# Library/Production Music Contracts



## CGR (Feb 26, 2019)

I have 4 solo albums, and numerous other tracks on 3 compilation albums with a library/production music publisher called Motion Focus Music. I have written and produced enough new tracks for another full album, and have been researching other publishers to consider for distribution.

After an recent enquiry with another publisher, I received an expression of interest and a contract to consider. I was both surprised and perplexed by this section (see attached image) in the middle of the document, outlining costs to be incurred if my tracks are used. These are on top of the 50/50 composer/publisher split. Thoughts & opinions anyone?


----------



## R. Soul (Feb 26, 2019)

This is a contract from Evolution media music - not sure how they are related to Motion focus music?

I've had the same document, although not placed tracks with them yet.
All it says is that they will charge £25 for mastering per track, which will be recouped from future earnings. This is not uncommon.
And they will charge £450 if they have to mix your track, but you should really do that yourself.

Regarding 11.6.4 - I'm not sure what those adjustments include. You might want to check with them.


----------



## muk (Feb 26, 2019)

If there is an upfront payment, recouping on it is quite common. Recouping on the writers share of the royalties, however, is a very bad deal for you. I see two cases how this could be an ok deal for you: 1. the libraries pays you something upfront, or 2. you do all the mixing and mastering, thus no deductions from the library on any of your earnings. If neither of these two criteria are met, I would decline and try to place the tracks elsewhere.


----------



## CGR (Feb 26, 2019)

R. Soul said:


> This is a contract from Evolution media music - not sure how they are related to Motion focus music?
> 
> I've had the same document, although not placed tracks with them yet.
> All it says is that they will charge £25 for mastering per track, which will be recouped from future earnings. This is not uncommon.
> ...


Thanks for your reply. Yes, this section of the contract is not related to Motion Focus Music. My contract with them doesn't stipulate any of these fees or deductions from tracks they place, which was why I'm questioning if this was common practice. The wording seems very much weighted in their favour with regards to 'at the discretion of Evolution Media Music'. Surely providing pre-mastered tracks as well as stems would negate the need for additional mastering & mixing by them or their clients? ‎£450 is a substantial charge, on top of an additional 20% of the composer share, for mixing a track.


----------



## CGR (Feb 26, 2019)

muk said:


> If there is an upfront payment, recouping on it is quite common. Recouping on the writers share of the royalties, however, is a very bad deal for you. I see two cases how this could be an ok deal for you: 1. the libraries pays you something upfront, or 2. you do all the mixing and mastering, thus no deductions from the library on any of your earnings. If neither of these two criteria are met, I would decline and try to place the tracks elsewhere.


Thanks for your thoughts. There is no mention of any upfront payment in the contract.
(Note: edited after clarification from the Publisher)


----------



## MartinH. (Feb 26, 2019)

CGR said:


> Thanks for your thoughts. There is no mention of any upfront payment in the contract, so this 'deal' strikes me as heavily weighted toward the publisher.



11.6.2 sounds to me like it is common for composers to negotiate advance payments with them. They won't offer those, you probably need to ask for them. If your contract with the other company is better, then use that as your bargaining chip and tell them (in a more professional wording) "Ok, but only if you pay me _____ in advances for the work I did on composing and producing the track." or something like that. I don't know, I'm just a hobbyist and happy that I don't have to worry about such stuff...


----------



## Daryl (Feb 26, 2019)

Unfortunately this sort of thing is quite common. I find it abusive, and won't have any part of it, but my stance is increasingly a minority one.


----------



## CGR (Feb 26, 2019)

Daryl said:


> Unfortunately this sort of thing is quite common. I find it abusive, and won't have any part of it, but my stance is increasingly a minority one.


Hmmm. I've queried the above points. Interested to hear their response. FYI, I haven't supplied any music to them or signed a contract.


----------



## studiostuff (Feb 26, 2019)

Run Away...!!!


----------



## muk (Feb 26, 2019)

Run away indeed. Upon rereading the contract, I noticed that they are recouping from the writer's share! Walk away immediately and, if you are in the mood to, shut the door hard.* *A library has no business touching the writer's share. Ever.* Under no circumstance. I can not stress this enough. *Never give away any part of your writer's share. *Any company asking you to do that is not one you should be working with.

By the way, certain PROs explicitly forbid their composers to give away part of the writer's share, and for good reason. So, if you'd want to enter this truly bad deal, check your contract with your PRO first. Tells you all you need to know about these kind of deals.

*For instance you could propose them a 50/50 split deal, but you will retain 20% of the publisher's share and recoup 450£ for writing the tracks. Their reaction will tell you how fair a deal they think that is.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Feb 26, 2019)

Run! I especially cringed at the section about charging you for mastering, any "fixes", and mixing if required. What a scam.


----------



## CGR (Feb 26, 2019)

Thanks for your input Muk & Wolfie.


----------



## GtrString (Feb 26, 2019)

This is not common at all! Pure internet scam.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 26, 2019)

muk said:


> By the way, certain PROs explicitly forbid their composers to give away part of the writer's share, and for good reason. So, if you'd want to enter this truly bad deal, check your contract with your PRO first. Tells you all you need to know about these kind of deals.



That's not quite correct. It's only forbidden to give away some of the Writer's share of Broadcast Royalties. There is no such thing as a Writers' share of Mechanicals.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 26, 2019)

GtrString said:


> This is not common at all! Pure internet scam.


I suggest that you look more carefully. I can name at least four supposedly reputable companies that use recoupment.


----------



## Mr. Edinburgh (Feb 26, 2019)

that's crazy - I bet most seasoned composers wouldn't sign that in a millions years....


----------



## JohnG (Feb 26, 2019)

I have never seen recoupment coming from BMI/ASCAP etc. from the writers' side. That seems wrong.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 26, 2019)

JohnG said:


> I have never seen recoupment coming from BMI/ASCAP etc. from the writers' side. That seems wrong.


No, but neither of those two organisations hand out Mechanicals, do they? A British Publisher has no method of getting their hands on the Writer's share of Broadcast Royalties, as those come directly to the Writer from PRS, so would be unable to recoup from that. I think there is just a misunderstanding of the contract here.

Look at the wording:

*...due directly from us...*

Writer's PRS payments come from PRS. Not the Publisher.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 26, 2019)

Mr. Edinburgh said:


> that's crazy - I bet most seasoned composers wouldn't sign that in a millions years....


All composers who write for EMI, West One, and a number of others, do and have.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 26, 2019)

Daryl said:


> No, but neither of those two organisations hand out Mechanicals, do they? A British Publisher has no method of getting their hands on the Writer's share of Broadcast Royalties, as those come directly to the Writer from PRS, so would be unable to recoup from that. I think there is just a misunderstanding of the contract here.
> 
> Look at the wording:
> 
> ...



