the recipient can prove that they have the infrastructure to exploit your music over and above the original commission? And when they don't fulfill their legal obligations in this matter, you always repossess your music?
> 
> I also assume that you don't use any sample libraries, because you are so concerned for the industry that you wouldn't want to participate in the decimation of both the recording industry and the session musician profession, not to mention be responsible for many studios closing down?
> 
> ...



Hey D, True, I don't give away publishing unless they can exploit it. Impractical to force them to do it, so I negotiate a clause that allows me to release a soundtrack if they don't. Or I license the score.

I do employ live musicians, and use the sampler to do things different than live. Because I care. Pretty simple. Don't give away your rights, or mine. :wink:


----------



## ajkeys (Sep 8, 2011)

> I believe that while Raskin did not own the copyright so not the publishing, he did own his writer's share.



You are correct Jay, Raksin did have his writers share...and that's where this library business is trying to muscle in. I only wanted to point out that over a career a composer may take the course of immediate sacrafice for long term gain, it should never be a permanent sacrafice. At the time Raksin was just getting work as a composer. 



> (Hint: Oprah PRO royalties are mostly paid through MRI, not ASCAP.)



This is fascinating and quite an education! Thanks to Mike, and 'Midphase' for explaining the royalties and MRI...


----------



## rgames (Sep 8, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Thu Sep 08 said:


> rgames @ Wed Sep 07 said:
> 
> 
> > So here are a couple snippets that show the placements I mentioned above:
> ...


And thanks for the insight - it helps.

Here are a few replies to your comments:

There were other listings for the Oprah show on previous statements (and later statements). I think the first one had the different showings but they all generated about the same number of pennies.

I do have all the writer's share on that cue - I think you're looking at the CA% which is only 10%. I never understood why that was but I think it's because the track includes an arrangement of the "simple gifts" theme in a spot, so it has a public domain element. I never bothered to look in to it because the payout was so low - who cares...

Yes, that track on the TO show did OK. However, like I said above, only about 20% of my library generates any royalties, and a lot of that is like the Oprah example (actually, not quite that bad, the Oprah tracks are the worst). Also, those kind of placements show up on just a couple of statements, so they don't generate revenues for very long. So I'd be much better off if I had taken all those tracks and just sold them up front. Better off as in a *lot* better off.

But, again, maybe all that will change in the future.

And yes, there are much better libraries out there that would probably do better for my music. But I'm not in them (been trying!). So, for folks like me who aren't in the club, the buyout deals look a lot better than what we're able to get via royalties.

The fact of the matter is that you could sign up with some of these buyout deals and make a decent living. Not great, but you could make a living. The way I'm going about it right now (i.e. keeping ownership), it sure seems unlikely that I could ever make a living through library sales. And there are lots of other guys like me.

So, again, it's hard to fault folks who choose to give up their ownership. Don't blame them, they're just trying to make a buck doing what they love.

Does it hurt the profession? Probably, and that's why I'm not doing it. But, again, it's not my primary source of income, so I have the luxury of being able to sit on that high ground. But I find it difficult to hold it against someone who chooses the buyout route.

It's not as cut and dried as you guys make it seem. I don't like it, either, but it sure seems like it's just a fact of life nowadays.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Sep 8, 2011)

rgames @ Thu Sep 08 said:


> Does it hurt the profession? Probably, and that's why I'm not doing it. But, again, it's not my primary source of income, so I have the luxury of being able to sit on that high ground. But I find it difficult to hold it against someone who chooses the buyout route.
> 
> It's not as cut and dried as you guys make it seem. I don't like it, either, but it sure seems like it's just a fact of life nowadays.
> 
> rgames




Richard,

The only sad fact of life right now is that being a full time composer has become (with the exceptions of some relatively rare cases) a luxury for most, especially those attempting to enter the workforce now.

The reality is that depending where you live and what market you're operating in, some of these deals are either the norm, or completely unacceptable. I don't mean to pull out the "Los Angeles elitist" card, but I do think that smaller markets have become next to impossible for anyone to make a living doing music only, and they are getting worse. Even the opportunities to work with some more established libraries becomes tougher vs. networking in town on a local level and meeting some of these people face to face.

For every library track that I get a decent upfront fee AND get to keep my Writer's Share AND get to keep 50% of the licensing, I'm sure there are hundreds of guys who are expected to deliver tracks with no up front payments, or requested to give up their licensing share or worst of all their PRO share in lieu of a relatively small up front compensation.

I understand your lack of confidence in how much money your Writer's Share is worth down the line, and I understand that you're looking at the bottom line today and not a potential bottom line months or even years away. It does require taking a higher ground stance which is not easy in tough economic times.

Ultimately as much as it saddens for me to admit, the only way out of this horrible mess that we've gotten ourselves in as composers requires that a great deal of us drop out of the industry and seek another source of income than music. The moment that trying to create music as a source of income for many becomes and unsustainable effort and causes them to seek employment elsewhere is when things will start to finally turn back around.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 8, 2011)

And that's never, people.


----------



## David Story (Sep 8, 2011)

When composers stand together things will get better. That could happen today, it's up to you.

Yes, you the person reading this and thinking no. You're the one holding up progress.


----------



## ajkeys (Sep 8, 2011)

Ok, time to chime in UNION NOW!


----------



## Mr. Anxiety (Sep 8, 2011)

A composer's union sounds like a solution in theory....... but I think it will only live "in theory".

The issues being brought to the table in this thread concern an ethical approach to the situation presented. These ethics can be implemented with or without a unionized composer force. Giving away one's intellectual property just isn't right and serves no purpose for the collective group. Letting someone else put their name on your music is just a gross concept, period. 

Mr A


----------



## ajkeys (Sep 8, 2011)

> Yes, you the person reading this and thinking no. You're the one holding up progress.



When one person says 'no' that's sometimes the catalyst (Rosa Parks)...it usually leads to a larger, mass call for 'NO'... but sometimes the fire doesn't start and the one person is not enough. 



> Letting someone else put their name on your music is just a gross concept, period.



Is this reason enough? Come on!


----------



## midphase (Sep 9, 2011)

ajkeys @ Thu Sep 08 said:


> When one person says 'no' that's sometimes the catalyst (Rosa Parks)...it usually leads to a larger, mass call for 'NO'... but sometimes the fire doesn't start and the one person is not enough.



Are you seriously comparing standing up against segregation and racism to giving your writer's share away?


----------



## Daryl (Sep 9, 2011)

David Story @ Thu Sep 08 said:


> Daryl @ Thu Sep 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Right, so you never give away the Publishing, unless the recipient can prove that they have the infrastructure to exploit your music over and above the original commission? And when they don't fulfill their legal obligations in this matter, you always repossess your music?
> ...


Good for you. However, you're the only person I've ever come across who will turn the gig down if they can't keep the Publishing to themselves, so in my experience you are a rarity. I personally know of two very high BBC gigs that would have gone elsewhere it the composer had stuck to his guns regarding Publishing.



David Story @ Thu Sep 08 said:


> I do employ live musicians, and use the sampler to do things different than live. Because I care. Pretty simple. Don't give away your rights, or mine. :wink:


Again I'm glad to hear it, but surely you can't deny that sample libraries have already partly destroyed the industry (as well as making many traditional pencil and paper composers all but unemployable), been responsible for decimating music budgets and allowed the standard of music on cheap TV to dwindle to a level where if it wasn't so sad, it would be laughable?

D


----------



## Daryl (Sep 9, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Sep 08 said:


> Ultimately as much as it saddens for me to admit, the only way out of this horrible mess that we've gotten ourselves in as composers requires that a great deal of us drop out of the industry and seek another source of income than music. The moment that trying to create music as a source of income for many becomes and unsustainable effort and causes them to seek employment elsewhere is when things will start to finally turn back around.


Of course the people who will ultimately be unemployed are the ones who don't really have much in the way of skill or craft, and rely on technology to make them sound good. It will get to the stage where anyone with a laptop and the latest all-in-one composition tool will be able to score many, many TV gigs, so the fees will be so low that even the libraries won't want to compete.

However, for those people who not only have talent, but also craft and ability, there will always be work, and if a few talentless hacks have to get a proper jobs, instead of ponsing around pretending that they are composers, that will be good for the Industry in my view. o-[][]-o 

D


----------



## rgames (Sep 9, 2011)

Mr. Anxiety @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> The issues being brought to the table in this thread concern an ethical approach to the situation presented. These ethics can be implemented with or without a unionized composer force. Giving away one's intellectual property just isn't right and serves no purpose for the collective group. Letting someone else put their name on your music is just a gross concept, period


That's not true - there's nothing unethical about giving up ownership of your intellectual property. It happens all the time and there's no issue with it.

Let's say you work for Apple and you dream up a great new gadget. Any guess on who owns it? Yep - it's Apple's property. Whenever you hire on to *any* company that generates revenues from IP you sign away your rights to your personal interests in that IP.

The setup that composers have is unique: since we're considered independent contractors, we generally keep our intellectual property. However, it's perfectly ethical and often more financially rewarding to give up those rights to someone else.

It's not an ethical issue, it's a business issue: does it make financial sense to give up those rights? It certainly can.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Sep 9, 2011)

Daryl @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> Of course the people who will ultimately be unemployed are the ones who don't really have much in the way of skill or craft


Definitely not true in my experience, *especially* when it comes to library music.

In my limited experience, success in the library music world is mostly about understanding the market. Quality of music is important, but not nearly as much as you're insinuating. There are lots of really good composers who could never earn a living doing library music.

Even in writing for film, I'd wager that the most brilliant composer is not going to do as well as someone who can write some catchy underscore.

rgames


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Sep 9, 2011)

Catchy underscore? Isn't that an oxymoron? I thought the point of underscore was to be... under?


----------



## Daryl (Sep 9, 2011)

rgames @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> Daryl @ Fri Sep 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course the people who will ultimately be unemployed are the ones who don't really have much in the way of skill or craft
> ...


Yes, but your experience is about what's happening to you now, not what may or may not happen in the future in the industry. I can tell you that from my experience that there are many, many button pushers, who for the last few years have earned a good living, but are now starting to find it more difficult because they are not the only people who can load up a few patches, loops and "create" music. However, what these guys can't do is what some of the rest of us do, and no amount of technology will make up for that.

I also think that telling yourself that quality of music is not important is a bit of a red herring. Do you not think that it takes some sort of talent to write a catchy underscore (if even such a thing exists)? A brilliant composer is the one who writes good and appropriate music for the gig, be it an opera, ballet, symphony or film. You can't divorce the composition from the environment for which it was written.

It's not for me to pontificate on any of this, but I've heard many people on and off forums proclaim that there is no money to be made in writing library music, and then in the next breath admit that they never submit their best stuff, becuase it's only library. For those of us who make most of our living from writing library music, and not as a "well I can't get any other gig, so I might as well try a bit of library" sort of thing, I am only too happy for people to think that the quality of music is not important. It guarantees me much higher earnings for the foreseeable future.  

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 9, 2011)

I cannot speak for anyone else but personally I simply do not know how to compose and not try to do my best. I have not been writing for libraries but if and when I do, you can be sure I will give it my best; which means my name will be on it; which means I will receive minimally my writer's share of its earnings.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 9, 2011)

Suit yourself, Jay. 
Me, I'm setting up aliases. 8) 

Kays, are you seriously saying he's equating himself with Rosa Parks? Give a guy a pass.

Daryl and Richard, even though you're not exactly in sync, I agree with both of you pretty much across the board.


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 9, 2011)

madbulk @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> Suit yourself, Jay.
> Me, I'm setting up aliases. 8)


Just do what I do - If you write really something bad, just put Jay's name as composer.

Of course, still keep the cue sheet credit for yourself, though.

:mrgreen:


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 9, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> madbulk @ Fri Sep 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Suit yourself, Jay.
> ...



But...but...then how will people distinguish between what is my awful writing and your awful writing?


----------



## madbulk (Sep 9, 2011)

My awful writing is unconcerned -- gonna come away pretty unscathed. I'm liking this plan.


----------



## robh (Sep 9, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> Mike Greene @ Fri Sep 09 said:
> 
> 
> > madbulk @ Fri Sep 09 said:
> ...


If they can't distinguish it, then maybe they'll hire both of you to collaborate on something. Then you both can create something truly awful! 

Rob


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 9, 2011)

robh @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Fri Sep 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Mike Greene @ Fri Sep 09 said:
> ...



Not gonna happen. Every time I am alone with Mike he makes passes at me because of my sheer physical beauty.


