# Eyeing a small production music library, any tips?



## Galbaniél (Oct 27, 2022)

So, yet another production music library question... apologies.

I've recently started to think about doing some production music (and realizing I'm at least 10 years too late...), and have my eyes on a one-man label at the moment. I've only done bespoke music before, so I have very little insight in the library world. I would greatly appreciate if someone with a little insight in the industry could give me some pointers.

*The +*
Pays an upfront fee (for ownership of the master)

Split a "significant %" (doesn't specify) of the sync fee to the writer, if the music is placed in "a TV commercial etc" (doesn't specify)

Only accepts writers from my (fairly small) country, with PRO-membership required.

Have decent amount of subpublishers (at least one pretty respectable, from my understanding).

Offer bespoke services

*The -*
Appears to be a one man operation.

Doesn't list any previous placements.

Founded a few years ago.

Latest release was last year.

*Additional observations (don't know if they mean anything):*
Owner has previously worked at a major label and has been or maybe still is at the board for my PRO.

Composer for latest release also has been or still is at the board for my PRO.

Describes the subpublishers as "agents".

Don't find any info about them on MLR (or pretty much anywhere else)

Market value for company increases yearly, especially last two years show a significant rise.

*Bottom line:*
As I understand, a one man label probably doesn't have that much time/power to get me much, if any, placements. However, my music will be available on a number of libraries (and as I said, at least one pretty solid). Also, he seems to be pretty fond of the rights and royalties of composers.
But, I'm a little alarmed he doesn't specify when a sync spilt is given and what that split is. And what's up with calling the other libraries/subpublishers "agents"? Is there a distinction or is it maybe just a laguage/translating thing?

So, are there any glaring red flags or am I reading to much into it? Again, all help is much appreciated.

PS!
I keep the label name out (for now, at least) as I don't want to semi-shit talk what could very well be a perfectly sincere and hard working man and company.


----------



## Roger Newton (Oct 27, 2022)

Syc fees/mechanicals? What do you get? Should be 50% or thereabouts. PRO membership is always required for writers working for legitimate music production outlets.

Why only writers from one country?

Sub publishers are basically agents. The better they are in terms of worldwide distribution is what you're looking for. Sonoton, Nichion, etc. Anyone that's proven in different parts of the world.

Remember, some libraries don't actually pay their writers any mechanicals/sync fees.


----------



## R. Soul (Oct 27, 2022)

I wouldn't worry too much about the minuses. Most libraries I work with is a one man band.
Has he got distribution worldwide or least a few large countries?
Is the other music in his library of high quality or does he appear to just take on whatever music he can get hold of?


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Oct 27, 2022)

Galbaniél said:


> Pays an upfront fee (for ownership of the master)


What does this mean? If you are selling your music to this label outright, I wouldn't do that. I would put a time limit in the contract, where he gets exclusive use of your music for 3 years or something. I'd also ask if the upfront fee is deducted from future royalties. 

Also, never give away any portion of the writer's share. I made that mistake once. Ask for 100%.


----------



## gsilbers (Oct 27, 2022)

Galbaniél said:


> So, yet another production music library question... apologies.
> 
> I've recently started to think about doing some production music (and realizing I'm at least 10 years too late...), and have my eyes on a one-man label at the moment. I've only done bespoke music before, so I have very little insight in the library world. I would greatly appreciate if someone with a little insight in the industry could give me some pointers.
> 
> ...


I was surpise to learn how many of these small one man labels exist and do well if they are connected. Sometimes they just stay under the radar while other times they expand and get to be more well known. But overall these are simple structured - anyone can do it sort of business and a good library could suddenly not have any connections to shows and thats it, no more placements etc. 

And its also that world where BMG, Sony and other big boys use sub publishers to find good content and do buyouts sometimes. So its fine they normally work their catalog. And BMG and those guys do send the split on any upfront but just make sure its on the contract. Sometimes we think the person we deal with in emails knows stuff but a lot of times its basic. Same with directors and producers and specs and other entertainment related stuff. So maybe just see the contract and see what it says about splits and subpublihsing. 