You may be right Daryl. I didn't read the paragraphs from the contract and I'm not going to -- as you undoubtedly know, nobody can interpret a contract's overall impact from reading just a section, so I'm being cautious with advice.

As should the OP be cautious with what advice he gets on a forum.

But caution cuts both ways, given that there always seem to be new ways people dream up to take more away from composers. You probably have heard that there was a company in Los Angeles that, for years, required composers to list one of their executives as a co-writer, thus grabbing a portion of the writer's share. It's stories / history like that that makes me urge caution.

That said, the publisher needs to make money. 

Apart from other considerations, like reputation, past experience with the team, I weigh these concepts when it comes to library / production music:

*1. Ideally, they have "skin in the game"* -- Either they pay you a fee up front or they pay to hire the orchestra. Depending on how much money they put at risk, it's reasonable for them to get a lot: (1) the publishing, (2) control of the music and the masters permanently, and (3) the right to recoup their costs before the composer gets money. After all, they are risking cash. Besides, a large proportion of production tracks never earn anything at all so the company knows that a certain amount of what they put at risk will never return anything to them;

*2. If nothing up front *-- If they don't pay a fee or cover meaningful production costs, one could argue they have limited incentive to market your tracks and, unless someone else paid for the production, the composer may have a player-less track that doesn't necessarily sound that impressive as a demo or one into which the _composer_ has invested meaningful money. In that circumstance, I would ask for a reversion of some kind -- that all rights revert back to composer if, after some time (one year? three years?) the track has not licensed. That way you don't give it away forever if they don't make you any money. If you have hired players yourself, you could negotiate over their supposed "out of pocket" costs.

The other thing is to ask for some kind of limit to how much they spend -- if they spend over a certain amount, they don't recoup, or they have to talk to you first to be entitled to recoup. Not saying you'll get that but it's not an unfair thing to ask what they picture spending on "mastering" or "remixing." Those can cost not much or a heck of a lot.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 26, 2019)

JohnG said:


> I didn't read the paragraphs from the contract and I'm not going to -- as you undoubtedly know, nobody can interpret a contract's overall impact from reading just a section, so I'm being cautious with advice.
> 
> As should the OP be cautious with what advice he gets on a forum.



Agreed, but in this case, the paragraph in question is really clear. As there is no way for any Publisher to get their hands on the Writer's share of PRS payments (other than by fraudulently pretending to be a co-writer, as you mention), the Publisher can't recoup from this.


----------



## GtrString (Feb 26, 2019)

Daryl said:


> I suggest that you look more carefully. I can name at least four supposedly reputable companies that use recoupment.



That they are “supposedly reputable” doesn’t make this less a scam. From the wording they can just decide that they need to remix the project for any number of hrs, and charge you for it. This of course needs to be done before pitching, so they can just use this “service” to keep their studio up and running. Scam all the way, no matter what name is on it.


----------



## EvoMediaMusic (Feb 26, 2019)

Hi All, 

Speaking on behalf of the Evolution team here. CGR, our manager Dave will be emailing your directly but just wanted to clear some things up on this thread.

Regarding the main clause that people have taken issue with (11.6.5), I’d like to clarify what this means. As per the bit in capitals, this recoupable would only ever be applicable when agreed before the release of a track, so it would never be forced upon a composer. CRG using your example of a £1,500 sync, it would be a straight 50/50 split after the recoupable mastering fee of £25, so in no way would you be getting a 90/10 split. To be explicitly clear on this, we will not touch your writers share of 50%. The performance share of royalties always comes to you via your PRO and we never see it. The mechanical royalties are paid out by us every 6 months, this is 50/50 on royalties received. To be up front on this clause, after 86 albums released at market this has not been used once. The reason it is in the contract is purely to cover us legally. For instance, if a composer was on an advance and didn’t deliver mixes that were of a releasable standard, forcing us to hire a mixing engineer to sort. Personally, I feel its unlikely this clause will ever be used because if mixes are not up to scratch, we usually know fairly on in the curation process. 

As has been mentioned by others on this thread, we do indeed invest considerable amounts of money on each album with extensive curation (currently 5 producers curate all material), artwork, and all associated background tasks. We also invest in recording where needed, having recorded in Budapest (Strings for our Natures of Wonder release) and Abbey Road (Strings & Guitar for our Plucky & Playful release).

Mastering is handled by various outsourced mastering engineers, all of whom are incredibly talented, and we feel deliver the highest standard for the market. Artwork is also outsourced to a variety of highly talented artists. 

We are a 7 person strong team based in the UK, sub published with BMG, Sonoton, Groovers, and many others. We are all composers and writers, from the executive to the curation team. The business was started by our executive as a route to encourage emerging talent, and has always had the composer in mind. We are always on hand for a Skype, call, email, or face to face (in London, Brighton, or Manchester). We have never, and never will, scam composers. 

So please contact us at [email protected] and we would be more than happy to go through anything else with you. We’d be more than happy to provide a full copy of our standard contract to anyone that needs it also. 

All the best
Josh
Music Curator & Production Assistant


----------



## GtrString (Feb 26, 2019)

Daryl said:


> All composers who write for EMI, West One, and a number of others, do and have.



Prove it. You are legitimizing dubious business propositions here to young composers who have no way of knowing any better. If you think this is legit, I will question what you know, or why you dont call this out.


----------



## studiostuff (Feb 26, 2019)

Josh, Why not post a full copy of your standard contract here...? Define "anyone that needs it..."


----------



## Daryl (Feb 26, 2019)

GtrString said:


> Prove it. You are legitimizing dubious business propositions here to young composers who have no way of knowing any better. If you think this is legit, I will question what you know, or why you dont call this out.


I don't need to prove anything. As a long time former writer for EMI production Music and West One, I know only too well what goes on there. You can choose to believe me, or not to believe me. I don't care. I am only providing facts.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 26, 2019)

EvoMediaMusic said:


> Josh
> Music Curator & Production Assistant



Thanks for chiming in.


----------



## EvoMediaMusic (Feb 26, 2019)

Hi Guys,

Happy to answer any more questions people might have (though I work the usual UK working hours if I don’t respond).

Regarding the contract and posting it here. I’m hesitant to do so just because I’d rather explain points of the contract directly with individuals, and not have others interpret the contract as has already happened on this thread.

The contract is available to anyone who wants it, just drop us an email and one of the team will send it to you. If you want to know anymore about us all personally, and the business as a whole, happy to provide that as well.