----------



## midphase (Sep 9, 2011)

rgames @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> That's not true - there's nothing unethical about giving up ownership of your intellectual property. It happens all the time and there's no issue with it.
> 
> Let's say you work for Apple and you dream up a great new gadget. Any guess on who owns it? Yep - it's Apple's property.



Richard,

As it often happens with you, you take an example from another industry (or country or political era) and apply it liberally to whatever suits your logic.

Let's start by agreeing that there are different standards for different industries and different usages. Just because one system works a certain way, it is not logical or even reasonable to assume that other systems should fit into the same way. An engineer for a hardware or software companies abides by different rules and ethics than an advertising agency creative, a photographer, a videographer, a writer, or a composer.

The standard for many decades has been to let the studio (or production company) take a portion or all of the publisher's share (there is a sound logic behind that decision BTW), and for the composer to retain 100% of the writer's share. There are exceptions of course, but it is critical to the survival of composing as a career that they remain exceptions and do not become the norm.

Other industries are dealing with other difficult issues that impact their ability to continue to work professionally in their chose craft (engineering work flocking to Asia, stock photography decimating pro photographers, etc) and are trying their hardest to hold the line for not only their own sake but for the sake of future generations.

In "commercial" composition, it is our duty to hold our line to keep our industry from becoming nothing more than a hobby.

Since I have been professionally working in this industry (i.e. making 100% of my living writing music) I have seen:

- Local and regional advertising composing jobs completely disappear

- Straight to DVD and made for TV film scores drop from $30k+ to about $10k or less

- Music libraries pay smaller and smaller advances to nothing up front.

- Music library licenses for TV go from being paid several thousands per cue to $0


The one thing which has not changed in the past 20 or so years (except for a couple of small instances like PAX and Saban which were dealt with swiftly) is the standard for a composer to retain 100% of his Writer's Share.


I am well aware that there are companies who are trying to do away with PRO's, I'm well aware that there are music libraries who are trying to retain a portion or even all of the writer's share, but right now these represent still a fringe element and really need to be kept as such for the sake of our very survival as an industry.

Further, how long do you think a music library like the one you mention, would continue to pay handsomely up front for PRO-free music is that becomes the norm? The ONLY reason why they feel it necessary to pay a higher fee up front is because right now getting composers to agree to their terms is the exception. The moment that it becomes the norm, those fees will drop and eventually disappear so what you'll be left with is absolutely no way to generate any income from music.

As I mentioned before, ultimately you do whatever you feel like doing. Despite what you say here, there's really no way for us to know if you'll end up taking the gig anyway so it really is up to you. On the other hand, you can't expect to come in here and rationalize away why this deal ain't so bad for people like you and expect working composers to agree with you.


----------



## PMortise (Sep 9, 2011)

David Story @ Thu Sep 08 said:


> When composers stand together things will get better. That could happen today, it's up to you.
> 
> Yes, you the person reading this and thinking no. You're the one holding up progress.


+1 o-[][]-o


----------



## ajkeys (Sep 9, 2011)

I love all the humor in this post as well as the info...as far as the last few posts, I'll say that underscore is underscore. Can you do that badly? Who would notice, unless you score it more than, well...under as Ned said, lol. As far as my post about Unions (Rosa Parks)...there has never been a time when composers considered unionizing, but according to film music magazines survey a large percentage are in favor of it. It may be bad timing, economic conditions being as they are, but maybe some composers are saying 'NO' to the deals they are being given and want to band together. How you do that and have it recognized in the real world is the question?


----------



## midphase (Sep 9, 2011)

Al,

I'm not sure where you've been for the past couple of years...please read this to bring yourself up to date:

http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14329

Also, FYI composers did unionize for a while, and there have been several attempts through the years including the most recent one.

I like Einstein too...but perhaps a better version of that quote would be "Imagination is as important as knowledge."


----------



## ajkeys (Sep 9, 2011)

Thanks, I'll take the the way my version reads...and thanks for the update! I haven't been as closely connected to this issue as you obviously. I was referring to the recent efforts to unionize. You are a full time composer whose livelihood depends on available work! You see the work disappearing for guys like you, and many other well established composers...we would like to hear your solution.


----------



## jeffc (Sep 9, 2011)

Kays has it right on this issue. There's no way to rationalize giving away the writers' share for upfront money. Period. It's shortsighted and just means that you haven't seen the long term potential royalty income that you could be giving up. If you haven't experienced it, then you may not see why people who have are giving you the advice to not justify your incorrect decision.

And Kays is right, so many things have gotten worse in the industry that make it very difficult (although I'd probably venture to say that it was never easy at any time). Technology, music libraries, shrinking budgets are all a sad reality and I'm not sure if they'll ever get better. In light of this, the one consistent thing that has actually remained constant or grown is performance royalties. Ascap and BMI are powerful advocates for the tv/film composer, probably more that anyone else that we have on our side. They are constantly fighting in Washington and with networks, websites, etc. to protect our royalties. Short of a union, they're the best thing we have.

A song in a film or tv show, however piddly it may seem upfront, can generate royalties for 15-20 years, that even if it's only $20 here, $75, there, can add up to many times more than the upfront payment that may seem so tempting now. And that's not even counting that you may license that same track somewhere else, which will even more affect the possible revenue that you are giving away. Also, as we head to more of a streaming future (as opposed to downloads, which looked so prevalent just a few years back), Ascap and BMI become even more relevant to our futures, as they are negotiating deals with Netflix, Spotify, etc to license more possible revenue streams for composers. 

Who knows if we will get a guild or union, while many support it, one thing that each of us has the power to do is not sign away our writers' royalties. That is a powerful choice that each of us has the power to make. Do not take it lightly or justify giving it away, the cost although you might not see it now, is just to great over the long term.

Just my thoughts, of course.... J


----------



## José Herring (Sep 9, 2011)

jeffc @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> Kays has it right on this issue. There's no way to rationalize giving away the writers' share for upfront money. Period. It's shortsighted and just means that you haven't seen the long term potential royalty income that you could be giving up. If you haven't experienced it, then you may not see why people who have are giving you the advice to not justify your incorrect decision.
> 
> And Kays is right, so many things have gotten worse in the industry that make it very difficult (although I'd probably venture to say that it was never easy at any time). Technology, music libraries, shrinking budgets are all a sad reality and I'm not sure if they'll ever get better. In light of this, the one consistent thing that has actually remained constant or grown is performance royalties. Ascap and BMI are powerful advocates for the tv/film composer, probably more that anyone else that we have on our side. They are constantly fighting in Washington and with networks, websites, etc. to protect our royalties. Short of a union, they're the best thing we have.
> 
> ...



I want to second this. I really can't even believe it's a debate. In all honesty I'd rather give up the piddly upfront fee and get the writers share. Giving up writers share is like telling your kids to go fuck themselves. It's the only thing for a media composer that even has a potential of setting up some sort of estate to hand to future generation of Games'.

It's become kind of my go to mantra for accepting work these days. Will it bring in future income? If no, then I'll pass. I mean think about it. Even in big budgeted all in packages, you'll end up spending a lot of the money in production if you want to do it right. A lot of times the only real money you have left to show for your efforts are the royaltees. Even if you do it all in house, just think of the amount of time and money you've spent getting to the point where you can do a production in house. The only real way to recoup all that is to have some sort of future income. 

So let's say Richard that you're getting $1000/track for your efforts. You'd have to turn in about 20 or 30 tracks to even make up for the investment you've placed in computers, libraries, man hours getting it all to work, ect... So at the end of the day you're not even really breaking even if you're get paid less than that or produce less tracks.

Giving up writers is like selling your soul to the devil. Sure you may get what you want right now, but you're doomed to an eternity of the hell of having somebody else collect your paycheck. It is wrong. Just plain wrong. And, anybody who suggest it is just a sleazy slimeball wanting to get something for nothing.


----------



## ajkeys (Sep 9, 2011)

> Ascap and BMI are powerful advocates for the tv/film composer, probably more that anyone else that we have on our side. They are constantly fighting in Washington and with networks, websites, etc. to protect our royalties. Short of a union, they're the best thing we have.



Agreed!



> Who knows if we will get a guild or union, while many support it, one thing that each of us has the power to do is not sign away our writers' royalties.



Absolutely!



> It's become kind of my go to mantra for accepting work these days. Will it bring in future income? If no, then I'll pass.



That's a good test...all of the above, good stuff! I'm learning so much from you guys!


----------



## José Herring (Sep 9, 2011)

I also want to add, that I've been contacted by people for similar gigs. I got contacted by a well respected music supervisor that gave me the deal of doing music for a library that I know would have played on major networks, but the catch is I'd have to give up 50% of the writers share. This was on top of the publishing which he would get 100%. I wrote him back and said, I'll actually wave the upfront fee, which I think was about $1000 per track, but I want all the writers. He said no. What a dick.

If you take this gig Richard just know that you'll be working for a wanker that is looking to ream you up your future ass. And, that includes your wife and kids too. They need that future income too.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 9, 2011)

All of that assumes that Richard's (sorry man) future ass is going to earn royalties from these assets. Richard may not expect them.
This is purely philosophical now, granted.
An asset that's not making much money today, is worth x. If someone comes along and says, "in my hands, that asset is potentially worth 30x and I'll buy you out for 3x today." That's just business. Doesn't make the guy a dick, imo.
Your guy, Jose, may indeed have been.


----------



## rgames (Sep 9, 2011)

No, I'm not taking the gig. But like I said, I don't need the money. I really think you guys are being too ideological about this issue: if someone needed the money, then it would be hard to fault him for doing it. Consider someone who needs the cash and has some skill as a composer:

Option A: Refuse to do the buyout deal and keep hoping that someday he'll get some great placements and get into a great library. In the meantime, collect unemployment.

Option B: Take the buyout deal and make enough to have a house, a car, and a decent life.

Really? Option A is the better choice? We're just at odds on this one.

Of course B is a compromise; it's nobody's first choice. I think that's the part you guys are stuck on: just because there are deals better than B doesn't mean that B is bad.

Here's the bottom line:

If a guy wants to write music for a living and gets the opportunity to do so, how can you fault him for doing so?

rgames


----------



## madbulk (Sep 9, 2011)

btw, this thread continues to be fascinating, thanks to all you guys. I'm arguing, but I'm grateful all the while.


----------



## rgames (Sep 9, 2011)

midphase @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> Further, how long do you think a music library like the one you mention, would continue to pay handsomely up front for PRO-free music is that becomes the norm? The ONLY reason why they feel it necessary to pay a higher fee up front is because right now getting composers to agree to their terms is the exception. The moment that it becomes the norm, those fees will drop and eventually disappear so what you'll be left with is absolutely no way to generate any income from music.


But how long do you think the royalty model is going to be around?

Don't you think that 20 years from now everything is going to come into people's homes via an internet connection? Have you seen what internet royalties generate, even for the biggest names?

I could easily see a future where everything is a buyout. In fact, it won't really be a buyout because the whole concept of performance royalties would just disappear, so nobody is being "bought out" of anything.

Again, there's nothing wrong (i.e. unethical) with that, it's just a different business model. You'll need a bigger up-front fee to cover what was previously covered by back-end royalties. No problem. Right now, when you take a gig, you look at all the potential cash flows and decide if it's a good deal. The decision-making process will be exactly the same, only the cash flows will be different. If it's a good deal, take it. If it's not a good deal, don't take it.

Again, you guys seem stuck on the idea that all buyouts are a bad idea. That's not necessarily true - they can be very good deals.

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Sep 9, 2011)

rgames @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> No, I'm not taking the gig. But like I said, I don't need the money. I really think you guys are being too ideological about this issue: if someone needed the money, then it would be hard to fault him for doing it. Consider someone who needs the cash and has some skill as a composer:
> 
> Option A: Refuse to do the buyout deal and keep hoping that someday he'll get some great placements and get into a great library. In the meantime, collect unemployment.
> 
> ...



Too short sited and unrealistic. Firstly, the guys that are willing to "buy out" your music are usually the guys that don't have a lot of upfront money to begin with. Face it. Realistically what kind of guy would you be dealing with in this scenario? You'll be dealing with a jackass who wants you to do work for him which he gets to take credit for. How much do you think he'd be willing to pay? Not much. He's a low level pimp trying to extort talent for his benefit.

You're getting the strongest response from people that actually work in Los Angeles and these kinds of charlatans are all around us every day. They pop up and they go away and what amazes me is how many seem to pour in to town on a daily basis. So after a few years of getting your chain yanked by these douche bags, you start to develop kind of a sixth sense about it all. And, I'm telling you right now unless its a gig that there isn't any royalties like a corporate video or something, he's and exploiter of the worse kind.