As to what to do, just start with non exlusive stuff. most want exclusive but if they are starting out just say that currently your tracks are non exclusive. And maybe do a couple exclusive. And also think that these libraries receive tons of music from composers. Its like one track a day (or two) so that it makes financial sense. If you are doing a few here and there then id say just do a few and see how it goes with that person. The chances of making a big placement where the splits are worth it just startig out is very low. Theres a whole city of people working on that in LA and its difficult as well.


----------



## Galbaniél (Oct 27, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> Syc fees/mechanicals? What do you get? Should be 50% or thereabouts.


Thanks for your answer, Roger. As I understand I get part (hopefully 50%, but I don't know) of the sync fee but ONLY if a song gets licensed to a TV commercial and such, whatever is included in "such", I wouldn't know. Also as I understand I don't get ANY part of a sync fee if a song is licensed to a TV show, movie or Radio, i.e. anything that isn't a TV commercial and such....

I do retain my 100% of my writers share, and I assume that includes both mechanical and performance rights. But I'm a bit confused about what mechanicals entails in a sync scenario, if it's not the sync fee.



Roger Newton said:


> Why only writers from one country?


I have no idea, it seems a bit weird to me, maybe less paperwork? Or he's might be a hardcore nationalist. It's just written that "at this moment" they can only accept writers from our country. As for why I listed it as a plus from my perspective (esp. as a beginner) was that he's less likely to be swamped in a million submissions a day.



Roger Newton said:


> Sub publishers are basically agents. The better they are in terms of worldwide distribution is what you're looking for. Sonoton, Nichion, etc. Anyone that's proven in different parts of the world.


Right, thank you. Actually yeah, Sonoton is the bigger library I hinted at in my OP. However Sonoton was only listed as his agent in two countries. Then there are different libraries for various other countries in Europe and Asia. And for the rest of the world his own publishing company was the distributor.
To clarify, he has one music publishing company and one music label.


Roger Newton said:


> Remember, some libraries don't actually pay their writers any mechanicals/sync fees.


Understood! From my research the last couple of weeks it seems increasingly rare with sync fees and even more so with upfront fees. Therefore I am a bit skeptical that he seems to always offer upfront and at least in some occasions sync splits on top of that, all the while keeping my writers share.


----------



## Galbaniél (Oct 27, 2022)

R. Soul said:


> I wouldn't worry too much about the minuses. Most libraries I work with is a one man band.
> Has he got distribution worldwide or least a few large countries?
> Is the other music in his library of high quality or does he appear to just take on whatever music he can get hold of?


Thanks for your reply Mr. Soul. Yeah, I mentioned above he has Sonoton as distributors in Germany and Austria, but different libraries for other European and Asian countries, then he has his own publishing company for "the rest of the world". However, when I click search music on his site I get redirected to Sonoton, and under the all albums from his label Sonoton is listed as the copyright owners.
As it can be muddy to understand (for me) what music comes directly from his label, what I hear is good quality. I wouldn't say I would stick out like a rose in a pile of BS, my very most generous view of my own ability would be that I would blend in with the rest of them.


----------



## Galbaniél (Oct 27, 2022)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> What does this mean? If you are selling your music to this label outright, I wouldn't do that. I would put a time limit in the contract, where he gets exclusive use of your music for 3 years or something. I'd also ask if the upfront fee is deducted from future royalties.
> 
> Also, never give away any portion of the writer's share. I made that mistake once. Ask for 100%.


Thanks, Jeremy.
As I understand I sell the master recording for an upright fee, sort of like a traditional record company pays for the studio, marketing and whatnot, in exchange for the ownership of the recording, but not the written material.
And yeah, if I submit and he would be interested I hope that would be clarified in detail in the contract and of course, I would argue for a time limit, especially if none of my tracks had been placed within that time limit. However, I guess that could be hard to argue if he were to gives me an upfront fee that isn't deducted from royalties.

And of course, I would never give up my writer's share, but still good that you point it out, it can never be said too much. When I look at cue sheets from other tracks from his label it's often just one writer on each track, and his own name never shows up as a writer. So from what I can tell he doesn't seem like the kind of dude who weasels himself in that way.


----------



## Galbaniél (Oct 27, 2022)

gsilbers said:


> As to what to do, just start with non exlusive stuff. most want exclusive but if they are starting out just say that currently your tracks are non exclusive. And maybe do a couple exclusive.