Cheers
Josh
Music Curator & Production Assistant


----------



## studiostuff (Feb 26, 2019)

That's fair.

I think my main objection is the extra charges that are probably applied to most of the submissions you accept.

That seems to me to be one of your costs of doing business as I can't imagine any submission that would clear all the sonic hurdles and be able to avoid a little mix engineer touch up in order to produce a consistent collection of tracks.

I guess if your composers don't mind you funding your studio with these extras, then that is between you and them. Seems excessive to me... But I have no dog in the fight.

Good of you to speak up and answer questions.


----------



## GtrString (Feb 26, 2019)

Well, we dont have the full contract to see, but it looks like a cross-collateralization clause, which is designed to protect the publisher from losses. 

Basically, the publisher can take a receipt due the songwriter from one track and apply that towards recoupable advances or costs from other songs and even other songwriters' songs. That depends on what else there is in the contract (which we dont get to see here).

The risk for the artist is that the publisher gets little incentive to push a song, and/or never will see royalties for successful songs, because the publisher will offset losses from less successful songs.

Even if they dont use the clause, they can, and probably will if there is a future conflict between the writer and the publisher.

In other words, that only protects the publisher. It's not a win-win deal.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 26, 2019)

studiostuff said:


> That seems to me to be one of your costs of doing business as I can't imagine any submission that would clear all the sonic hurdles and be able to avoid a little mix engineer touch up in order to produce a consistent collection of tracks.



Hi @studiostuff -- I don't know what your experience has been, but mine suggests that this isn't unusual or sinister. The full cost of producing and preparing for market has been recouped from a good bit of my stuff done in this sphere.


----------



## StevenMcDonald (Feb 26, 2019)

I think this forum in general has a tendency to over-aggresively jump at any kind of company/corporation and try to call out "scummy" things, even when they're not there. This deal isn't weird, and nobody is forcing you to take it if you don't want to. £25 for mastering is nothing, and that only takes effect is you make money. It's not like a pay-to-submit deal (which IS scummy). As for the mixing clause, if your mix skills aren't up to snuff, honestly, you should work on that before trying to do library music. I personally wouldn't take the deal if they wanted to mix for me and recoup that much sync/mechanical, but as Josh said, that only happens if you agree to it.

I worked with EMM on an album last year, and it was a very smooth and professional process. I was given good, specific feedback on my tracks (including mix issues, which they asked me to fix rather than trying to force their own mixing service on me) and they communicated well. The album has had a few TV promo placements in Europe as well as some TV underscore so far.


----------



## erica-grace (Feb 26, 2019)

muk said:


> *A library has no business touching the writer's share. Ever.* Under no circumstance. I can not stress this enough. *Never give away any part of your writer's share. *Any company asking you to do that is not one you should be working with.



So, if the music library doesn't take a portion of your writers, how do they make any money when the tv production company takes the publishing?


----------



## erica-grace (Feb 26, 2019)

StevenMcDonald said:


> I think this forum in general has a tendency to over-aggresively jump at any kind of company/corporation and try to call out "scummy" things, even when they're not there. This deal isn't weird, and nobody is forcing you to take it if you don't want to. £25 for mastering is nothing, and that only takes effect is you make money. It's not like a pay-to-submit deal (which IS scummy). As for the mixing clause, if your mix skills aren't up to snuff, honestly, you should work on that before trying to do library music. I personally wouldn't take the deal if they wanted to mix for me and recoup that much sync/mechanical, but as Josh said, that only happens if you agree to it.
> 
> I worked with EMM on an album last year, and it was a very smooth and professional process. I was given good, specific feedback on my tracks (including mix issues, which they asked me to fix rather than trying to force their own mixing service on me) and they communicated well. The album has had a few TV promo placements in Europe as well as some TV underscore so far.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 26, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> So, if the music library doesn't take a portion of your writers, how do they make any money when the tv production company takes the publishing?


The TV company can't take the Publishing from a library company. If they are given a share, it's only because the library company allowed them some of their own share. If the TV company wanted 100%, the sync wouldn't happen.


----------



## studiostuff (Feb 26, 2019)

JohnG said:


> Hi @studiostuff -- I don't know what your experience has been, but mine suggests that this isn't unusual or sinister. The full cost of producing and preparing for market has been recouped from a good bit of my stuff done in this sphere.


Hi John,

You are correct to suppose I don't have experience as a composer of library music. I still feel as though these companies are exploiting the extremely competitive nature of composer life in LA or London.

And just because it is normal or common doesn't make it seem less excessive to me.

I understand business is business. I have participated in my share of deals that were less than perfect.

But I guess I feel extra lucky at this time to be able to say no to opportunities that seem to offer unfair benefit to my business partners.

No brag. Just thankful.


----------



## muk (Feb 26, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> So, if the music library doesn't take a portion of your writers, how do they make any money when the tv production company takes the publishing?



What Daryl wrote. Apparently there are libraries that give away part of their publisher's share to land placements. It's a bad development. Just think about it. A tv company should be paying to use your music, not being paid for it. But ultimately it is the libraries problem if they partake in such practices. If they want the composers to pay for it by taking a percentage of the _writer's share, _however, then it becomes our problem, and I advice to never accept such a deal. It's a horrible race to the bottom that will leave nothing for the composers.

Fortunately, there are more than enough libraries out there that won't sell music below value and still land great placements. And these are the libraries composers should want to work with in my opinion.


----------



## erica-grace (Feb 26, 2019)

Daryl said:


> The TV company can't take the Publishing from a library company.



Ok. But isn't the TV company the publisher? It's they who are technically publishing the content, and putting it out into the public domain. The library isn't doing that, so they are not publisher.

And isn't it the same as with a movie studio when you score a film? The studio gets the publishing, because they are the publisher. Isnt the TV company the equivalent of the film studio?


----------



## Farkle (Feb 26, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> Ok. But isn't the TV company the publisher? It's they who are technically publishing the content, and putting it out into the public domain. The library isn't doing that, so they are not publisher.
> 
> No. The TV company is LICENSING the content from the publisher (the library), to use to enhance/support their TV show. Way different.
> 
> And isn't it the same as with a movie studio when you score a film? The studio gets the publishing, because they are the publisher. Isnt the TV company the equivalent of the film studio?



No. It's not the same. You're confusing a production movie studio, with the financing organization. For example, Sony Pictures might finance a film, and part of their deal will be for Sony (I would expect the Music arm) to acquire the publishing rights of the soundtrack... so that, I don't know, maybe they could release the soundtrack for additional money? Or, license cues for trailers, etc.