Look if he came to you and was upfront and said, "it's intended to go to DVD menus or corporate videos so there's no writers" then fine. But, if he's saying that he's just going to take your music and put his name on it. Two things are happening. He's going to pay very little, then he's going to flood the market with tons of crap and see what sticks. Which would be ok if your name was on some of that crap, but it won't be. It will be his and he's just got a pay day for doing next to nothing creatively.

The honest guys would say, I'll take the publishing because I'm publishing the work and you keep writers because you wrote it. Then we can negotiate an upfront fee.

I'm not going to spend a whole heck of a lot of time debate this as I really don't care what anybody does. But, know at the end of the day you'll feel like a whore turning tricks. The excuse she uses is that "she has to make a living". Well there are a lot better ways to do that.

And, trust me. These kinds of deals will seldom involve house type money. More like groceries for the week and rent for a month if you're lucky. You have to keep some integrity. It isn't always about the money. It's about doing what's right.


----------



## rgames (Sep 9, 2011)

Jose - it is a gig where there are no royalties. The library is specifically targeting productions that want music with no PRO affiliation. So, again, it's not really a buyout because there's nothing to "buy out".

And it most definitely is house-type money. I've talked to a few of these libraries and, as I said, you could most definitely make a decent living from it. Not as great as if you have 1000 tracks listed with Extreme and are collecting royalties from a bunch of broadcast shows, but still a decent amount of money.

But even if it were a buyout, I still believe it can be a good deal for both parties. Yes, it's different from the way it has historically worked, but just because it's different doesn't mean it's a bad deal.

Your comparison to prostitution gets to the crux of the issue: it's not about money, you just think it's wrong. I don't think the analogy applies in this case. That's a fundamental issue I just don't think we'll agree on.

I think it's because we come from very different backgrounds: in the world I grew up in (science/technology) it's perfectly normal for someone to give away rights to intellectual property in return for a good paycheck (Kays, I know you think the analogy doesn't apply, but, at the most basic level, it does). So, to me, the buyout or non-PRO situation is no different.

People who have lived their lives in the world of composers have a very different perspective because composers have always thought of themselves as independent contractors who generate IP and collect money on it. Well, it doesn't have to be that way. In fact, most jobs are *not* that way.

A customer wants a product, and he wants to own it. So you agree to a price and go forward. That's just business. Yes, you could say the same about prostitution, but I don't agree that there is a legitimate comparison there because there is nothing demeaning about selling the rights to your intellectual property. Selling your body is, by most people's standards, demeaning.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Sep 9, 2011)

midphase @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> In "commercial" composition, it is our duty to hold our line to keep our industry from becoming nothing more than a hobby.


Kays - this is the part where I'm not getting through to you: 

For a lot of folks, the only way to *stop* treating it as a hobby is to take the buyout or non-PRO deals. Otherwise, it'll always be a hobby because they'll never generate enough money for it to be anything *other* than a hobby.

I agree 100% with your sentiment: composers need to hold their ground and value themselves. However, that doesn't preclude them from taking buyout or non-PRO deals. Those deals can, in fact, be quite lucrative for a lot of people.

You seem to equate buyouts and non-PRO deals with working for free. It's not - you still need to make sure you're getting paid enough to make a living. The difference is that the paycheck comes in one lump at the front end.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Sep 9, 2011)

Here's another way to think about it:

Case 1: You write a bunch of music and sell it through a buyout deal. You get X dollars for the work up-front and never see another penny for that work.

Case 2: You write a bunch of music and sell it through a traditional deal. You get less than X dollars up front (probably a lot less) and a trickle of cash flows over 10 years as the work generates royalties.

Let's further assume that the discounted cash flows (i.e. cash flows that account for time value of money) of Case 1 and Case 2 are about the same.

How on Earth is it unethical in Case 1 and ethical in Case 2?

You've done the same work, the customer got the same product, and you got the same net cash. The only difference is that the timing of the cash flows is different.

So it becomes prostitution because the timing of the cash flows is different? Really?

Come on guys, that's baloney!

rgames


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 9, 2011)

rgames @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> Here's another way to think about it:
> 
> Case 1: You write a bunch of music and sell it through a buyout deal. You get X dollars for the work up-front and never see another penny for that work.
> 
> ...



If you go that route, more likely what happens to EVERYONE in the future is:

Case 3: You write a bunch of music and sell it through a buyout deal. You get less than X dollars up front (probably a lot less) and never see another penny for that work.

What makes it unethical isn't that you screw yourself but that you drag everyone else down with you.


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 9, 2011)

rgames @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> For a lot of folks, the only way to *stop* treating it as a hobby is to take the buyout or non-PRO deals.


It will still be a hobby. Just less satisfying.

Sure, a composer could make a few bucks, but a non-PRO deal can never become a career because no PRO library will hire you for that long. Those are short term gigs at best. No way is there a no-PRO company that would be able to afford you full time for very long, because due to the bottom-feeding nature of their business, their incomes will never be especially high.

The other issue that will keep this from becoming a career is burnout. It might seem like a fun thing to spend all day writing music, but it's going to lose its luster real fast. Writing full time can be fun for a week or two. But when it's just for the paycheck, then burnout is going to set in. What gets real composers through these periods is the pride of what we're doing. Take away the credits, and the pride is going to disappear as the composer realizes he'll never even know where (or even if) most of these songs even get placed.

I'm not saying a hobbyist wouldn't be tempted to go this route, and maybe even think it's the only route available to him. But it definitely won't lead to a career.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 9, 2011)

Richard, you have a knack for making really annoying arguments. Do you do this for fun?

What you're arguing isn't the choice. Of course anyone would rather have all the money the music will make in its lifetime up front.

But the choice is between X up front + X many times over in the future, or a fraction of X up front and *nothing* in the future ever ever ever...or worse, some exploitative asshole makes X many times over in the future and doesn't pay the composer (because he can stick a mic next to the rear end of a horse and it's all the same).

You're the one who's ideological.


----------



## rgames (Sep 9, 2011)

Ok - but what you guys are arguing isn't the ethics case, it's the business case. In other words, you aren't asking if it's fundamentally wrong, just whether it makes business sense. That's a fair argument to make. I don't buy the ethics argument - it's not unethical to do buyouts or non-PRO work.

Regarding the business case, you are correct that it might not be a good deal, but that's part of the business decision. If someone figures out a way to make more money off your product, well, so what? You decided whether it made sense to take the deal and you took it, so it was a good deal for you. If it's a better deal for the guy who hires you, well, ask for more next time. That's how markets work. Sometimes you get it wrong. So you adjust your pricing and try again.

(Keep in mind that the guy paying you is going to get it wrong sometimes, as well. He's not going to make money on every track he buys. He has to manage his risk just like you do.)

Nick - the money you get in the up-front deal won't add up to the same amount of dollars - of course it will be less. However, the discounted cash flows should be comparable. The dollars you get 10 years from now are worth a lot less than money in your pocket today, so they don't count as much. The cash for the up-front deal can be further reduced because of the uncertainty associated with royalties. Risk affects value, as well.

Mike - yes, burnout is a consideration. But, again, that's a business management issue. You need to manage your cash flows so that you can sustain yourself through periods where you're burned out or you can't find gigs. Not having credits is a business decision, too: what's the value of the credit? It can certainly lead to more work, so that has value. Plus, seeing your name on screen has value. How much would you have to be paid to give up those credits? Again, that's a business decision.

It's all fundamentally business. It's up to composers to make sure they're asking for enough money to sustain themselves, regardless of whether they use a traditional approach or a buyout/non-PRO approach.

You guys seem to be arguing that the buyout/non-PRO approach is not viable in any form. All I'm saying is that I'm not so sure. I'm sure it's not as lucrative as the traditional setup. But, again, that doesn't mean it's not a way to make a living. Also, I don't think anyone would ever look at these deals as their *only* source of revenue. But as a piece of the revenue stream, I think it could be a decent setup.

And no I'm not being ideological: I'm not doing any of these deals but am open to the idea that they might be a good idea for someone else.

rgames


----------



## jeffc (Sep 9, 2011)

Rgames -

No offense, but there are so many things wrong with your argument, it seems almost like you say some of the things to be outrageous. All this 'business management', 'cash-flow', blah blah seems like you should be working at an accounting firm, not a creative industry. And it's easy, and I would even say dangerous, when there are people like you with one foot on the fence about being in the business, making decisions that go directly against the guys doing it for real, but you've got the comfort of a paycheck elsewhere to give you the freedom to make these dangerous arguments. You've got a lot of guys giving you advice and opinions that are working full-time in the trenches in La and other places that are totally valid and legit, yet you seem to argue against them with a second year business school textbook. It's apples to oranges, but I don't think you can acknowledge that.

But, for humor's sake, there are several things wrong with your scenario 1 vs 2 argument, i.e. payment upfront versus less upfront and royalties over time. If you take the buyout, you can't use the music EVER again. In scenario two, you can possibly license it many times, there multiplying your projections several times over. Taking scenario 1 means that you really don't think that you can do better yourself meaning a) you never will be more than a hobbyist or b) you don't plan on being in the game for very long. 

And I'm in no way saying that all of the pros chiming in here are all about being creative and don't have a clue about business. I think any of us who make a living doing this full-time are very aware of our business, I would say that we're more aware of it than many people will straight jobs, who just collect a check and have no idea of the complexities of running a small business that all of us independent contractors face.

But to back to your business sense argument vs ethics, the house always wins. Anyone willing to pay you $1000 for a track buyout, I guarantee is going to make back at least $3000 or they wouldn't be doing it. And as far as managing cash flows, giving away your royalties is the worst way to handle that. Royalties will cover you in times that the gigs are waning and will grow over time the further you get into it. But again, if you're not really in it, then I can understand your argument. 

Anyhoo....J


----------



## wst3 (Sep 9, 2011)

Observations from someone that has not been able to feed his family solely through music, and has worked in technology...

The argument that people give up their rights when they work for tech companies is only half true in most cases. What really happens is that you agree to assign the rights to the employer, but your name remains on the patent - you do get credit for your creation. And in the old days you received a pretty hefty bonus as well.

The idea of actually giving up the right to say "I wrote that" does strike me as going too far. Work-for-Hire deals still provide credit for the creative effort.

Ultimately - and I've been following this thread with great interest and curiosity - I think Kays and company are on the right path. Even though I am one that would benefit financially from the sort of deal Richard describes.

Too many things - both products and services - have become commodities. Do we REALLY want to see music composition fall into that category? As someone pointed out, it is already happening, to some degree, and it has happened to photography already.

Oddly enough, try though they might, there are a handful of services that have managed to avoid becoming commodities - movies and live theatre come to mind. These are services where the audience cares about the content enough to value it (well, except the pirates<G>!)

Same goes for some forms of music - music that is entertainment on its own - e.g. pop or jazz or classical music.

I think composers would be very short sighted to accept these buy-out deals. It will ultimately dilute the value of music used in advertising (like that hasn't already happened), film, corporate and training videos, etc.

So while it might be true, for a short time, that the only difference is when one receives the payment (up front vs over time) - that up front payment will quickly erode as well!

Think about the price pressure already in place by folks that will compose or record for nothing or next to nothing.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 9, 2011)

rgames @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> Jose - it is a gig where there are no royalties. The library is specifically targeting productions that want music with no PRO affiliation. So, again, it's not really a buyout because there's nothing to "buy out".
> 
> 
> 
> rgames



The reason that they're doing this is so that every Tom, Dick and Harry can put his name on your music. Think about it. What the hell would producer x care about PRO affiliation? IT doesn't come out of his pocket. So he's using nonPRO affiliated libraries so that he can put his name on your tracks. 

Total rubbish.


----------



## rgames (Sep 9, 2011)

jeffc @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> Anyone willing to pay you $1000 for a track buyout, I guarantee is going to make back at least $3000 or they wouldn't be doing it.


I've seen this come up a few times. Of course that's how it works. Why would it not work that way?

When you buy a sample library for $1000, don't you expect to make more than $1000 using it? When the grocery store buys a can of beans for $0.30, don't they expect to make more than $0.30 selling it?

Of course they do. They know full well that their product commands a higher price after being sold to their customers. It has to or they wouldn't be in business. The price always goes up at every step on the path to the end user.

What am I missing?