Thanks for your reply, Guillermo! A lot of insight.

My plan for starting out is to try to license my self released stuff via non exclusive libs (although it could prove to be a challenge, since most of it isn't particularly sync-friendly) and try to simultaneously write some exclusive ready tracks with sync in mind. As I understand, networks and the likes tend to shy away more and more from non exclusive tracks, no?

The way I see it, if I write something especially with an editor in mind, I want it to go to the bigger fishes in that particular sea (exclusive), and when I write whatever nonsense I feel like without any particular user/listener in mind, I would be honored by anyone wanting to use it for whatever they like (non exclusive). Is that a silly way to look at it?

Also, I'm under no illusion I'm gonna be a millionaire through this or even make a full time income (I guess those times lies in the past), I just want to produce as much music as I possibly can and only see it as a plus if I can finance some new gear every now and then.

Again, thanks to all of y'all for replying.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Oct 27, 2022)

Galbaniél said:


> As I understand I sell the master recording for an upright fee


I wouldn't do that either, unless you can get it back after the agreed time limit (or no placements after a certain amount of time, like you mentioned). Unless, of course, the upfront payment is substantial (thousands of $$ per track). Sorry if I seem cynical, but I've sen so many composers get burnt with similar deals....myself included.

Sounds like you already have a good head on your shoulders.


----------



## HarmonKard (Oct 27, 2022)

Galbaniél said:


> Composer for latest release also has been or still is at the board for my PRO.


I didnt know that PROs can employ composers. Seems like a potential conflict?



Galbaniél said:


> I'm a little alarmed he doesn't specify when a sync spilt is given and what that split is.


That's something you need to get clarification on. As RN alluded to, sync fees & mechanicals should be a 50/50 split.



Galbaniél said:


> Only accepts writers from my (fairly small) country,



THAT is a red flag for me, and makes no sense. Have you asked why this is the case?


----------



## HarmonKard (Oct 27, 2022)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> never give away any portion of the writer's share. Ask for 100%.


That's not realistic nowadays. Sure, nothing wrong with asking, but if the library says no, it's usually due to the production company taking the publishing, in which case the publisher needs some of the writers to earn income on the work.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Oct 27, 2022)

HarmonKard said:


> That's not realistic nowadays. Sure, nothing wrong with asking, but if the library says no, it's usually due to the production company taking the publishing, in which case the publisher needs some of the writers to earn income on the work.


I realize it happens, but it's total BS as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## jonnybutter (Oct 27, 2022)

Galbaniél said:


> I do retain my 100% of my writers share, and I assume that includes both mechanical and performance rights. But I'm a bit confused about what mechanicals entails in a sync scenario, if it's not the sync fee.


I don‘t know the country or details of the deal, but I think usually the publisher (them) gets the mechanicals and is not obligated to share any of them with you, although sometimes they do anyway.


----------



## jonnybutter (Oct 27, 2022)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> I realize it happens, but it's total BS as far as I'm concerned.


I was offered a deal like this recently and turned it down. I understand the library’s point of view - they need to have a piece - but the writer’s share tends to be paltry enough as it is without it then getting it _halved_. Maybe I should have taken it, since it was a guaranteed sync, but - ack; I am kind of done with (US) libraries. Just not a good bet anymore. I can make no money writing what I want to write. More opportunities in Europe though I think - you get royalties for movie syncs, which we don’t in US and Canada.


----------



## Galbaniél (Oct 27, 2022)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> I wouldn't do that either, unless you can get it back after the agreed time limit (or no placements after a certain amount of time, like you mentioned). Unless, of course, the upfront payment is substantial (thousands of $$ per track). Sorry if I seem cynical, but I've sen so many composers get burnt with similar deals....myself included.


Alright, thanks for you input. And yeah, I wouldn't even entertain the idea if the uprfront was a couple of bucks. I should be an "offer I can't refuse" so to speak, especially if were talking life of copyright.