John G and Daryl know more about the film side than I do, I've only done independent films, but regarding TV (both custom and library), I know a lot, and what I said above is how the TV structure (by and large) works. If a TV company actually wants to acquire the publishing, then they must have a PRO (ASCAP, BMI, etc) publishing account, and must be a registered publisher. And, they would have to buy the publishing rights from the composer or library that owned the publishing. It's easier (and way more industry standard) to do a licensing deal with the library.

Mike


----------



## chillbot (Feb 26, 2019)

You're confusing a physical "publisher" with the publishing share of the cue sheets.

In the simplest sense (it never is): the library owns 100% of the publishing share. The writer owns 100% of the writer share. Whoever controls the publishing share controls the track. The TV station (or TV production company) licenses the track from the publisher and pays a sync fee which they would theoretically split... oh nevermind I see ferx just posted same stuff....


----------



## Desire Inspires (Feb 26, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> Ok. But isn't the TV company the publisher? It's they who are technically publishing the content, and putting it out into the public domain. The library isn't doing that, so they are not publisher.
> 
> And isn't it the same as with a movie studio when you score a film? The studio gets the publishing, because they are the publisher. Isnt the TV company the equivalent of the film studio?



No.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 26, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> Ok. But isn't the TV company the publisher? It's they who are technically publishing the content, and putting it out into the public domain. The library isn't doing that, so they are not publisher.



If the TV company is the Publisher, then it has nothing to do with a music library. Unless they are sharing Publishing. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at?


----------



## CGR (Feb 26, 2019)

I appreciate the responses, and the clarification from Josh at Evolution Media Music. Given there are a number of experienced & published composers here, and being a niche industry, I was interested to hear from them, which was why I posted in the 'Working in the Industry' section. I think it's prudent to not only seek clarification about contract clauses, but also contrast and compare with other Composers' Industry experience and arrangements.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Feb 26, 2019)

StevenMcDonald said:


> £25 for mastering is nothing, and that only takes effect is you make money



So in other words you ARE paying to submit. Even if the tracks never get licensed, they still made money off the mastering. Twelve full version tracks, plus the tracks versions.....say something like 40 tracks altogether. That's £1000 right there; out of the composer's pocket. And what if they want to mix? You need to send all of the stems and get charged for that too! I have never, ever seen either of these items in a contract.


----------



## StevenMcDonald (Feb 26, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> So in other words you ARE paying to submit. Even if the tracks never get licensed, they still made money off the mastering.



I don't think you understand this. The £25 is only taken out of however much money the track makes. You aren't paying to submit. It's a recoup. If the track never gets licensed, the library loses the money they spent on the mastering. If it does get licensed, they get £25 of it back.

I wrote a full album for EMM, and it has been getting placements. I haven't paid anybody any money.


----------



## CGR (Feb 26, 2019)

StevenMcDonald said:


> I don't think you understand this. The £25 is only taken out of however much money the track makes. You aren't paying to submit. It's a recoup. If the track never gets licensed, the library loses the money they spent on the mastering. If it does get licensed, they get £25 of it back.
> 
> I wrote a full album for EMM, and it has been getting placements. I haven't paid anybody any money.


Thanks for your input Steven.


----------



## EvoMediaMusic (Feb 27, 2019)

Hi again all, 

Thanks for your further queries and questions, will and try and clarify. 

@GtrString - you mentioned ‘cross-collateralization’ whereby some publishers take their recoupable from all music written, and not from the individual track. This isn’t the case here at Evolution Media Music, recoupable advances are only ever applied to the individual tracks, not your catalogue as a whole. 

For example, if you wrote Epic Rock 1, Epic Rock 2, and Epic Rock 3, each with a £25 recoupable for mastering, and Epic Rock 1 & 3 earned nothing, but Epic Rock 2 earned £500, you would receive £475. The recoupable mastering fee only ever applies to the track. 

I highly disagree with your statement that we have “little incentive to push a song”. We work with our composers, often for months at a time on albums to make sure if is of the highest compositional and mix standard. We wouldn’t bother to put this effort in, or expect it of a composer if we were to not then push and promote that music as hard as we possibly could. Whilst our sub-publishers at BMG, Sonoton, Groovers, Music & Musique, and others handle promotion and sales as part of their agreements with us, we also create samplers, mailouts, and attend all the major industry events in the UK and USA. 

@studiostuff - as with any business, there are costs involved. Our ethos has always been about quality, delivering the best music we possibly can to the market. That incurs additional costs for the business such as the money needed to fund the curation team, as well as the money invested in highly talented artists and mastering engineers. 

You mentioned that your main objection was that “the extra charges that are probably applied to most of the submissions you accept”. As mentioned in my earlier post, to my knowledge (and I have been with the company since they released their first 9 albums) the mixing clause has never been used, and as I also said I cant see a way where it would be used. Even if it ever were to be proposed by us to a composer, the composer is under no obligation to take it, they can simply walk away from the deal with their track. We have no way of forcing a composer to use a mix engineer, nor would we want to. We have sonic hurdles yes, but this is offered in the form of feedback whereby each composer is given the opportunity to amend their track. When we listen to tracks and formulate our feedback it is always with the intention that the writer can make the changes themselves. On the few rare occasions where we can tell a composer is great at writing, but lacks the requisite skills in mixing we have never suggested the use of an engineer, but have instead connected them with other writers who then collaborate together (separate of us) in delivering a releasable track. This itself is rare, I can only think of 2 writers who have done this off the top of my head.

The deliverables recoupable has been used once to my knowledge, but again this was not forced on the composer. The composer had written some great tracks but was then tied down with commitments to other projects so had no time to complete the deliverables. They requested us to do them with that recoupable as it allowed them to release the tracks but focus on their other work. We would never push a composer down this path, especially as we all have such extensive work tasks that taking on doing someones deliverables just adds to the work pile. To be clear on this, all libraries to my knowledge require composers to do some form of deliverables, and not one of them would expect the library to do them for the composer. So again, this clause is to cover us to make sure composers deliver the files needed and would never be forced upon a composer.

As Steven has mentioned, there is a massive difference between ‘pay-to-submit’ and the practice of a ‘recoupable’. Firstly, to be explicitly clear, no one at this company will ever ask a writer for money! Money would only ever be paid one way - to the writer. 

Recoupable costs are agreed at the contract stage. The contract is only formally agreed when signed by both parties, this is done at the last stage of the process, after a writer has submitted, revised, and then had their tracks signed off by our exec team. 

@Wolfie2112 - I’ll use your example to clarify this point. Say you wrote a 12 track album for us, this would incur a £25 mastering recoupable per track (£300). Here are some examples of how that would work out:

All 12 tracks make £0 - Then nothing changes. We have paid for the mastering, but the tracks haven’t made any money so nothing happens.