Do you have a deal where the library sells your tracks for the price they paid you? How does the library stay in business?

rgames


----------



## rgames (Sep 9, 2011)

josejherring @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> The reason that they're doing this is so that every Tom, Dick and Harry can put his name on your music. Think about it. What the hell would producer x care about PRO affiliation? IT doesn't come out of his pocket. So he's using nonPRO affiliated libraries so that he can put his name on your tracks.


You are correct that the producer doesn't care, but the broadcaster does. We discussed this back on page 2 or so.

Here's the summary: if the broadcaster uses shows that use non-PRO music, their blanket license fees are significantly reduced. Therefore, if a producer makes a show that uses non-PRO music, it has much more appeal to a broadcaster.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Sep 9, 2011)

And by the way - you guys keep implying that I'm out to destroy composing as a profession. Quite the contrary.

I've had this discussion elsewhere and the majority of the responses I get are in line with the sentiment expressed here, though there are still plenty of folks who agree that it's not an absolute.

So I have always embraced the recommendations given here. I do not intend to abandon my status as an ASCAP member. I fully intend to continue to keep as much ownership as I possibly can. I have, in fact, bypassed a lot of opportunities for that exact reason.

All I'm saying is that there might be room for consideration of alternate arrangements. They're not *necessarily* always a bad deal for composers. Yes, they can be, but I'm open to the idea that that's not always the case.

rgames


----------



## madbulk (Sep 9, 2011)

I stepped out for some Buffalo Wild Wings -- my first time ever going there -- kids' behest -- holy cow that place is bad. I can't be-LIEVE how bad that is.

I'm just saying.

And... looks like I missed a lot. I'm so pleased.


----------



## midphase (Sep 9, 2011)

rgames @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> Ok - but what you guys are arguing isn't the ethics case, it's the business case. In other words, you aren't asking if it's fundamentally wrong, just whether it makes business sense.



It really depends on your definition of "ethics"

I suppose sweatshops make business sense, even hiring children. Once again you are trying to rationalize this in such a way that fits your logic, but if agreement is what you're looking for...you won't find it here amidst working composers who value both their contribution and the long term potential for royalties.



rgames @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> Kays - this is the part where I'm not getting through to you:
> 
> For a lot of folks, the only way to *stop* treating it as a hobby is to take the buyout or non-PRO deals. Otherwise, it'll always be a hobby because they'll never generate enough money for it to be anything *other* than a hobby.



Once again, you're rationalizing things is such a way as to defend the idea that in some situation is perfectly acceptable to erode the basic rights of our industry for the sake of a quick buck today. It is a short sighted strategy, one that has brought us where we are today. Don't you think that another "Richard" back in the early 80's rationalized it the same way when he offered the first "Package Deal" and forever altered the way composers would get paid? Perhaps it was another "Richard" back in the late 90's who agreed that cable TV shouldn't need to pay any music licensing fees since there's plenty of money to be made off of PRO's?

In the timeless words of Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "I will not sacrifice the Enterprise. We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far and no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGF1NP-FrCU


----------



## madbulk (Sep 9, 2011)

The question, for at least a part of the argument is, jeff, in what timeframe will Richard, not the future ass reamer guy, likely make 3k from the music he isn't selling for 1k today?

Richard, feel free to play along.
Never? 5 years? 10? 15? More?


----------



## David Story (Sep 9, 2011)

midphase @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> In the timeless words of Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "I will not sacrifice the Enterprise. We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far and no further! And I will make them pay for what they've done!"
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGF1NP-FrCU



Perfect!


----------



## bsound76 (Sep 9, 2011)

This is truly a great thread. I don't know which side I'm on.

(Chews popcorn. Literally.)


----------



## rgames (Sep 9, 2011)

midphase @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> I suppose sweatshops make business sense, even hiring children.


You're pushing to an extreme that is not representative of the actual situation. I haven't seen a single one of these deals that is the equivalent of sweat shop labor. As I've posted several times in this thread, these deals are fair wages. Not enough to buy a house in LA, but enough to live decently in Kansas or South Dakota.

This just occurred to me: you guys have an LA-centric view of the world. Guess what: LA is expensive. You can take 1/4 of what you make in LA and live large elsewhere.

And since library music is largely done over the internet, it doesn't matter where you live.

See where I'm coming from?

rgames


----------



## madbulk (Sep 9, 2011)

wst3 @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> Observations from someone that has not been able to feed his family solely through music, and has worked in technology...
> The argument that people give up their rights when they work for tech companies is only half true in most cases. What really happens is that you agree to assign the rights to the employer, but your name remains on the patent - you do get credit for your creation. And in the old days you received a pretty hefty bonus as well.
> The idea of actually giving up the right to say "I wrote that" does strike me as going too far. Work-for-Hire deals still provide credit for the creative effort.



Your argument that his argument is only half true is only about half true. 
Well, no, it was entirely true, but I'm gonna try to move the values around a little. Yeah, your name is on the patent, but when you assigned patent rights through your employee agreement, you likely assigned all the money -- not necessarily, but likely. So you've preserved your name on the credits, but you'll also probably be listed along with the your boss and the guy whose name is on the door even though they weren't in the room when the invention was born. Germane. 
And Work For Hire deals -- which suck, but to Richard's point can be priced appropriately, *as can anything* -- provide more than credit. They provide Writers Share, generally. It's the sweetheart deal in this analogy.


----------



## David Story (Sep 9, 2011)

I see you've given up on the future. 
Flash: We'll still be here in 20 years. 

The amateurs are making it hard for the pros. Amateurs have theory but no relevant experience. They can't make long term plans, but they can screw up the plans of those who do.

People are earning a living from 600 year old music, but a fast buck is all some people see. 

A deal is an investment, plan ahead.

The first time any man’s freedom is trodden on, we’re all damaged.
Jean Luc Picard


----------



## bsound76 (Sep 9, 2011)

Oh man, 2 quotes from the captain of the starship enterprise!
best thread ever!

I wish I had more popcorn! 
I ate it all while watching Kung Pow: Enter the Fist.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 9, 2011)

Human beings, especially younger ones, have a remarkable ability to rationalize things in a way that allow him/her to act in his own self-interest even when in his heart at an instinctual level he knows it is wrong.

We pretty much all know this is wrong, where it has already led and where it will eventually lead, which is the practical extinction of the professional composer.

I am old enough that I will probably not to live to see its final gasps, but I mourn it already nonetheless.


----------



## madbulk (Sep 9, 2011)

bsound76 @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> Oh man, 2 quotes from the captain of the starship enterprise!
> best thread ever!
> 
> I wish I had more popcorn!



I wasn't permitted to make popcorn cuz the kids were sleeping. And I can't stay awake any longer to see which of you nerds goes for the hat trick. 

Any o' y'all see this today? Might've come along at a good time.
http://gizmodo.com/5838803/whats-your-i ... dick-level

Jay, sorry you're so melancholy this evening. Like you said, we won't live that long, Man! Buck up!


----------



## rgames (Sep 9, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> We pretty much all know this is wrong, where it has already led and where it will eventually lead, which is the practical extinction of the professional composer.


Not true - these types of deals will expand the number of people making a living by writing music.

Throughout all of history, people who want to make a living writing music were forced into a limited number of metropolitan areas. If they couldn't make the move, they were excluded from the club. Now, these sorts of deals are lifting those restrictions, so more people can get involved.

I will agree that these sorts of deals make it worse for folks in LA, but it's good for a huge number of other people around the world. Think of how many productions use orchestras in Eastern Europe. Bad for LA. Good for Eastern Europe.

LA will still keep the high-end deals. But opening the low-end deals to composers in other parts of the world is a good thing. You're providing opportunities for people to follow their dreams of making a living doing what they love.

Don't be so selfish. Think of the greater good of the community of composers.

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Sep 9, 2011)

rgames @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> josejherring @ Fri Sep 09 said:
> 
> 
> > The reason that they're doing this is so that every Tom, Dick and Harry can put his name on your music. Think about it. What the hell would producer x care about PRO affiliation? IT doesn't come out of his pocket. So he's using nonPRO affiliated libraries so that he can put his name on your tracks.
> ...



Absolutely not true. Won't even begin to explain why.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 9, 2011)

rgames @ Fri Sep 09 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sat Sep 10 said:
> 
> 
> > We pretty much all know this is wrong, where it has already led and where it will eventually lead, which is the practical extinction of the professional composer.
> ...



The greater good. Give me a break. It's a short sited selfish move that will lead to absolutely nothing good for anybody. Not bad for LA, not good for the rest of the world. It won't have an impact. Because somebody will be collecting the money. Just not you. You're only hurting yourself and getting suckered by somebody who's more business savvy than you. All you're doing is saying to yourself that you can't compete so you think you're undercutting others. But the jokes on you.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Sep 10, 2011)

rgames @ 10/9/2011 said:


> Not true - these types of deals will expand the number of people making a living by writing music.



If by making a living you mean paying bills, no. It could lead to many more people making some money. 100 $ here, 350 there. Thousands making maybe 1 or 5 grand a year from music. That's not making a living, it's a side hobby. Nothing wrong with that except when the machine decides it no longer needs pros.

See the publishing industry for what could come to pass in the future. Who needs professionals when you have a million bloggers? Advances have gone from 50k to 10k! The pro is dead, long live the amateur (and profit for the corp above all - betcha their accountants/lawyers are professionals).


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Sep 10, 2011)

Why is it so easy to get on Amazon, iTunes, etc? Because they don't care if they only sell a dozen of your books or CDs, as they have millions like you. There's less of a need for them to focus on any one writer and to give anything upfront.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 10, 2011)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> rgames @ 10/9/2011 said:
> 
> 
> > Not true - these types of deals will expand the number of people making a living by writing music.
> ...



Exactly, Ned. Richard seems to think a larger pool of part time composers making _some_ money is somehow a better outcome than a smaller number actually making a living doing that exclusively or almost exclusively. The problem is that guys with that attitude are making it easier for those who choose to hire largely by low cost rather than actual skills. 

I know this may not be politically correct but IMHO it is simply true that talented people who work full time or nearly full time at something generally will be better at it than talented people who do it part time. There is no substitute for single-minded dedication.

My conductor at Boston Conservatory used to say, "My boy, music is 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration."


----------



## Daryl (Sep 10, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> Exactly, Ned. Richard seems to think a larger pool of part time composers making _some_ money is somehow a better outcome than a smaller number actually making a living doing that exclusively or almost exclusively. The problem is that guys with that attitude are making it easier for those who choose to hire largely by low cost rather than actual skills.


However, those of you who choose to use sample libraries on the final product have already made that concession. If you really believed in supporting the industry, you would refuse to do this, and insist that live players must be used for acoustic instruments, not samples. However, the fact that you don't means that you are already making the choice to offer a lower cost "solution" rather than providing the best for the job.



EastWest Lurker @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> I know this may not be politically correct but IMHO it is simply true that talented people who work full time or nearly full time at something generally will be better at it than talented people who do it part time. There is no substitute for single-minded dedication.


I want to agree with you, but unfortunately the amount of dreadful music that is "composed" specifically for programmes on TV forces me to accept that many working composers have zero talent, zero craft or both. I would also say that a part-time composer who doesn't have to work to stupid deadlines is much more likely to come up with a properly crafted track than someone who is just trying to churn out a set number of minutes a day. Of course if they don't have the skills then they will come up with something just as bad as the usual dross one hears on TV. The difference is that the part-timers can only really get these tracks placed through a music library, which would probably not accept them, whereas the producer/director probably would accept it from a composer working specifically to picture, because all it has to do is work with the picture, without upsetting anything. The library track actually has to work as a track without picture for someone to choose it in the first place.





EastWest Lurker @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> My conductor at Boston Conservatory used to say, "My boy, music is 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration."


I would agree with that, but again much of what I hear on TV requires very little perspiration to achieve and probably no inspiration at all. :wink: 

D


----------



## rgames (Sep 10, 2011)

You guys keep forcing me to repeat myself - stop it!

You keep claiming that it's part time work. It's not. The demand is there and it's large enough to keep a lot of people working full-time. Especially if the non-PRO model becomes more popular with productions. That's a huge void that will have to be filled.

The earnings are not as good as what you would get with a traditional deal, but it is definitely *not* slave labor, especially if you live outside of LA/NY.

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Just because you do buyout/non-PRO deals on the side doesn't mean you can't do traditional deals as well. You're not undercutting yourself because it's an entirely different market. The demand exists regardless of whether you sign on, and as long as there's decent money behind it, that demand will be met.

Furthermore, there is good indication that the demand in that market is going to grow. A *lot*.