No worries of seeming cynical, I really appreciate the input. I'm not doubting your experience and expertise, but out of curiosity, what is the danger of selling your master?
I'm just speculating now, since I don't have a contract in front of me, but, assuming the deal is like this: He pays me a comfortable fee for the master (a lot for a lifetime, a little less if I get some kind of reversion cluse). We split the sync fee 50/50. He, as the master owner gets 50% of the master royalties and me (being the only performer) gets 50% (and many countries doesn't seem to pay these in sync anyway). I get 100% of my writer's share and he gets 100% publisher's share for performance royalties. Assuming no hidden malice in the fine print, would you say this is a bad deal?
The only worry for me would be that I couldn't pitch these songs to another library if he failed to deliver any syncs (if he paid for life of copyright), but on the other hand I got a fair upfront fee and I'm always free to come up with new music and shop them to better libraries. I would probably never sell my masters of any work I was personally fond of.



Jeremy Spencer said:


> Sounds like you already have a good head on your shoulders.


Compliment taken! Not really a fan myself, but I do the best I can with what I've got...


----------



## Galbaniél (Oct 27, 2022)

HarmonKard said:


> I didnt know that PROs can employ composers. Seems like a potential conflict?


Right, now that you mention it, it doesn't seem ideal or maybe even leagal. I did a double check on his LinkedIn and he (the other composer I mentioned in my OP) was for a couple of years credited with "member services" for my PRO. During those years he was credited as a music producer and sound designer for another company. He has some credits as composer as well, but not during the same years he had PRO credits. Don't know if that makes any difference though, but that's what I can see.



HarmonKard said:


> That's something you need to get clarification on. As RN alluded to, sync fees & mechanicals should be a 50/50 split.


Thank you, Harmon. This is just what I read on the sites' submission page, I haven't contacted the dude yet. Since this is new ground for me I wanted to hear with people here first to get an idea if this seems like a normal and legit (albeit small) company.

Which brings me to:


HarmonKard said:


> THAT is a red flag for me, and makes no sense. Have you asked why this is the case?


Yeah, I agree it seem odd to me too, but I didn't know if it would be reason for caution or not. The site mentions that they, for the moment only sign composers from our country (me and the company share the same country if I haven't made that clear) to their label. I don't know if it's related to some business and taxes practices I'm to dense and/or lazy to understand or just plain weirdness but I figured I could have a greater chance of having my submission reviewed and accepted since his submission inbox wouldn't be full of composers from the entire world.

Since their music search redirects to Sonoton (I also mentioned that in an other post) it may just be that people from other countries can submit to other labels in their catalogue, it still ends up in the same library, it seems.

Anyway, to me, it doesn't come across like: "We are PROUD to ONLY deliver quality music from OUR specific country" or anything like that, which would rub me the wrong way.
If I do contact him I will ask for clarification regarding this and sync fees, for sure.

And also, I apologise if I seem cryptic, I have no real personal interest in hiding my country or even the name of the label, I'm just trying to be a bit more tactful, especially since I haven't even contacted him (yet). E.g. It wouldn't feel right if he's just an honest guy trying to run a label and on the first page of google is a whole forum thread with speculations from some neurotic newbie composer who hasn't even had the balls to contact him.


----------



## Galbaniél (Oct 27, 2022)

jonnybutter said:


> I don‘t know the country or details of the deal, but I think usually the publisher (them) gets the mechanicals and is not obligated to share any of them with you, although sometimes they do anyway.


Alright, thanks Jonny. I get mechanicals would be very welcome for a movie with, say, a Blu-Ray release, but what would be the mechanicals if it's a streaming only show or a TV commercial? Like everytime the ad agency duplicate the video file to send out to networks? My gut just tells me no one reports that... If I'm not misstaken streaming does generate mechanicals, but it's basically pennies, is that correct?
OTOH the streaming performance royalties are pennies too so mechanicals are maybe more needed now then ever.


jonnybutter said:


> I was offered a deal like this recently and turned it down. I understand the library’s point of view - they need to have a piece - but the writer’s share tends to be paltry enough as it is without it then getting it _halved_. Maybe I should have taken it, since it was a guaranteed sync


Yeah, only time I would consider a deal like that would be for a track I had no emotional attachment to and I also didn't see any potentially bigger gig comming from it, plus were a guaranteed sync.