11 tracks make £0, but 1 track makes £800 - Then the recoupable mastering of £25 for that one track is recouped and we pay out the remaining balance of £775 to you the writer. 

I hope this is clear and explains how recoupment works. In no way is this ‘pay-to-submit’ and in no way is it a means of making additional money. We cover all costs and the recoupments only take effect (on a track by track basis) if they make money. 

We would love to hear from you all if you’re interested in working with us. Steven produced a wonderful album for us (Inspirational Beats), and we have an ever growing community of global writers, with a lot of them being outside the normal realms of London and LA. 

I know this contract stuff can be quite complicated so more than happy to help in explaining things, be it in terms of Evolution Media Music or the wider industry as a whole. 

Cheers
Josh
Music Curator & Production Assistant


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Feb 27, 2019)

EvoMediaMusic said:


> I hope this is clear and explains how recoupment works. In no way is this ‘pay-to-submit’ and in no way is it a means of making additional money. We cover all costs and the recoupments only take effect (on a track by track basis) if they make money.



Thanks for the response, great to see this type of interaction. I guess I'm just not feeling the love when it comes to charging composers for mastering....wouldn't it be be mastered prior to marketing the tacks? Anyways, thanks for clarifying all of the items in your posts. Cheers!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Feb 27, 2019)

StevenMcDonald said:


> I don't think you understand this. The £25 is only taken out of however much money the track makes. You aren't paying to submit. It's a recoup. If the track never gets licensed, the library loses the money they spent on the mastering. If it does get licensed, they get £25 of it back.
> 
> I wrote a full album for EMM, and it has been getting placements. I haven't paid anybody any money.



Fair enough, but the composer still gets charged for it if it happens (my bad for missing that)....which is still the composer's cost. Josh posted some great feedback, and it sounds like they rarely have to master/mix anything anyways.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 27, 2019)

Wolfie2112 said:


> I guess I'm just not feeling the love when it comes to charging composers for mastering



I am confident I've been charged for mastering by other libraries. And recording -- it's a big recoupment. Josh @EvoMediaMusic is describing a setup similar to at least one that has been extremely healthy for me and my career, in a number of ways.

I'm not endorsing Evo Media because I don't know them and have never worked for them, but Josh's explanations make it sound like something with which I'd be comfortable from a business perspective. Recouping only on tracks that license seems quite positive. 

Not everyone likes every contract. I was horrified the first time I saw what I had to surrender on my first score, but I soon learned that's just how it is. One has to make up one's own mind.


----------



## GtrString (Feb 27, 2019)

Good to see a more precise clarification, as it is hard to evaluate from a snippet of a contract (which is still all we have, though). I find it quite odd that the library would require remastering and remixing if a track is sold, though, as either this is part of why it is sold, or it should be curated during the screening. That is still the most common practice. 

But I guess there are differences between a composer (only) and a composer who is also a producer (which to me is also the most common), and perhaps that is where the misunderstanding originates. Im actually surprised that the library would sign composers who cannot produce.. but I guess that must be the case here.


----------



## StevenMcDonald (Feb 27, 2019)

GtrString said:


> I find it quite odd that the library would require remastering and remixing if a track is sold, though, as either this is part of why it is sold, or it should be curated during the screening. That is still the most common practice.



That's not what the clause is saying. They have all the tracks mastered regardless, when they first take in the album. They only recoup the £25 if the track is licensed and there is a sync fee to recoup it from. So if a track is never licensed, they've lost the money they invested in mastering. Thus they do have incentive to push the tracks.


----------



## erica-grace (Feb 27, 2019)

Farkle said:


> No. It's not the same. You're confusing a production movie studio, with the financing organization. For example, Sony Pictures might finance a film, and part of their deal will be for Sony (I would expect the Music arm) to acquire the publishing rights of the soundtrack... so that, I don't know, maybe they could release the soundtrack for additional money? Or, license cues for trailers, etc.



I hear what you are saying, but that doesn't make sense to me. And it could just be me, as I am still learning here.

When Universal Studios releases "How To Train Your Dragon", are they not the publisher of that film? If not, why not?

If so, how is Universal different from XYZ studio (I do not know the name) that produces "The Walking Dead"? Isn't that studio the publisher of that TV series?

Thanks.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 27, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> I hear what you are saying, but that doesn't make sense to me. And it could just be me, as I am still learning here.
> 
> When Universal Studios releases "How To Train Your Dragon", are they not the publisher of that film? If not, why not?
> 
> ...


Theoretically it's the Publishing wing, but the answers are yes and yes, assuming that The Walking Dead has a score composed specifically for it, and the Publishing deal with the Publishing wing has been agreed.

However, neither of these examples have anything to do with a library music contract.


----------



## Farkle (Feb 27, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> I hear what you are saying, but that doesn't make sense to me. And it could just be me, as I am still learning here.
> 
> When Universal Studios releases "How To Train Your Dragon", are they not the publisher of that film? If not, why not?
> 
> ...



Yes, Universal pictures is the publisher of the FILM. The composer has a contract with the production company of the film, regarding the ownership and copyright of his/her score. The publisher of the FILM has to then deal with the ownership/licensing/publishing of the SCORE of the film, which might be owned by the composer, might be owned by the production studio, etc. Notice, the production company might NOT be the publishing company. 

Look, this is complex. And, trying to answer here is... it's too detailed. Go pick up the Passman book on the Music Business, or Brabec's book on Music, Money, and Success. Start learning how this works. If you want to be in the industry, you should research the industry.

And, as Daryl said, this is wholly different from a deal a film company (publishing or production studio) does with a library that already owns the publishing of its' catalog.

Mike


----------



## GtrString (Feb 28, 2019)

StevenMcDonald said:


> That's not what the clause is saying. They have all the tracks mastered regardless, when they first take in the album. They only recoup the £25 if the track is licensed and there is a sync fee to recoup it from. So if a track is never licensed, they've lost the money they invested in mastering. Thus they do have incentive to push the tracks.



Well, if you say so. I still find this contract a business mess/odd/puzzling, because it is blurring the roles. By charging composers for mastering and maybe even mixing, they turn the composer into a customer with the company, while in a more transparent relationship the library would stand together with the composer, and have clients as a joint consumer. I would say that is pretty factual, based on the information at hand.

And if the library does mix and master, what happens to the producer rights (the (p))? Does the company then get to own those rights, or still just get the rights to exploit, like in a more common publisher deal? This also seems blurred by these paragraphs. These things cannot only be determined by the contract at hand, but would be governed by the laws of the country the library resides in (as these two can be at odds).