Jose: I am NOT doing any of these deals. I'm just saying that there are good indications that they could be a worthwhile gig.

OK?

Riddle me this:

Where do you think the media world is going? Would you agree that in 20 years most people will be watching TV/movies/whatever over the internet? What is the value of those beloved back-end rights in that world?

Now, after you answer that question, riddle me this:

Wouldn't it be better to get in with these non-PRO libraries while they're in their infancy? Don't you think there's a good chance they'll take over the industry? And once the next Extreme, Megatrax, etc. emerge, it'll be *really* tough to get in.

rgames


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 10, 2011)

Daryl @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sat Sep 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly, Ned. Richard seems to think a larger pool of part time composers making _some_ money is somehow a better outcome than a smaller number actually making a living doing that exclusively or almost exclusively. The problem is that guys with that attitude are making it easier for those who choose to hire largely by low cost rather than actual skills.
> ...



Most of the truly bad music I hear on TV comes from shows using libraries. Guys doing dramatic scoring work on TV like Jeff Beal, Sean Callery, Mark Snow, our own Jeff Cardoni, Bill Brown, Charlie Clouser, Michael Levine, etc. consistently turn out very good work.

And talk to Jeff or Charlie sometime about how hard they work. If you say they do not put in much perspiration they will probably smack you and I will volunteer to hold you while they do.


----------



## wst3 (Sep 10, 2011)

madbulk @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> Your argument that his argument is only half true is only about half true.



Well, no!



madbulk @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> It was entirely true, but I'm gonna try to move the values around a little. Yeah, your name is on the patent, but when you assigned patent rights through your employee agreement, you likely assigned all the money -- not necessarily, but likely. So you've preserved your name on the credits, but you'll also probably be listed along with the your boss and the guy whose name is on the door even though they weren't in the room when the invention was born. Germane.




In the 1980s and before, on the East Coast, at companies ranging in size and scope from Bell Labs to Gai-Tronics, the deal was that you assigned the rights to the company. Your name went first, and sometimes your boss would also take credit... but the truth is, in many cases the boss deserved some credit, he often made contributions, even if only as a sounding board.

Your financial well being was tied to the success of your idea, if the idea became a product then you received a reward - either a one time bonus or sometimes the equivalent of royalties (I think that was actually the term, but it's been a while!)

As engineers ceded control of engineering to bean counters things changed. Most of the bean-counting managers knew nothing about technology, and couldn't even contribute as a sounding board. For reasons I'll never comprehend (greed, jealousy?) they decided that their names went first on the patent because they had the brilliance to hire you (which in fact they didn't, but that's another tale.)

So yes, today that system has been corrupted in the US. There are rare companies that still treat their engineers well (Intel still has a great reputation), but the days of the highest earning employee at an engineering company being a design engineer (Wavetek made headlines when that happened) are long gone. And that's part of the reason we have the current landscape.

Much innovation has moved off our continent. That's bad.

On the flip side, a lot of innovators are taking the entrepreneurial leap, recognizing that the only way they can really benefit from their own hard work is to be their own boss. But, that leads to lots of neat new stuff.

Or - some folks, no names please<G>, recognize that they lack the business & marketing skills necessary to be their own boss, so they find a middle ground. I did some design work for a company started by a marketing wizard and a product wizard - these guys have an incredible track record, but they are not design engineers. That's where I came in. As it turned out, the circuits I developed work well, but they are not patent worthy - I might have stretched current art a little, but not enough to warrant a patent.

I'll be rewarded if the product is successful in the marketplace. All I can ask for.

Part of the deal was that I had to guarantee them exclusive rights to anything I developed, for a specified period. And even the wording of that gives me some wiggle room to reuse my work elsewhere - I just can't compete with them directly. Since I am designing analog audio building blocks that is a safe bet for both of us!

If I did come up with something worthy of a patent then I had a choice... I could apply for the patent by myself, and cover the costs, or they would make application, but their names would also go on it - giving them access to the intellectual property even after the initial assignment lapsed.

Initial compensation included a modest monthly retainer and an interest in the company. Not at all unlike the upfront fees and future royalties. And I think fair to all parties. Interestingly, part of the reason I was hired was because of stuff I've designed previously - and in previous gigs, where I did not yet have a reputation, the terms were not quite as generous. 

Sound familiar?

To your original point - my argument may well be dated. I am familiar with the model where the bean counters take all the credit, but it wasn't like that when I was starting out, and from talking to friends who are still involved in mainstream development I gather that it isn't quite as bad as "Dilbert" in most cases.



madbulk @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> And Work For Hire deals -- which suck, but to Richard's point can be priced appropriately, *as can anything* -- provide more than credit. They provide Writers Share, generally. It's the sweetheart deal in this analogy.



Sorry, I was too brief there (an anomaly!)

Here's my perspective - I've made a few missteps in my path to making a living through music, and at my age it is getting less likely that I will. Which is OK, I still have a blast writing music, and sometimes I get tremendous artistic rewards, and sometimes I get financial rewards.

Even so, I'm not willing to give up either writer's credit or the writer's share of the royalties. It's just no negotiable... never has been, and I don't anticipate it ever happening (never really is a strong word - and Richard's model could well come to dominate the landscape.)

In general I prefer to license music for a well defined application and time period - that too used to be a requirement, but the market has shifted sufficiently that I can't do that anymore. I have to at least look at buy-out deals where the client has exclusive rights in perpetuity.

OK, speaking of music - I've got some cues to write... but I am learning a ton from this thread! Thanks to all!!


----------



## rgames (Sep 10, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> Most of the truly bad music I hear on TV comes from shows using libraries. Guys doing dramatic scoring work on TV like Jeff Beal, Sean Callery, Mark Snow, our own Jeff Cardoni, Bill Brown, Charlie Clouser, Michael Levine, etc. consistently turn out very good work.
> 
> And talk to Jeff or Charlie sometime about how hard they works. If you say they do not put in much perspiration they will probably smack you and i will volunteer to hold you while they do.


This is another point that has gotten lost but was brought up at the start - these non-PRO library deals really have nothing to do with purpose-written music. That's a completely separate part of the music business. Library music is most often used as "filler" rather than an essential element of the dramatic mood.

If a show wants to hire a composer, then the libraries will, obviously, have no effect on what the composer is able to command in terms of a fee or royalties. In those situations, it is *clearly* a much better idea to hold on to as much ownership as possible.

rgames


----------



## Daryl (Sep 10, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> Most of the truly bad music I hear on TV comes from shows using libraries. Guys doing dramatic scoring work on TV like Jeff Beal, Sean Callery, Mark Snow, our own Jeff Cardoni, Bill Brown, Charlie Clouser, Michael Levine, etc. consistently turn out very good work.
> 
> And talk to Jeff or Charlie sometime about how hard they work. If you say they do not put in much perspiration they will probably smack you and I will volunteer to hold you while they do.


Yes, but you pick the pick of the bunch. Have you really not heard the rest of the cr*p that is out there? I also have to disagree with you about libraries having the worst stuff. It's just not true. Obviously the US is a different market, but whenever I hear something really bad on TV there is always a "composer" attached to the project. Also, you are talking about dramatic scoring, which is a tiny, tiny proportion of the music that airs.

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 10, 2011)

Daryl @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sat Sep 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Most of the truly bad music I hear on TV comes from shows using libraries. Guys doing dramatic scoring work on TV like Jeff Beal, Sean Callery, Mark Snow, our own Jeff Cardoni, Bill Brown, Charlie Clouser, Michael Levine, etc. consistently turn out very good work.
> ...



I don't know what you watch where you live but most of the library music I hear is bombastic, formulaic, with a glossy sound but crap compositionally.

The "reality" shows here are the worst, absolutely dreadful, both the shows and the music. I will never understand their popularity but then I am out of sync with the contemporary culture.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 10, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> I don't know what you watch where you live but most of the library music I hear is bombastic, formulaic, with a glossy sound but crap compositionally.
> 
> The "reality" shows here are the worst, absolutely dreadful, both the shows and the music. I will never understand their popularity but then I am out of sync with the contemporary culture.


Ah well I have to agree with you on that. However, like you, I don't watch those sorts of programs. Also in the UK, most of the bombastic rubbish, littered with multiple Taikos, is part of the "score". The other stuff usually comes from libraries, because the named composer can't do anything other than that trailer trash that we've all come to love. Now that's an interesting point. Carl Orff should be getting Royalties for most trailers, as most of them are just cheap (and bad) rip-offs of Carmina Burana. :wink: 

D


----------



## David Story (Sep 10, 2011)

In the 20th century artists fought for and won rights. 
In the 21st century they gave them all back. 

That's why our 22nd century guilds have behavior standards. We've learned that there are no rights save the ones we stand for together! 

Anyone can join, but no one can sign away their right to a minimum wage. It's illegal. Those who try are called "Gamesers" and blocked from using the net and spreading their self-destructive practices.


----------



## rgames (Sep 10, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> I don't know what you watch where you live but most of the library music I hear is bombastic, formulaic, with a glossy sound but crap compositionally.


That's not true of all libraries - certain libraries do cater to that segment of the market but many specifically do not. So you can't just make that blanket statement.

Also, while it might be true that a lot of that music is less musically refined, that's no reason to completely write it off as bad composing. It serves a purpose - any more than the purpose requires would be too much and would, in fact, make the music worse for the application. There is skill in writing music that is less musically sophisticated but meets a commercial need.

I am reminded of the story of the difference in US and Russian approcahes to writing utensils for astronauts: NASA developed a sophisticated pen that worked in zero gravity. It used a pressurized inkwell and precision ink delivery mechanism to allow the ink to flow in space. The Russians used a pencil.

The world needs both Toyota and Bugatti. Each fills a niche. If all you need is a Toyota, why waste the money on a Bugatti?

rgames

P.S. I will respectfully note that your comments sound a little, tiny, eency-weency bit elitist.

P.P.S. I really don't know if the pen stroy is true; in fact, I doubt it. But I really like it and it's a good way to make the point, so I pretend it's true


----------



## rgames (Sep 10, 2011)

And by the way, the library that I was speaking to about the deal that started this thread eventually backed out. They weren't sure if they felt protected by the ASCAP non-exclusivity clause; their lawyer eventually said they won't work with anyone who carries a PRO affiliation, even one that says it's non-exclusive.

I find that decision very surprising - it's hard for me to imagine that there are that many composers who carry no PRO affiliation.

rgames


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 10, 2011)

Someday you younger guys are going to look back and realize that something precious was allowed to slip away.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 10, 2011)

rgames @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> And by the way, the library that I was speaking to about the deal that started this thread eventually backed out. They weren't sure if they felt protected by the ASCAP non-exclusivity clause; their lawyer eventually said they won't work with anyone who carries a PRO affiliation, even one that says it's non-exclusive.
> 
> I find that decision very surprising - it's hard for me to imagine that there are that many composers who carry no PRO affiliation.
> 
> rgames



Slimy deals like this fall through about 99% of the time because the slime balls behind them aren't decent enough people to come to any kind of decent agreement which is the basis of good business. That's why I don't worry much about this kind of crap, because in the end, the kinds of people that do these kind of underhanded things, they know they're scum.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 10, 2011)

It never occurred to me that you can have non-exclusive affiliation with one of the PROs. Can you join more than one as a writer?


----------



## rgames (Sep 10, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Sep 11 said:


> It never occurred to me that you can have non-exclusive affiliation with one of the PROs. Can you join more than one as a writer?



Depends on the PRO. I think ASCAP is the only non-exclusive in the US. I believe there are others outside the US that are non-exclusive.

On ASCAP's website it says you can only have one writer affiliation in the US, thereby implying that you could have multiple affiliations outside the US. Based on their member agreement, though, it's not clear that it limits you anywhere: they clearly state it's a non-exclusive arrangement. However, since ASCAP is the only non-exclusive in the US, the end result doesn't really depend on what the ASCAP agreement says - the other PRO's prevent you from doing it. So, functionally, you still can have only one writer affiliation in the US because the other PRO's force that outcome.

What the ASCAP agreement should allow, however, is the right to license your music how you see fit. Since it's non-exclusive, if you want to bypass ASCAP, you can do so without violating the terms of the agreement.

At least that's what I read in the agreement. I've always wondered about that and have discussed the topic with folks several times over the last few years. Nobody really seems to know for sure - I don't know if there's any legal precedent or if anyone has even looked in to it. Makes me wonder if anyone actually reads the membership agreement >8o 

rgames


----------



## rgames (Sep 10, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Sun Sep 11 said:


> Someday you younger guys are going to look back and realize that something precious was allowed to slip away.