----------



## jcrosby (Oct 27, 2022)

Galbaniél said:


> Alright, thanks for you input. And yeah, I wouldn't even entertain the idea if the uprfront was a couple of bucks. I should be an "offer I can't refuse" so to speak, especially if were talking life of copyright.
> 
> No worries of seeming cynical, I really appreciate the input. I'm not doubting your experience and expertise, but out of curiosity, what is the danger of selling your master?
> I'm just speculating now, since I don't have a contract in front of me, but, assuming the deal is like this: He pays me a comfortable fee for the master (a lot for a lifetime, a little less if I get some kind of reversion cluse). We split the sync fee 50/50. He, as the master owner gets 50% of the master royalties and me (being the only performer) gets 50% (and many countries doesn't seem to pay these in sync anyway). I get 100% of my writer's share and he gets 100% publisher's share for performance royalties. Assuming no hidden malice in the fine print, would you say this is a bad deal?
> ...


Are you absolutely sure the fee is a buyout, and not an advance? Are you sure it's full ownership and not perpetual exclusivity? While they might as well be synonymous, it's still a distinction worth making...

I write for a trailer library that does advances sometimes. They publish the music I have with them exclusively in perpetuity. I retain my entire writers share. They also were a small mom-&-pop library run by the owner and his wife initially for the 1st 4-5 years, only this past year they hired additional staff. I've had some very comfortable synchs with them. Even short 15 second cut downs typically fetch a minimum of 5 figures. They've also put some high profile custom projects in my lap that paid nicely. These were contracted under an agreement as well, which means I wasn't competing with other trailer libraries, which is the typical scenario you see in music for trailers, marketing, etc. These customs were buyouts that stipulated backend guaranteed for the writers, (my entire writers share), the library did 30/20% publishing split of the publishers share instead of attempting to take a cut of writing. Although the network owns the music and sound design I did, I personally don't regret it for a second. Especially given that backend is stipulated as part of the agreement, and the show is high profile. (High profile credits increase the likelihood of reaching out to other publishers and gaining their interest with essentially no effort). 

The point is is that A. small libraries can do big things. B. Just because a library requires perpetual exclusivity doesn't mean it's negative by default. C. A buyout for a high price isn't a bad thing if your writers share is attached to it. D. This is typically _how it is_ when it comes to trailers specifically - perpetual exclusivity. (Without knowing this 'anonymous' company's market it's difficult to know if they're working in a similar market with similar expectations, or if there are real red flags here).

The bit about them only accepting 'local composers' is definitely odd, my guess would be that it's for tax reasons... But it's still odd, so that might be a flag.

At the very least you have nothing to lose by asking them to answer questions like the points I raised above... (Assuming you already have their attention in terms of your music...)


----------



## jonnybutter (Oct 28, 2022)

Galbaniél said:


> Yeah, only time I would consider a deal like that would be for a track I had no emotional attachment to and I also didn't see any potentially bigger gig comming from it, plus were a guaranteed sync.


Yes, if the track already exists. I would have had to manufacture that track to a high bar on deadline for a small upfront, and half writer’s share. 10 years ago even that would have been worth it but not now. Im older so from my point of view my time is more valuable. I don’t have the patience to even deal with music I have *no* emotional connection to. I did it for years, so am not judging anyone. 

Shutterstock (stock image company) just announced they are going to use AI to generate content and pay some of the original photographers a small fee (I’m sure very small) for the use of their photos to train DALL E. I think it will actually be easier to do this for music sync in some cases than visual art. Not for _good_ music of course, but for underscore? Probably. Won’t be as good as human-made, but c’est la vie. Cheep cheep cheep. Plus the eye tends to resolve what the ear hears so that it ‘makes sense’ anyway. Real ambient audio does not really sound like foley - it‘s much more random tonally.

——I don’t know about mechanicals where you are. I don’t think streaming pays very much at all, as you say, mechanicals or royalties. I hope for the sake of musical art, including very commercial art, that this whole model changes. 

For what it’s worth, I would probably take the deal you are vetting it felt right to you. If they have good agents, it’s OK that it’s one or two people. A smaller successful library can be more pleasant and straightforward to deal with than a larger one anyway.

I am glad you started this thread. It’s good for us to compare notes, because we tend to be ‘siloed’, by our different kinds of clients, by our deals, by working alone of course, etc. Good luck.