It seems that this library is also incorporating record company practices into their business model (treating composers like branded "artists", who get to pay for production and record company services), and that is a bit unusual if we are talking production music libraries (but, maybe not if we talk big4). However, it is blurring the traditional picture of who is responsible for what in that segment of the market, imo. So, I think it is fair to inquire into what the actual business proposition is, here in a public forum.

But fair enough. There are all sorts of deals out there, and you have to find somehing to believe in. I am just careful and sceptic by default. If they have proven themselves, there may not be any issues beyond the more general discussion, which is all we can have here.


----------



## erica-grace (Feb 28, 2019)

Daryl said:


> Theoretically it's the Publishing wing, but the answers are yes and yes, assuming that The Walking Dead has a score composed specifically for it, and the Publishing deal with the Publishing wing has been agreed.
> 
> However, neither of these examples have anything to do with a library music contract.



Thanks. So, it may have nothing to do with a library contract directly, but this part of the conversation stems from me asking about the tv production company taking the publishing. Which you and other say should not happen, which I am being told is unrealistic.


----------



## erica-grace (Feb 28, 2019)

Farkle said:


> And, as Daryl said, this is wholly different from a deal a film company (publishing or production studio) does with a library that already owns the publishing of its' catalog.



But that's just it. If I get a request from a library to write a cue for a TV show that will be exclusive to that show, that cue is not from the libraries' catalog, and that cue is owned by the tv production company - same as a film studio owning a score to a film.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 28, 2019)

I am not sure how this conversation ended up where it is. Some posts seem overly suspicion-laden and skeptical, if not outright hostile.

Without taking one side or the other, it might be worth bearing in mind that, while we composers might bear the risk of our time and our equipment's use, if the production company is paying a fee up front or paying for players, that company is risking "cash money," as some people say. They also will be putting their marketing team to work trying to create some demand for what the composer generates.

I'm not ignoring that the composer adds value -- of course -- but I am just gently saying that, without the marketing, that value might never be realised. So I don't think it's unreasonable for the marketer to control the product he's risking money on _and _investing his company's contacts and expertise to sell. 

This is fair, or not, depending on the terms, experience and success of the composer, the quality of the work, the expertise of the company doing the marketing, and probably a hundred other things.

*Going Into Business Together*

So if it's a company that is just going to warehouse your music and do nothing with it, that's not as attractive and you might think they don't deserve as big a share of license fees. By contrast, if it's an active company that has quality standards (like mastering) that it feels it needs to uphold, that is not a bad thing; the opposite.

If they are going to risk their time and money on our work, it makes sense that they would enjoy a share of the fruits of that commercial relationship. How much and what share? That depends on a lot of things, of course.

Every once in a while someone like Chuck Berry comes along and writes four or five monster hits and maybe one of us is going to do that. In that case, maybe The Man gets more than his fair share. IDK and I'm not Chuck Berry.

But in the main, unless composers want to start selling on their own and developing direct relationships with end-users, it can be worth going into partnership with someone who does and can get one's music in front of producers and advertising companies that want to pay for it.

I'm really glad I did when I did. The companies made money, sure, but so did I.

You can also head over to BMI or ASCAP's websites -- they used to have discussions on contracts and publishing, etc.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 1, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> Thanks. So, it may have nothing to do with a library contract directly, but this part of the conversation stems from me asking about the tv production company taking the publishing. Which you and other say should not happen, which I am being told is unrealistic.


Sorry, we are talking at cross purposes. Leaving aside the technical and legal niceties

1. If a TV company commissions a score, they usually take the Publishing
2. If your music is in a library, the library takes the Publishing

Therefore in the case of 2. there is no available Publishing for any film or TV company to take.

Does this make things clearer?


----------



## Daryl (Mar 1, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> But that's just it. If I get a request from a library to write a cue for a TV show that will be exclusive to that show, that cue is not from the libraries' catalog, and that cue is owned by the tv production company - same as a film studio owning a score to a film.


In that specific case it is more likely that the TV and library company have agreed to share the Publishing. Otherwise, why would the library company get involved?

However, your specific example is relatively rare, because library music is based on multiple usages, so there would be little reason for the library to get involved in this instance.


----------



## erica-grace (Mar 1, 2019)

Daryl said:


> Sorry, we are talking at cross purposes. Leaving aside the technical and legal niceties
> 
> 1. If a TV company commissions a score, they usually take the Publishing
> 2. If your music is in a library, the library takes the Publishing



1 & 2 - exactly.

Which is what I was saying - if it's #1, the library has to take some of the writers, because the TV company takes the publishing. Which is exactly what Muk was saying not to do - but sometimes, you have to.


----------



## chillbot (Mar 1, 2019)

If it's #1, there is no library involved. Not sure how this is confusing.

So if the TV company wants to use a piece of music from a music library, no they don't get to take any of the publishing, it remains with the library.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 1, 2019)

Daryl said:


> 2. If your music is in a library, the library takes the Publishing



...because *publishing* is exactly what the library does, just as a book publisher publishes books!


----------



## Daryl (Mar 1, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> 1 & 2 - exactly.
> 
> Which is what I was saying - if it's #1, the library has to take some of the writers, because the TV company takes the publishing. Which is exactly what Muk was saying not to do - but sometimes, you have to.


You have to understand that there is no such thing a a Writer's share of Mechanicals. You get whatever you negotiate. There is no law that says you have to get anything. Where there is a Writer's share, is the Broadcast Royalties, and neither the TV company nor the library company has access to that.


----------



## erica-grace (Mar 1, 2019)

chillbot said:


> If it's #1, there is no library involved. Not sure how this is confusing



Not true - not sure why you would say that.


----------



## erica-grace (Mar 1, 2019)

Daryl said:


> You have to understand that there is no such thing a a Writer's share of Mechanicals.



I do understand that. Where did mechanicals come into play here? I was talking strictly about broadcast performance royalties, both writers and publishers.


----------



## muk (Mar 1, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> Which is what I was saying - if it's #1, the library has to take some of the writers, because the TV company takes the publishing.



This is completely wrong. As @chillbot wrote, if it's #1 there is no library involved. The tv company commissions directly from the composer. The tv company gets the publisher's share, the composer keeps the writer's share. No library involved. If a tv company licenses music through a library, the library gets the publisher's share, the composer gets the writer's share. The tv company gets nothing.

In neither case should the writer's share go to anybody else than the writer. Giving part of it away to a publisher or tv company is a horrible practice. Race to the bottom. I have no idea why you think that it is necessary, but I strongly disagree.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 1, 2019)

@muk and @Daryl are right Erica. You shouldn't have to surrender ANY of your writer's share to anyone, ever. If you are then it's weird / suspect / in some jurisdictions illegal. 