Seems to me someone said the same thing to Webern, Schoenberg, and Berg...

:wink: 

Only time will tell if it's progress or regress.

rgames


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 11, 2011)

rgames @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sun Sep 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Someday you younger guys are going to look back and realize that something precious was allowed to slip away.
> ...



Bad analogy. Those guys were all great composers. Whether one liked or did not like their abandoning tonality, they did what they did with great skill and creativity.

You sir, are no Webern. 

And if you cannot already discern that it has been regress, I am afraid you are part of the problem, not the solution.


----------



## rgames (Sep 11, 2011)

Jay, please allow me to personally thank you for your certainty and clarity of thought regarding the quality of music. While most of us are lost in the delusion that art is subjective, you have it all understood in absolutes.

Most of us listen to a Zimmer score and the first movement of Beethoven's 5th symphony and hear harmonic, structural, and rhythmic patterns that are more alike than different. So we allow that there is something inexplicable that determines what makes one resonate with some people and not others.

But you understand the differences at a more basic level than any of us is able to achieve, so we thank you for your contributions.

Without your guidance, many of us would continue to plod along assuming that there is a subjective element in art!

rgames

P.S. I'm confident that if we compared musical favorites that we'd mostly agree. I'm just a bit more open-minded when it comes to subjective measures like "quality" in art.


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 11, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> It never occurred to me that you can have non-exclusive affiliation with one of the PROs. Can you join more than one as a writer?


I didn't want to get into this particular point earlier, because . . . well, you know how debating with Richard can be. But I'd bet big bucks that ASCAP doesn't allow you to also belong to BMI or SESAC. I'm sure Richard is about to quote some plucked clause that he found again (rather than simply getting a definitive answer from an ASCAP rep that he could quote here.) But I seriously doubt that what every professional composer has always believed to be true is somehow not true. (And FWIW, single clauses are often superceded elsewhere in an agreement.)

Just so it's not misunderstand as a counterexample, MRI is not a PRO, by the way.


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 11, 2011)

rgames @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> And by the way, the library that I was speaking to about the deal that started this thread eventually backed out. They weren't sure if they felt protected by the ASCAP non-exclusivity clause; their lawyer eventually said they won't work with anyone who carries a PRO affiliation, even one that says it's non-exclusive.


That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard and proof positive that these guys are amateurs. Whether or not ASCAP has an exclusivity clause is irrelevant. I guarantee that their lawyer's primary field of practice is not music or Intellectual Property. This is bordering on comical. I'm not going to get into this, but these guys don't understand how PRO's work.



rgames @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> I find that decision very surprising - it's hard for me to imagine that there are that many composers who carry no PRO affiliation.


That part I do understand. A company like this isn't going to get anywhere with professionals, so they're music pool is going to come from amateurs, most of whom don't belong to any PRO. It's no big deal to weed out the minority of these lower level guys who _do_ belong to a PRO.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 11, 2011)

rgames @ Sun Sep 11 said:


> Jay, please allow me to personally thank you for your certainty and clarity of thought regarding the quality of music. While most of us are lost in the delusion that art is subjective, you have it all understood in absolutes.
> 
> Most of us listen to a Zimmer score and the first movement of Beethoven's 5th symphony and hear harmonic, structural, and rhythmic patterns that are more alike than different. So we allow that there is something inexplicable that determines what makes one resonate with some people and not others.
> 
> ...



While there is much subjectivity there ARE empirical standards as well. At various times, Mike Verta, David Story, and Guy Bacos at least have also made this point.

If you don't accept the idea and cling to the "it's all subjective" idea that is now fashionable, then you don't accept it but it has been historically considered to true for centuries.


----------



## rgames (Sep 11, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Sun Sep 11 said:


> I didn't want to get into this particular point earlier, because . . . well, you know how debating with Richard can be. But I'd bet big bucks that ASCAP doesn't allow you to also belong to BMI or SESAC. I'm sure Richard is about to quote some plucked clause that he found again (rather than simply getting a definitive answer from an ASCAP rep that he could quote here.) But I seriously doubt that what every professional composer has always believed to be true is somehow not true.



Mike, I already said I wasn't sure, only that what I read in the member agreement *seems* to indicate that you could, in fact, join other PRO's in addition to ASCAP. I believe, however, that BMI and SESAC explicitly prevent you from doing so. Therefore it's not an ASCAP restriction, it's a BMI/SESAC restriction.

Along these same lines, I pointed to the quote on the website that says you can have only one writer affiliation "in the United States." The qualifier, of course, implies that such is not the case in the rest of the world. So, yes, you can't join ASCAP and BMI (because BMI won't let you even though ASCAP would) but it seems you could join ASCAP and a European PRO, for example.

I also pointed to the member agreement that specifically says that affiliation with ASCAP is non-exclusive. Here's the writer agreement straight off the ASCAP site: http://www.ascap.com/join/pdf/writerapp.pdf

Open it up, scroll down to the membership agreement. Now look at section (1). Note that it says you are granting ASCAP "the right to license non-dramatic public performances". It *does not* say "the EXCLUSIVE right". In other words, yes, you are granting ASCAP the right to license your works, but you retain the right to license your works through other means, as well. It's just like licensing music through a non-exclusive library: sure, the library has the right to license your music, but you can license it through other libraries as well. Therefore, with regard to a PRO agreement that does not require exclusivity, it stands to reason that other PRO's could license your music, as well.

In fact, the ASCAP writer agreement goes on to explicitly state that the rights granted to ASCAP are, in fact, non-exclusive. The agreement states that the rights granted include:

Section 1(b): "The *non-exclusive* right of public performance of the separate numbers, songs, fragments or arrangements, melodies or selections forming part or parts of musical plays and dramatico-musical compositions"

Section 1(c): "The *non-exclusive* right of public performance by means of radio broadcasting, telephony, “wired wireless,” all forms of synchronism with motion pictures, and/or any method of transmitting sound other than television broadcasting."

Section 1(d): "The *non-exclusive* right of public performance by television broadcasting"

(The broadcasting clause in Section 1(d) goes on with a bunch of caveats about dramatic musical performances like opera).

Furthermore, after looking in to it a bit more, Nine Inch Nails, Snoop Dogg, the Beastie Boys, and several other big-name ASCAP-affiliated groups have made use of the Creative Commons licensing approach. This approach, obviously, completely bypasses ASCAP and is possible because of the non-exclusive nature of the agreement.

If someone wants to chime in and explain how I'm misreading these facts, please do! I'd love to clear that up because, like I said, I looked at it a while back and have always wondered about these clauses.

Don't you agree that it seems pretty clear that the ASCAP writer agreement is non-exclusive?

rgames


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 11, 2011)

I didn't read most of this because as I said earlier, if you really care which way it is, why not simply get a final word from an ASCAP rep? I mean, sure, endless academic debates can be fun, but at a certain point . . .


----------



## midphase (Sep 11, 2011)

I'm pretty sure ASCAP and BMI allow you to join foreign PRO's if you qualify and collect directly from them.

Most foreign PRO's however only extend their membership to the citizens of the country, hence making it not possible for a US citizen to join GENMA, or SIAE or other entities simultaneously.


----------



## rgames (Sep 11, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Sun Sep 11 said:


> I didn't read most of this because as I said earlier, if you really care which way it is, why not simply get a final word from an ASCAP rep? I mean, sure, endless academic debates can be fun, but at a certain point . . .


Because ASCAP has an incentive to prevent you from licensing your music outside of ASCAP. So it'll be tough to get an honest answer. Would you call one music library and ask them about options to make money using other libraries? Of course not.

For example, ASCAP went after Creative Commons pretty aggressively - did they ever get anywhere? I don't think so, but I'm not sure. The fact that Snoop Dogg, Nine Inch Nails, etc. are ASCAP members but feel OK using non-ASCAP licensing options sure seems to indicate that it's possible - they have a lot to lose if they're wrong!

This is not an academic debate: first, it's not academic, it's plainly written in the membership agreement. Second, you're not debating. You're just saying you want someone else to tell you what's written in the agreement. Not sure why - the link is right there!

So let's just drop it. I was just passing on info relevant to the discussion. If you think I'm wrong, then explain why - I truly am curious. Then we can have a debate 

rgames


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 11, 2011)

Creative Commons is not a PRO. You don't "join" Creative Commons, at least not in the same way you join ASCAP, BMI or SESAC. You assign certain works to be under its (very flexible) terms, and always (at least in any instance I've ever heard of) for internet or other uses where letting people have free access to your music doesn't have much financial impact.

Creative Commons does not collect money. They simply have put together a structure where you have an easy way to define in what ways people can use your music for free. For example: _"Anyone is free to use this particular song for free in their YouTube videos or for academic purposes or to do a cover version and sell it on CDs, provided they don't sell more than 500 copies, and provided they credit me as songwriter."_

If some kid in Nebraska did release a CD with a cover of a Snoop Dogg song that was done under a CC agreement, and if that song became a hit, then Snoop would still collect his ASCAP royalties from radio airplay or any TV uses. He would collect those royalties *from ASCAP*, not CC, because as I said, CC is not a PRO and CC does not collect or pay out money.

ASCAP is worried about CC not because it might be the next BMI or SESAC and compete with them, but because they worry about the slippery slope of artists *ever* letting people use music for free.

I can assure you that Snoop Dogg or NIN are still collecting every ASCAP or BMI nickel they can from radio and TV airplay. CC doesn't have anything to do with that.


----------



## MichaelL (Sep 12, 2011)

To my knowledge, several cases between 1941 and 1994, among them the The United States v. ASCAP and Buffalo Broadcasting v. ASCAP, affected the blanket license and also resulted in the non-exclusive part of PRO agreements. Similar cases involved BMI.

Basically, writers have the power to bypass their PRO to license their works directly. It does not mean that you can belong to both ASCAP and BMI. Although, if you switch, as I have done, you can leave your existing catalog with your former PRO and only assign new works to your new PRO. (Thus, in a sense, belonging to both)

With respect to foreign collections, my understanding is that you are merely designating your PRO as your collection agency for foreign territories. Mark at FMN suggests that you can collect foreign money faster, if you join a foreign PRO and designate it to collect your foreign royalties. He stated that it can be done, but not without resistance from your US PRO. And, as Kays suggests, the trick will be finding a foreign PRO that you can join.

There are several possible explanations regarding why the direct deal publisher involved in the offer to Richard would insist on a no-PRO affiliation. First, they may simply want as uncomplicated a deal as possible. Next, they may be unsophisticated and fear that PROs will intervene in the deal and demand payment from their clients. 

Direct / source licensing has been around for a long time. I understand the emotional arguments against it. However, it's not likely to go away. To plan for the future, it may be more prudent to include source licensing in your "portfolio."

@Mike Greene, if Oprah came to you and said "I want to direct license similar piano/ string music to what I've used before, on an annual basis, for the same amount of money that you are getting from your PRO," would you do it? Why not? I see a clear distinction between that scenario and the deal offered to Richard, but it is source licensing nonetheless. I believe that it's a marketing option composers will have to consider in the future, but one that works best without the middleman, like the library in Richard's case. 


_Michael


----------



## MichaelL (Sep 12, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> We pretty much all know this is wrong, where it has already led and where it will eventually lead, which is the practical extinction of the professional composer.




That's a wonderfully romantic notion Jay, but you are wrong. I think you mean extinction of the _Hollywood film composer_, which is as much a lifestyle as it is anything else. When Elizabeth Taylor died, the press said that she was the last of the great movie stars. One can infer that Hollywood in general is not what it used to be. Snooki is _not_ Lucille Ball. Nothing lasts forever. 

Professional composers, however, like Jennifer Higdon, John Corigliano, and the late George Rochberg will not cease to exist. They will continue to write great and meaningful music as composers have for centuries --sans film. http://www.jenniferhigdon.com/ http://www.johncorigliano.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHf9VueIzG8.

There is life beyond Hollywood -- really. 

_Michael


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 12, 2011)

MichaelL @ Mon Sep 12 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sat Sep 10 said:
> 
> 
> > We pretty much all know this is wrong, where it has already led and where it will eventually lead, which is the practical extinction of the professional composer.
> ...



OK, I stand corrected, I am talking about the professional film/TV composer. And yes, I know Corigliano does some film scores but I don't think he sees it as the primary focus of his career and I doubt he is spending much time writing trailer music with big, bombastic sounding sample libraries

But this is and will not be limited to Hollywood. Hollywood producers and directors are not the only ones who will simply give in to the idea that crappy push button compositional work with a professional sheen given to it by the easy availability of tools is acceptable as long as it is cheap because the stock prices demand it and the public does not (seemingly) know better.