----------



## Roger Newton (Oct 28, 2022)

It's worth mentioning that in todays world (IMO) all stock photography outlets today are more or less asset stripping their clients.


----------



## jonnybutter (Oct 28, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> It's worth mentioning that in todays world (IMO) all stock photography outlets today are more or less asset stripping their clients.


Wow, great. Think of the exposure and pride the creators will get


----------



## Galbaniél (Oct 28, 2022)

jcrosby said:


> Are you absolutely sure the fee is a buyout, and not an advance? Are you sure it's full ownership and not perpetual exclusivity? While they might as well be synonymous, it's still a distinction worth making...


Appreciated, Justin!
It seems that way. You know what? I'm pasting their entire submission page here, so my own interpretations doesn't make anything more complicated than it has to be.

Still leaving out the names of publishing and label for potential google matches. I don't think by now it's hard for anyone to figure out their name if one is just willing.

Here goes:
"At _PUBLISHER_ we strongly believe that quality music should be appriciated both by credits when being used and also in terms of getting paid for the works when creating music.

Our job is to publish, distribute and promote Scandinavian quality music all over the world. Your (the composers) job is to create quality music for quality productions.

Being a proud member of STIM , we can assure you that we believe in copyright protected music and intellectual properties for all our signed composers.

Not only does _PUBLISHER_ pay an upfront fee for the Master recording (regardless if the music is used or not) _PUBLISHER_ also makes sure that you get paid by your local PRO society, when your music is used in public performance. (eg.Film, radio,TV) You also get a reasonable split in terms of synch fees if the music is used in eg a TV commercial etc.

Please note! For the moment we only sign Swedish composers for our label _LABEL_, that must be members of STIM (our local society) Don´t hesitate to contact us at _PUBLISHER_ - we are constantly looking for brand new talents for our label. 

Welcome to _PUBLISHER_!"



jcrosby said:


> small libraries can do big things.


I get that, my concern is mainly he would have less time to push my music since he has an entire company to run. Still, my music would be available at Sonoton and other libraries, but I doubt many editors would contact him directly looking for music. My eventual placements would probably be by editors browsing Sonoton and just stumble upon my tracks.
Nothing inherently wrong with that, just that if I sign away masters for perpetuity I maybe would expect more involvement from their part.



jcrosby said:


> (Without knowing this 'anonymous' company's market it's difficult to know if they're working in a similar market with similar expectations, or if there are real red flags here)


I would assume it's not trailers, probably more underscore. Since they don't list any previous placements it wouldn't be surprising if they haven't had any at all.


----------



## Galbaniél (Oct 28, 2022)

jonnybutter said:


> Yes, if the track already exists. I would have had to manufacture that track to a high bar on deadline for a small upfront, and half writer’s share. 10 years ago even that would have been worth it but not now.


Ouch, Ok, I get that.



jonnybutter said:


> Im older so from my point of view my time is more valuable. I don’t have the patience to even deal with music I have *no* emotional connection to. I did it for years, so am not judging anyone.


My workflow (for the most part) is just writing randomly and completely surrender to whatever the muse serves me at that moment. If I later get a feeling that a piece would suit my solo project I stere it towards that, if not I mostly just abandon it and it ends up collecting virtual dust on my drive. So my plan is that all abandoned pieces could be massaged towards syncs and editors instead. It doesn't (necessarily) mean I don't care for them, just that I haven't found a place for them.



jonnybutter said:


> Shutterstock (stock image company) just announced they are going to use AI to generate content and pay some of the original photographers a small fee (I’m sure very small) for the use of their photos to train DALL E. I think it will actually be easier to do this for music sync in some cases than visual art. Not for _good_ music of course, but for underscore? Probably. Won’t be as good as human-made, but c’est la vie. Cheep cheep cheep.


Oh, what wonderful times we live in!



jonnybutter said:


> ——I don’t know about mechanicals where you are. I don’t think streaming pays very much at all, as you say, mechanicals or royalties. I hope for the sake of musical art, including very commercial art, that this whole model changes.


Preaching to the choir, man!



jonnybutter said:


> For what it’s worth, I would probably take the deal you are vetting it felt right to you. If they have good agents, it’s OK that it’s one or two people. A smaller successful library can be more pleasant and straightforward to deal with than a larger one anyway.