I mean, unless they hum the tunes and you just write them down.


----------



## erica-grace (Mar 1, 2019)

I am listening to you guys - I am, trust me. But here is the thing.

You guys keep saying that if the TV company takes 100% publishing, then there is no library. That is simply not true. And I can not be the only composer who knows this.

So, I get it, that you are saying a composer should not take a deal where the TV company takes 100% publishing, and then the composer gets 50% of the writers. Walk away, is I think what you are trying to say. So, I should walk away from the approx. $25k per year I have made from this deal the past two years? Ok, that _should_ be $50k, I understand that. But if I walked away two + years ago, that # would not be $25k - it would be $0, So, I have a choice. Say yes to giving up 50% of the writers, and make $25k +, or say no to giving up 50% of the writers, and make $0k. What's better?


----------



## erica-grace (Mar 1, 2019)

muk said:


> , if it's #1 there is no library involved. The tv company commissions directly from the composer. The tv company gets the publisher's share, the composer keeps the writer's share. No library involved. If a tv company licenses music through a library, the library gets the publisher's share, the composer gets the writer's share. The tv company gets nothing.



That's just not accurate, sorry. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but that's the way it is much of the time.

I wish someone else would speak up here.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 1, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> I do understand that. Where did mechanicals come into play here? I was talking strictly about broadcast performance royalties, both writers and publishers.


This whole thread has been about mechanicals. It's just that some people misunderstood.

If you're talking about Broadcast Royalties, then neither a library Publisher or TV score Publisher has access to those.


----------



## sleepingtiger (Mar 1, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> That's just not accurate, sorry. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but that's the way it is much of the time.
> 
> I wish someone else would speak up here.



I have a number of production music albums with libraries and I've written directly for shows through production companies and in the latter scenario, where the production company or the network acts as publisher, there is never a music library involved. That scenario makes no sense to me at all, just like the others are saying.

There *is* a well known US library that requires that all writers split the writer's share with the owner (not ethical imo) but it's not the same thing, that library also keeps the publishing. There's also a library I know of that routinely splits their *publisher's* share with production companies but the writers retain 100% of the writer's share. Those scenarios are the only ones I know of that resemble what you are describing but they are not the same thing.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 1, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> I wish someone else would speak up here.



Speak up about what? You have now said that you are talking about Broadcast Royalties, so the situation in the UK (as that's what this thread is about) is that these are split into two parts; Publisher's' share and Writer's share. What happens to the Publisher's share depends. If there are Sub Publishers involved, they take a cut and then pass the rest on to the Publisher. If there is a TV company as joint Publisher, they receive their share directly form PRS and the Publisher does the same. In neither of these cases does it affect the writer, as he/she gets their share directly form PRS, so nobody else has access to it. Furthermore, a Publisher cannot legally get a writer to "voluntarily" give up this share, because PRS actually owns it, not the Writer.

Now if you were talking about streaming "Royalties"....


----------



## Daryl (Mar 1, 2019)

sleepingtiger said:


> There *is* a well known US library that requires that all writers split the writer's share with the owner ...


In the UK this would be illegal, if the writer is a PRS member.


----------



## chillbot (Mar 1, 2019)

erica-grace: how come X?

10 different people: because Y.

erica-grace: no that's incorrect.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Mar 1, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> So, I should walk away from the approx. $25k per year I have made from this deal the past two years? Ok, that _should_ be $50k, I understand that. But if I walked away two + years ago, that # would not be $25k - it would be $0, So, I have a choice. Say yes to giving up 50% of the writers, and make $25k +, or say no to giving up 50% of the writers, and make $0k. What's better?



Are you telling the truth? Show us your royalty statements!


----------



## sleepingtiger (Mar 1, 2019)

Daryl said:


> In the UK this would be illegal, if the writer is a PRS member.


Yes, I know, as it should be imo. It's frowned upon by the PROs here but they can't stop it. More troubling is how the owner in question has been looked to as a leader in the industry. I would personally never engage in such a deal, regardless of potential payoff.


----------



## Dirk Ehlert (Mar 1, 2019)

Just wanna say that this discussion should not stick to the ideal but also to the reality that is out there. There are libraries out there that take a part of your writers. It’s not nice and if this doesn’t suit you then you’re free to walk away. But sometimes it can be still beneficial. I had my fair share of tracks with these kind of libraries where I also have given away writers in this case 50%. But these cues have been placed well in various TV formats and have amounted to significant royalties over the years. I don’t want to defend this practice but I’m still left with a choice. And sometimes I rather take 50% of a lot than 100% of nothing at all. For the sake of clarity, this obviously relates to broadcast not mechanical. It’s just not as black and white as some make it to be.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 1, 2019)

sleepingtiger said:


> There *is* a well known US library that requires that all writers split the writer's share with the owner (not ethical imo)



So let's hear it! What's its name?


----------



## Daryl (Mar 2, 2019)

sleepingtiger said:


> Yes, I know, as it should be imo. It's frowned upon by the PROs here but they can't stop it.


They can. They just don't want to.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 2, 2019)

Dirk Ehlert said:


> And sometimes I rather take 50% of a lot than 100% of nothing at all. For the sake of clarity, this obviously relates to broadcast not mechanical. It’s just not as black and white as some make it to be.



Which is totally your choice, but just let me backtrack the history of this, as things have changed from what used to happen:

"Old" model
Library - commissions albums, pays composers up-front, pays for copying parts, recording, mixing, mastering, gets 50% Mechanicals, 50% Broadcast Royalties

Composer- writes music, delivers score, gets 50% Mechanicals, 50% Broadcast Royalties

"New" model
Library - commissions albums, pays composers nothing, gets 50% Mechanicals, 50% Broadcast Royalties

Composer- writes music, delivers demo and score (or pays for MIDI transfer to score), pays for copying parts, recording, mixing, mastering, gets 50% Mechanicals, 50% Broadcast Royalties

Then you find that many companies pay less than 50% Mechanicals. Some pay none at all. 

Then you find there is a "production charge" and an "administration charge", all paid for by the composer.

Now we are saying "that's fine", take some of our share of the Broadcast Royalties as well?

To me, I see a trend. It's not just about the money. It's about the principle of staving off the race to the bottom.

I'm not saying that anyone should or shouldn't do something, but, to me, it's a bit like ghost writing. Sooner or later a precedent is set, and there is no going back.