There are some very talented guys here but I hear example after example posted with all this big bombastic "epic" trailer stuff. It all sounds the same, most of it shows little knowledge of how to compose a melody, harmony and counterpoint, but it sounds big and glossy and polished and 20 other guys come on and say how great it is. And then I watch an older film like the 1961 version of Henry James "The Turn Of The Screw" called "The Innocents" with a gorgeous, rich score by Georges Auric and my fear is that there no longer will be opportunities for films to have scores of that level and few composers even capable of writing it.

If I am correct, then indeed, something precious is lost. I'm sorry but I find it depressing.


----------



## MichaelL (Sep 12, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Sep 12 said:


> And then I watch an older film like the 1961 version of Henry James "The Turn Of The Screw" called "The Innocents" with a gorgeous, rich score by Georges Auric and my fear is that there no longer will be opportunities for films to have scores of that level and few composers even capable of writing it.
> 
> If I am correct, then indeed, something precious is lost. I'm sorry but I find it depressing.




On that point, my friend, you are correct. I agree that the opportunities to write great film music will be few and far between. They already are. Of the 887 films released in 2010, how many were great films? Now divide that number by the hundreds, if not thousands, of would-be film composers in LA (and the world) who are chasing the wind. Very few great films and ver very many composers = fewer and fewer opportunities.

But that is not the fault of samples, nor is it for lack of talented composers. And it is not the fault of direct licensing, which is what this thread is about. 

It is a reflection of a shift away from all levels of cultural literacy. As one article put it today's young people can "barely piss their name in the snow." However, they will gleefully part with whatever money they have to see the films connected to those ubiquitous epic scores. And that is the death nell of quality. 

You and I, however, have reached an age where what we think doesn't matter anyway. We're not in the demographic of the target audience. :lol:

Best,

Michael


----------



## DouglasGibsonComposer (Sep 12, 2011)

"Professional composers, however, like Jennifer Higdon, John Corigliano, and the late George Rochberg will not cease to exist. They will continue to write great and meaningful music as composers have for centuries"


But .... they made their living by teaching at universities. It was only after they had their "day job" that they could sustain themselves until their catalogue was valuable. 
Also I know John and Jennifer are big advocates for PRO's. They are reasons why we need to hold onto our intellectual property. Jennifer maintains her own publishing so she makes the most now. 

Yes, people will continue to write music, but I assure you the classical concert world is not a great place to model your composition business off of. You have to really do that only for the love of it, and be really committed to self expression in that medium.


----------



## dinerdog (Sep 12, 2011)

If I remember correctly, the only people I know who are part of both PROs have music registered under their wives names. To game the system I assume. They feel one is better for commercials, one is better for TV etc...


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 12, 2011)

MichaelL @ Mon Sep 12 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Sep 12 said:
> 
> 
> > And then I watch an older film like the 1961 version of Henry James "The Turn Of The Screw" called "The Innocents" with a gorgeous, rich score by Georges Auric and my fear is that there no longer will be opportunities for films to have scores of that level and few composers even capable of writing it.
> ...



Yep.

Oh, and by the way the word is "knell." :twisted:


----------



## Markus S (Sep 12, 2011)

midphase @ Sun Sep 11 said:


> I'm pretty sure ASCAP and BMI allow you to join foreign PRO's if you qualify and collect directly from them.
> 
> Most foreign PRO's however only extend their membership to the citizens of the country, hence making it not possible for a US citizen to join GENMA, or SIAE or other entities simultaneously.



They do, all of them, to my knowledge. What is not allowed of course is to join two PROs for the same territory. I'm not aware of any PRO allowing only citizens of the same country to be member (at least here in Europe). If you join a local PRO (as GEMA for Germany), this territory has to be excluded from your PRO in the US.


----------



## MichaelL (Sep 12, 2011)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Sep 12 said:


> Oh, and by the way the word is "knell." :twisted:



Remind me to not try pissing that one into the snow! :oops: 

Thanks,


Michael


----------



## MichaelL (Sep 12, 2011)

dinerdog @ Mon Sep 12 said:


> If I remember correctly, the only people I know who are part of both PROs have music registered under their wives names. To game the system I assume. They feel one is better for commercials, one is better for TV etc...




A very common practice.

But, as I said, if you switch and do not move your existing catalog, you remain part of that PRO for those works only.


----------



## Markus S (Sep 12, 2011)

rgames @ Sun Sep 11 said:


> Open it up, scroll down to the membership agreement. Now look at section (1). Note that it says you are granting ASCAP "the right to license non-dramatic public performances". It *does not* say "the EXCLUSIVE right". In other words, yes, you are granting ASCAP the right to license your works, but you retain the right to license your works through other means, as well. It's just like licensing music through a non-exclusive library: sure, the library has the right to license your music, but you can license it through other libraries as well. Therefore, with regard to a PRO agreement that does not require exclusivity, it stands to reason that other PRO's could license your music, as well.
> 
> In fact, the ASCAP writer agreement goes on to explicitly state that the rights granted to ASCAP are, in fact, non-exclusive. The agreement states that the rights granted include:
> 
> ...



What you are referring to is the possibility to offer "direct licenses". Both ASCAP and BMI offer this, I suppose SESAC as well. If you are offering a direct license this work is excluded from the catalog of the PRO. It is something you cannot do if you join European PRO, which is an enormous pain for us European composers (I recently gave an interview about this issue to the French government - I'll post the info on my blog). If someone knows more technical details about how to offer direct licenses, I'd be more than interested.


----------



## MichaelL (Sep 12, 2011)

Hi Markus,

That is what I said a few posts back. The non-exclusive agreement means that writers have the power to bypass their PRO to license their works directly.

Cheers,

Michael

Composer, turned lawyer, turned composer again.


----------



## Markus S (Sep 12, 2011)

MichaelL @ Mon Sep 12 said:


> Hi Markus,
> 
> That is what I said a few posts back. The non-exclusive agreement means that writers have the power to bypass their PRO to license their works directly.
> 
> ...



Hi Michael,

didn't read through all of it - I'd be interested to know how you exclude these compositions technically. I heard "just don't declare them", but I need proof for my client that there can be no PRO claim. (it's not for a situation where the client collects royalties instead of me or where I would sign away the writer's share)


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 12, 2011)

MichaelL @ Mon Sep 12 said:


> @Mike Greene, if Oprah came to you and said "I want to direct license similar piano/ string music to what I've used before, on an annual basis, for the same amount of money that you are getting from your PRO," would you do it?


That essentially _is_ what the deal was, although the promise (which has turned out to be true) was that direct licensing (collecting through MRI) would pay me *more* than what I would have gotten through ASCAP. I won't go into the reasons why that would be possible (you can probably guess,) because this is a little sensitive and it's not my place to blab. (I'll probably delete this post in a couple days.)

Normally, I would have been skeptical, by the way. But I knew someone just a year earlier who did the same thing (for a different show, but still Harpo related) and it turned out to be true.

I would probably *not* take a deal like this with a production company I didn't trust, though. Even with Oprah, I only gave them 9 cues the first year. (I've given them around a thousand since.) It's very risky, because the production company does have an incentive to shaft you, since they could always offer to networks or TV stations that their show is PRO-free (as opposed to direct licensing, like Harpo) which makes the shower cheaper and therefore more attractive to the network or TV stations.

Also, it's important to note that all the cues involved are still registered with ASCAP (even though most of the money is paid to me through MRI.) In fact, for the small number of stations who won't participate in the "alternative license" scenario, that's how I get paid. Further, if Harpo then licenses these songs to some other unrelated show, then MRI would likely not be involved and I would then collect all the royalties through ASCAP in the usual manner.


----------



## rgames (Sep 12, 2011)

Markus S @ Mon Sep 12 said:


> What you are referring to is the possibility to offer "direct licenses". Both ASCAP and BMI offer this, I suppose SESAC as well.


The ability to offer direct licenses is one consequence of the agreement but it seems it also allows you to indirectly license your music through other means, as well, e.g. through other PRO's. And yes, if you license the music outside of a PRO it is not included in your catalog with that PRO.

I haven't looked at it in several years but I seem to recall that BMI does not offer the option to use indirect licensing outside of BMI. I think the agreement with them says that *all* of your indirect licensing *must* be done through BMI, so it leaves open the option for direct licensing via CC or something similar but prevents you from joining other PRO's. Basically, I think the BMI agreement is exclusive (maybe just for publishing?). But, again, I'm not sure - going on memory on that one. I have no idea about SESAC or the PRO's in the rest of the world.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Sep 12, 2011)

I'm not familiar with MRI outside of hearing them mentioned a few times. How does the arrangement work - when you direct license, do you give the info to them and they then track the broadcasts? Or is it just a one-time up-front fee given the planned broadcast schedule?

rgames


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 12, 2011)

rgames @ Mon Sep 12 said:


> I'm not familiar with MRI outside of hearing them mentioned a few times. How does the arrangement work - when you direct license, do you give the info to them and they then track the broadcasts? Or is it just a one-time up-front fee given the planned broadcast schedule?


You don't do anything. The production company (Harpo in this case) and the TV stations handle any direct licensing or other arrangements. I collect quarterly checks from MRI, based on how often my tracks were used. I would never agree to a one-time upfront fee.


----------



## rgames (Sep 12, 2011)

OK - so it seems MRI is just another PRO. I guess you pay them some fee to monitor the broadcasts? Since it's direct licensing, the checks go to you and MRI is not involved in the license fees, correct?

It's not clear to me where they make their money.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Sep 12, 2011)

Richard,

MRI probably takes a cut of the incoming monies, but maybe a smaller cut?

After so many decades of being around, I can't imagine that most PRO's would be the lean and mean machine that someone like MRI can probably be.

Having said that, I am definitely speaking out of my ass on this one since I have never worked for a production company who used MRI.


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 12, 2011)

MRI is not a PRO.

It's important to understand that the function of PRO's is not just paying us money. Their reason for existence, in fact, is to make a uniform licensing scheme so that radio stations (the simplest example) don't have to make individual agreements with every publisher to get permission to play songs on the radio. In other words, radio stations can play any songs they want *because* they have signed agreements with PRO's, who in turn have signed agreements with us, the writers of those songs. A radio station would technically *not* have permission to play a song by an artist who is not a PRO member.

Even with TV shows, this license is necessary. Granted, the production company has a signed agreement with us, and the TV stations have a signed agreement with the production company, but without PRO's, all these contracts would need additional clauses in those agreements to specifically state that the stations can play the music and define what additional compensation the composer should be given for this permission. Without PRO's, this would be very complicated.

I pay no fee to MRI and other than a W-9 (for tax purposes,) I've never signed any agreement with them. They don't have anything to do with granting permission to use music. All my agreements are with Harpo, who then makes their own business dealings with MRI.

MRI is just the company that handles the money the TV stations pay to Harpo for the direct licensing. A middleman. They give half that money to Harpo (as publisher) and divvy the other half up amongst the various composers. I'm not sure where in the process they collect their fee.


----------



## MichaelL (Sep 12, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Mon Sep 12 said:


> I would probably *not* take a deal like this with a production company I didn't trust, though.
> 
> Also, it's important to note that all the cues involved are still registered with ASCAP (even though most of the money is paid to me through MRI.) .



Hi Mike(composer and developer of high quality drum samples). If infer then that you agree that ALL direct licenses are not bad, just ones like the deal offered to Richard?

Second, maybe you can answer Markus's question. I was wondering how you can direct license and register the same tracks with your PRO.

@Richard. Although the court cases involved ASCAP (some BMI) the decisions would affect all organizations acting in the same manner, i.e, as a PRO. 

_Michael


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 12, 2011)

Richard's deal was not a direct-license deal. It was a _"sell your writer's share to a sleazy library"_ deal.

The library in that case could do three things (all sleazy) with his music: 
1. License these tracks in normal PRO shows with _their own_ name as composer.
2. License these tracks to shows that pay no PRO royalties of any kind (E! Network, etc.)
3. License these shows in direct license situations - again with _their own_ name as composer.

Richard's music may have ultimately ended up in a direct license situation, but it's not the direct licensing part of it that I object to, it's the selling your writer's share that I don't like.

Plus I get the feeling this library mostly intends to go for the #2 option, which is the most harmful option for the rest of us, as professional composers.