Yeah, I've decided to contact him (Thanks to all you guys). Though, currently I'm on the fence if I should contact him with questions along with links to my non excl. music or if I should first produce an exclusive album for him in the same mail.



jonnybutter said:


> I am glad you started this thread. It’s good for us to compare notes, because we tend to be ‘siloed’, by our different kinds of clients, by our deals, by working alone of course, etc. Good luck.


Thank you, I'm happy this thread can inspire further discussion beyond my initial inquiry.


----------



## Galbaniél (Oct 28, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> It's worth mentioning that in todays world (IMO) all stock photography outlets today are more or less asset stripping their clients.


I hear ya'! I often curse my (un)lucky stars that I'm so obsessed with music creation. That obsession leads me to want to make money from it, so I can spend less time working an unrelated job just to keep me alive, but getting further depressed by how hard it is to make decent income from music.

But at the end of the day, I thank my lucky stars that I don't have that same obsession about photography as I have about music.



jonnybutter said:


> Wow, great. Think of the exposure and pride the creators will get


This reminded my of something I read somewhere years ago about a band that invited a pub to their house party concert. The pub where invited (without pay) to come to the party and serve their beer to the guests, but only if they brought a large amount of pub guests with them. The house owner(s) (I believe it was the band or one of the members) got a huge part of the profits from the beer sales, but the pub should be happy about the exposure they would get from the deal, plus they get a free concert.
I believe the pub passed, probably without seeing the irony.

OTOH, it might not even be a real story to start with.


----------



## jcrosby (Oct 28, 2022)

Galbaniél said:


> Here goes:
> "At _PUBLISHER_ we strongly believe that quality music should be appriciated both by credits when being used and also in terms of getting paid for the works when creating music.
> 
> Our job is to publish, distribute and promote Scandinavian quality music all over the world. Your (the composers) job is to create quality music for quality productions.
> ...


It looks legit. I did an album for one production library where they paid 1k per track to own the masters. (That said that kind of upfront fee isn't typical these days. The industry's shifted quite a bit over the past 5+ years) I retained the writers share, and synch fees were also part of the agreement. Basically it is a legit production music model, it really comes down to whether you're comfortable with the fee, ownership of masters, and if you feel like the library is being transparent...

I would definitely email them asking if the synch fees are 50/50. If there's any fluctuation and they're transparent with their writers they shouldn't have any issue explaining some scenarios where/why the split may be less than that.... 50/50 is still considered the standard split, but I have heard of some libraries taking more in some instances. I personally feel that if a library's going to own the masters it should be 50/50, but the library world is in flux and it is competitive so that's something you need to give some thought...

If you can find a way to be concise and ask those questions in friendly tone they shouldn't be hesitant to respond. Basically lead with something like 'Everything looks great, I was just wondering if you could clarify a couple things for me so I understand how things work moving forward'... (As long as you don't sign an agreement you can still walk away if you feel like you have any reservations...)

I'd imagine they list some placements or clients on their site... If they have enough, have some 'prestige', or are at least a decent handful of shows you recognize that's obviously a good sign and something you should factor in to their reply.



Galbaniél said:


> I get that, my concern is mainly he would have less time to push my music since he has an entire company to run. Still, my music would be available at Sonoton and other libraries, but I doubt many editors would contact him directly looking for music. My eventual placements would probably be by editors browsing Sonoton and just stumble upon my tracks.
> Nothing inherently wrong with that, just that if I sign away masters for perpetuity I maybe would expect more involvement from their part.


That's a totally legit concern, and one that you should give some thought to... That said, regarding the library I referred to earlier, all of the actual licensing deals were handled by one person. They'd schedule meetings with all of the major trailer houses and fly to LA, NY, etc several times a year, which is how/why they were so effective despite being essentially a one-man-operation... If they really enjoy their role as a publisher you'd be surprised how effective one person can be.

But it's a valid point for sure... The licensing industry's had some disruption in the past 5-7 years so it's important to have your wits about you.



Galbaniél said:


> I would assume it's not trailers, probably more underscore. Since they don't list any previous placements it wouldn't be surprising if they haven't had any at all.