----------



## Dirk Ehlert (Mar 2, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> So let's hear it! What's its name?


That would be quite frankly to extreme to answer that. But there are several out there that nag a share of the writers.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Mar 2, 2019)

Dirk Ehlert said:


> Just wanna say that this discussion should not stick to the ideal but also to the reality that is out there. There are libraries out there that take a part of your writers. It’s not nice and if this doesn’t suit you then you’re free to walk away. But sometimes it can be still beneficial. I had my fair share of tracks with these kind of libraries where I also have given away writers in this case 50%. But these cues have been placed well in various TV formats and have amounted to significant royalties over the years. I don’t want to defend this practice but I’m still left with a choice. And sometimes I rather take 50% of a lot than 100% of nothing at all. For the sake of clarity, this obviously relates to broadcast not mechanical. It’s just not as black and white as some make it to be.



I'd sign a deal like this. If you kow of any libraries like this looking for new music, shoot me a PM with the names so I can contact them. Thanks!


----------



## Richard Wilkinson (Mar 2, 2019)

Dirk Ehlert said:


> That would be quite frankly to extreme to answer that. But there are several out there that nag a share of the writers.


Jeez... And I was going to try and get in with those guys too! I'll stick with EMI. Money upfront (though it's an advance) and standard 50/50 otherwise.


----------



## sleepingtiger (Mar 2, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> So let's hear it! What's its name?


I'm not going to call them out on a public forum but I will say that the info wasn't hard to come by a few years ago when they were in their heyday.


----------



## sleepingtiger (Mar 2, 2019)

Daryl said:


> They can. They just don't want to.


I agree. They have the power but not the will. I do believe though that the practice is actually illegal in the UK? i'm pretty sure it's not here, regardless of ethics.


----------



## StevenMcDonald (Mar 2, 2019)

Dirk Ehlert said:


> Just wanna say that this discussion should not stick to the ideal but also to the reality that is out there. There are libraries out there that take a part of your writers. It’s not nice and if this doesn’t suit you then you’re free to walk away. But sometimes it can be still beneficial. I had my fair share of tracks with these kind of libraries where I also have given away writers in this case 50%. But these cues have been placed well in various TV formats and have amounted to significant royalties over the years. I don’t want to defend this practice but I’m still left with a choice. And sometimes I rather take 50% of a lot than 100% of nothing at all. For the sake of clarity, this obviously relates to broadcast not mechanical. It’s just not as black and white as some make it to be.



I appreciate this post, and relate as well. I know most would throw a fit about this, but my main publisher relationship is similar, and the royalties from that publisher alone have supported me the past 2 years. It's not for everyone, but it works for me because I can write very fast, they take all my tracks, and I'm their go-to guy for a lot of styles. Of course I also write for various other publishers with different deals, but at the end of the day, if a certain deal works well for you and provides great results, you've just gotta do it and pay the bills.


----------



## erica-grace (Mar 2, 2019)

Daryl said:


> This whole thread has been about mechanicals.



No - not anymore it isn't. It started off that way, but when Muk told everyone to never give up their writers, it was no longer.


----------



## erica-grace (Mar 2, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> Are you telling the truth? Show us your royalty statements!



I need to prove to you that I made 25k each of the past two years from a bunch of cues? C'mon now.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Mar 2, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> I need to prove to you that I made 25k each of the past two years from a bunch of cues? C'mon now.



Yes, please prove it. It will not hurt you in any way whatsoever.

And please send me the name of the library so I can pitch to them. Just shoot me a PM with the name. I can handle the rest.

Thanks!


----------



## erica-grace (Mar 2, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> Yes, please prove it.



I am not making my royalty statements public. Sorry, I just won't do that. You have the right to believe what you would like.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Mar 2, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> I am not making my royalty statements public. Sorry, I just won't do that. You have the right to believe what you would like.



No, just shoot me a PM with a screenshot of your statement.

Would you like to see my statement first?


----------



## Daryl (Mar 3, 2019)

sleepingtiger said:


> I agree. They have the power but not the will. I do believe though that the practice is actually illegal in the UK? i'm pretty sure it's not here, regardless of ethics.


It's illegal in the UK, for PRS members, because PRS actually owns your Writers' share. Therefore legally only they can agree to give it up. That's why those shady companies that try to take it insist on putting themselves down as co-writers. Without telling that lie, they have no access to your Royalties.


----------



## erica-grace (Mar 3, 2019)

Ah, a couple of people spoke up. Good. Thank you.

Glad to see I am not the only one taking these deals.


----------



## erica-grace (Mar 3, 2019)

Daryl said:


> It's illegal in the UK, for PRS members,



Wish it was illegal in the USA as well.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 3, 2019)

erica-grace said:


> Wish it was illegal in the USA as well.


It's up to ASCAP and BMI to stick their collective necks out.


----------



## vewilya (Mar 11, 2019)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> So let's hear it! What's its name?





sleepingtiger said:


> I have a number of production music albums with libraries and I've written directly for shows through production companies and in the latter scenario, where the production company or the network acts as publisher, there is never a music library involved. That scenario makes no sense to me at all, just like the others are saying.
> 
> There *is* a well known US library that requires that all writers split the writer's share with the owner (not ethical imo) but it's not the same thing, that library also keeps the publishing. There's also a library I know of that routinely splits their *publisher's* share with production companies but the writers retain 100% of the writer's share. Those scenarios are the only ones I know of that resemble what you are describing but they are not the same thing.


What??? I thought that was was illegal? But I guess you can always give away your share voluntarily, right? They can't coerce you into giving away more than 50% of the publishing though. So the choice is yours. I guess it really comes down to what library you are dealing with! I can see that some cases this might make sense. I'd question the morality of this practice though. It's not only about receiving money IMHO.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Mar 11, 2019)

vewilya said:


> I'd question the morality of this practice though. It's not only about receiving money IMHO.



Not me.


----------



## sleepingtiger (Mar 11, 2019)

vewilya said:


> What??? I thought that was was illegal? But I guess you can always give away your share voluntarily, right? They can't coerce you into giving away more than 50% of the publishing though. So the choice is yours. I guess it really comes down to what library you are dealing with! I can see that some cases this might make sense. I'd question the morality of this practice though. It's not only about receiving money IMHO.



It *is unethical* in my opinion. I can't imagine a scenario where I would do it. I'm not a lawyer so I can't comment to legality but my understanding is that it's frowned upon and basically against the rules of the PROs but that's not the same thing as being illegal. The problem is that when a track is registered there's no way for the PROs to know if it's a legit co-writing situation or someone has agreed to include a co-writer who is actually the publisher who didn't contribute to the track.

Not sure what you mean by "They can't coerce you into giving away more than 50% of the publishing though". That's exactly what the above mentioned scenario does. The publisher keeps all of the publisher's share and half the writer's.


----------