Regarding Marcus's question, we as composers aren't involved in the mechanics of direct licensing or registering the songs. The production companies and TV stations handle all that. The songs are still with ASCAP. In fact, probably 90% of direct license deals are still paid through ASCAP, and not through third parties. (They have a whole section for what they call "Per Program" near the end of my royalty statement.)


----------



## MichaelL (Sep 12, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Mon Sep 12 said:


> Richard's deal was not a direct-license deal. It was a _"sell your writer's share to a sleazy library"_ deal.



Gotcha. Yeah, that IS different.

Michael


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 12, 2011)

Darryl wrote:



> those of you who choose to use sample libraries on the final product have already made that concession. If you really believed in supporting the industry, you would refuse to do this, and insist that live players must be used for acoustic instruments, not samples



This thread is about composers getting paid fairly rather than letting some pimp take the money for their work.

Machines have been taking the place of humans since the Industrial Revolution, for both better and worse. It's a totally different discussion, and one that has been settled in our field for a couple of decades.


----------



## rgames (Sep 12, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Mon Sep 12 said:


> Richard's deal was not a direct-license deal. It was a _"sell your writer's share to a sleazy library"_ deal.


No, it was a deal that would have allowed the library to use the music *only* for non-PRO productions, so there was no writer's share and no publisher's share.

I never got the point of signing a contract but I would not have done so if that stipulation were not included. That was clearly their stated business model so of course I would hold them to it if I opted in.

rgames


----------



## midphase (Sep 12, 2011)

Here is something that puzzle me about this whole thing...most libraries that I know of, depend on their Publisher's Share as an important revenue stream, without it licensing fees alone simply wouldn't be enough (exception of course being trailer music libraries where the license fees are rather huge in comparison).

Now Richard implied that those no-PRO music libraries pay enough up front to potentially offset the lack of back end income. Enough as a matter of fact that a composer could support himself on that income alone.

To me, that implies at least $1k/cue. Anything less would fail miserably at either one of those criteria (even at $500/cue, my point below still stands).

So if a no-PRO library pays $1k or more per cue, that means they need to turn around and sell that cue to E! or the likes for at least double that...right?

Now, it seems to me that there is no way that a cable network which is obviously too cheap to deal with PRO's would be fine paying that much cash up front for library music. On an average Kardashians episode there are hundreds of cues being used...no way E! is ponying up $100k or more just for the music per episode.

Further, E! shows Sex and the City...they have to pay PRO's for that, no way they can get around it.

So how does it work exactly?


----------



## rgames (Sep 12, 2011)

OK - since you pay no fee to MRI and that relationship is managed external to you I guess your contract with Harpo stipulates that the music you are providing for them is somehow administered exclusively through MRI. Is that how it works?

After all, any TV show that broadcasts the show has to know that the music is licensed somehow.

I'm still confused on the part where you say ASCAP administers the direct licensing. If it's direct licensing, then where is ASCAP involved? To me, direct licensing means there is no middleman between you and the end user. If ASCAP is involved, then it's still indirect licensing, though I gather it's set up through some non-standard agreement.
 
rgames


----------



## rgames (Sep 12, 2011)

midphase @ Mon Sep 12 said:


> Here is something that puzzle me about this whole thing...most libraries that I know of, depend on their Publisher's Share as an important revenue stream


In my experience, that is true of all of the big libraries. But there are a *lot* of smaller libraries that let you keep all of your writer's share *and* publisher's share. So they get no cut of any royalties, only the sync fees.

Yes, that confuses me as well, and was a point that I raised way back in the beginning of this thread when we were discussing the value of back-end payments. I'm not the only one who was questioning their value! There are a *huge* number of tracks out there being marketed by libraries who have no financial interest in whether they ever generate any royalties - they are focused only on the up-front fees.

I sort of feel like we've come full circle...! Funny how that works sometimes in these sorts of threads.

EDIT: and it's not appropriate to think of the revenue streams in terms of a single track, think of the difference in terms of large collections of tracks. If you write 100 tracks for a standard library, how many are actually going to generate any cash? You carry the risk for all 100 tracks. If, however, the library pays you up front for *every one* of those 100 tracks (of course, each track would be sold for a lot less than what the best single earner makes) then there's a chance you will, overall, make more money. In that case, the library takes on the risk. You're getting paid something for every track rather than hoping for a few to eventually generate some larger revenues.

So the trade is who carries the risk: if the library carries the risk, then yes, you'll make a lot less money per track than what your two or three best-selling tracks would generate. However, you can make up for that difference (maybe...) in volume. Again, this type of setup would work best for tracks that can be produced in quickly (i.e. at high volumes).

For example, say you write 100 tracks. You list those with Library A and, over 10 years, those tracks generate $50k.

If, instead, you list those 100 tracks with Library B who pays you *only* $200 per track, then you've made $20k. But you've made $20k RIGHT NOW, not spread out over 10 years, and with no risk about what royalty streams will be over those 10 years. The combination of time-value of money and reduced risk makes it seem like a reasonably attractive deal, even if it's only $200 per track. In fact, depending on how the cash flows work out, the $200 per track up front deal could actually be better from a purely financial standpoint.

rgames


----------



## MichaelL (Sep 12, 2011)

Daryl @ Sat Sep 10 said:


> However, those of you who choose to use sample libraries on the final product have already made that concession. If you really believed in supporting the industry, you would refuse to do this, and insist that live players must be used for acoustic instruments, not samples. However, the fact that you don't means that you are already making the choice to offer a lower cost "solution" rather than providing the best for the job.
> D




No offense, but if you think virtual instruments are the great evil why are you here?
Do you go on omnivore websites and harangue others for not being vegan?

If samples were just a writing tool we all could have stopped buying virtual instruments after emu's Proteus. Or, we'd all use GPO now, instead of arguing about which brass library is best. 

Sorry, as much as I love live players, I think that using virtual instruments is an art unto itself. 

My 2 cents.

Michael


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 12, 2011)

midphase @ Mon Sep 12 said:


> So if a no-PRO library pays $1k or more per cue, that means they need to turn around and sell that cue to E! or the likes for at least double that...right?
> 
> Now, it seems to me that there is no way that a cable network which is obviously too cheap to deal with PRO's would be fine paying that much cash up front for library music. On an average Kardashians episode there are hundreds of cues being used...no way E! is ponying up $100k or more just for the music per episode.
> 
> Further, E! shows Sex and the City...they have to pay PRO's for that, no way they can get around it.


I'd be very surprised if E! pays even $200 per track for buyouts (not just per episode, but total buyout.) Even with no back end, considering how easy it is to crank out the style of music they mostly use, it would be pretty easy to find [strike]chumps[/strike] composers who would work for a fraction of that.

It's been 10 or 15 years since I was offered the E! show, so my memory might be a little hazy, but in fairness to them, it wasn't 100% PRO-free. I think the deal was that I would have gotten my usual ASCAP royalties for the theme song, but the bumpers and any beds I provided would be royalty free. My understanding was that this was the deal for any E! original show. Themes get royalties, everything else doesn't. Although . . . again, my memory is hazy, but maybe it was the reverse and themes were free, but beds got royalties. I can't remember, but it was an f-ed up deal one way or the other.

Anyway, they apparently still had some sort of relationship with ASCAP/BMI, so if they air shows like Sex and the City, those would be handled like any other network.


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 12, 2011)

rgames @ Mon Sep 12 said:


> Mike Greene @ Mon Sep 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Richard's deal was not a direct-license deal. It was a _"sell your writer's share to a sleazy library"_ deal.
> ...


Do you truly feel the need to debate every freaking point? Are you really that convinced that it's *me* who doesn't understand this stuff?

My original statement is correct exactly as I wrote it. Your deal was not a direct-license deal. It was a _"sell your writer's share to a sleazy library"_ deal. I'm not changing a word of that. (Sorry to anyone else reading, but this is annoying the hell out of me.)

Whether they use that writer's share or not is irrelevant. It's gone because you sold it to them. Writer's and publisher's shares don't evaporate into thin air. They go to whoever owns the song. In this case, them. Because you would have "sold" it to them.

Heck, they could still even collect ASCAP royalties if they wanted to, no matter what they promised you. Tis true. Even if you had a contract with them stating otherwise. Why? Because they own the song and songs can collect PRO royalties, which ASCAP will happily pay. Because there's no such thing as a song that has no writer's share and no publisher's share. No such thing. It's anyone's right to not _collect_ those royalties, but it's not possible for them to disappear.

The fact that there's a contract between you and the library that states they're not supposed to do that is not binding on ASCAP. Yes, you could sue the library (not ASCAP) *if* you found out. (How would you ever know???) But the fact remains that this library could, if they wanted to, still collect PRO royalties. Because, as I said, you would have sold those rights to them.


----------



## Daryl (Sep 12, 2011)

MichaelL @ Mon Sep 12 said:


> Daryl @ Sat Sep 10 said:
> 
> 
> > However, those of you who choose to use sample libraries on the final product have already made that concession. If you really believed in supporting the industry, you would refuse to do this, and insist that live players must be used for acoustic instruments, not samples. However, the fact that you don't means that you are already making the choice to offer a lower cost "solution" rather than providing the best for the job.
> ...


Where did I say that I believe that using virtual instruments was an evil? Read the post more carefully.

D


----------



## MichaelL (Sep 12, 2011)

Hi Daryl

I did read your statement closely. It's in your language. I think that there are instances where samples might not be a "concession." They might actually offer a creative palette that IS the best job,not just the cheapest. If you see that as a possibility, then I misread your statement.

Cheers,

Michael


----------



## midphase (Sep 12, 2011)

Daryl @ Mon Sep 12 said:


> I also assume that you don't use any sample libraries, because you are so concerned for the industry that you wouldn't want to participate in the decimation of both the recording industry and the session musician profession, not to mention be responsible for many studios closing down?
> 
> 
> Where did I say that I believe that using virtual instruments was an evil? Read the post more carefully.
> ...



Daryl,

There is an implication in your post that it's hypocritical for composers to fight to prevent the further erosion of their rights while at the same time utilizing products and services which have eroded other people's rights.

I believe your point is flawed, and the reason it's quite simple -- it's not my job to defend the rights of musicians and studio owners anymore than it's my job to defend the rights of a school janitor. I have my hands full just fighting to hold on to the small scraps that are left on the table for composers, let alone take up issues that don't affect me in the least. And just like you can't point your finger at me and call me a hypocrite, I shouldn't point the finger at E! for not wanting to pay PRO's but fighting tooth and nail for their broadcasting license rights with the cable companies.

P.S.

I do think that musicians in general have allowed themselves to get screwed over, particularly in light of the fact that the do have a union! Yes, I do think that musicians (especially the talented top guys) who have gone ahead and done (and continue to do) sample library sessions are short sighted and have sold their soul for a quick buck. But it's most definitely not my fight, and I don't feel the least bit guilty utilizing whatever products are available to help make my life easier!

P.P.S.

I applaud the business model that Cinesamples seems to have adopted where the sales of their sample libraries result in dividends paid out to the musicians that contributed to it, I think that's a step in the right direction which makes me want to purchase from the Mikes.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 12, 2011)

This is about how the money that is actually going to get paid is distributed.

Budgets that support live ensembles for television are not coming back to the types of projects they've left. Nobody other than Daryl feels guilty about using samples to play parts that would otherwise have to be played by live musicians; the alternative is no original music.


----------



## MichaelL (Sep 12, 2011)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Sep 12 said:


> This is about how the money that is actually going to get paid is distributed.
> 
> Budgets that support live ensembles for television are not coming back to the types of projects they've left. Nobody other than Daryl feels guilty about using samples to play parts that would otherwise have to be played by live musicians; the alternative is no original music.



Deja vu all over again Nick. My late father-in-law was a sax player in radio big bands in the 1940's. He often told the story of the day that the station owner thumbed his nose at the band and informed them that they were being replaced by records. It always comes down to money.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Sep 12, 2011)

And now the records are being replaced by illegal downloads.


----------



## rgames (Sep 12, 2011)

Mike Greene @ Mon Sep 12 said:


> you would have sold those rights to them.


Not if the contract clearly states that I didn't.

And yes, they could violate the terms of that contract and try to collect writer's and publisher's share of PRO royalties. But *anybody* can steal your music, so what's the difference? I have a lot of tracks with a several libraries - my contracts with them clearly state that I own the writer's share and, for some of them, some or all of the publisher's share. But they, too, could violate the terms of the agreement and try to claim the tracks as their own.

Anybody can violate the agreement and steal your music. This type of deal doesn't make you any more or less prone to such theft.

rgames


----------