Sounds like it. Libraries that land a lot of trailers tend to focus and specialize in them... It's a genre that constantly evolves (despite stereotypes that tend to persist), the most successful libraries tend to focus solely on trailers. Placements in TV are part of their model as well, but the focus is primarily on the marketing end for film, TV, games...




Galbaniél said:


> It doesn't (necessarily) mean I don't care for them, just that I haven't found a place for them.



That's a good attitude to have. If most people think the average film composer loves every cue written for a score equally that's unrealistic. Working with a client means having to make concessions. In that regard it's still work... But as long as you maintain an appreciation for the entire process (i.e. mixing/production) and have pride in what you do, it can be 'work,' but doesn't have to feel like a 'job'...



Galbaniél said:


> Though, currently I'm on the fence if I should contact him with questions along with links to my non excl. music or if I should first produce an exclusive album for him in the same mail.


Non-exclsuive music has its own stigmas attached to it, at least with publishers specifically focused on delivering exclusive content to music supervisors in film, TV, etc. That isn't to say you couldn't send a track that may be licensing somewhere under that model, I just wouldn't link them to a website where it is. 

Most importantly you want to lead with your best foot forward. It's also not a bad idea to avoid overloading them with a ton of stuff to sift through, they probably get multiple submissions per day...
I'd send them your best 3-5 tracks, and wait and their reply before asking any questions. Asking questions in your initial email might come across as a bit presumptuous. And depending on the library the standards can be pretty high, so there's always the chance that they might reject you. That said if they hear potential they _may_ leave the door open to you approaching them again in say 6-12 months. If they don't volunteer leaving the door open, but critiqued your tracks in their reply you could politely respond by letting them know you appreciate the feedback, and ask if it would be ok to reach out to them again in a few months with new music written with their feedback in mind...


Best of luck, I'm sure many of us would be interested in hearing how things develop...


----------



## Roger Newton (Oct 28, 2022)

Galbaniél said:


> That obsession leads me to want to make money from it, so I can spend less time working an unrelated job just to keep me alive, but getting further depressed by how hard it is to make decent income from music.


What is a decent amount of money annually from making music? That varies wildly from person to person.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 29, 2022)

HarmonKard said:


> That's not realistic nowadays. Sure, nothing wrong with asking, but if the library says no, it's usually due to the production company taking the publishing, in which case the publisher needs some of the writers to earn income on the work.


Not true in the slightest. For PRS members, for example, it is illegal for anyone to take the writers' share, other than the writer.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 29, 2022)

I think we need to make a distinction between writing for a trailer company, and writing library music.Companies that specialise in trailer music have one set of clients. Library music companies have another. There is very little cross-over.

As to questions about writers' share/publishing. There are various scenarios:

1. No reputable company will be trying to take any writers' share.
2. Some companies pay an advance, however, this may be recouped
3. Some companies pay recording costs, others don't
4. Some companies pay recording costs, and then recoup from the writer
5. Some companies pay a percentage of sync fees, some don't


----------



## Galbaniél (Oct 29, 2022)

jcrosby said:


> It looks legit.


Thank you very much, for every word in your post, not just the quote above. Very helpful.

As for my fence sitting on what music to pitch, when I refered to my non exclusive tracks I ment mainly some of my best tracks from my "solo project", if you will, that I've already released on Spotify etc.
The problem is that I sort of already know they wouldn't be interested in those tracks in particular, since they aren't made with sync in mind (key changes, weird endings, mood changes, etc) and even if they could be interested in a few, I don't think I would want to sell my masters to those anyway. But they can still showcase my level of production and writing skills and I could pair that with a question if they have a certain mood/style they're in need of and a promise to get back to them with a few new tracks in their prefered style that are written for sync. Or is that approach something you would advice against?


----------



## Galbaniél (Oct 29, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> What is a decent amount of money annually from making music? That varies wildly from person to person.


Very true. For me personally, it wouldn't be much to begin with. But I don't think I would like to live like I do now for the rest of my life. I work part time with a "regular" job and would like to quit that in due time. Maybe I would like to move to L.A., own a car and start a family in the future, and with that more money would be required. So, as you say, it varies wildly.


----------



## Galbaniél (Oct 29, 2022)

Daryl said:


> I think we need to make a distinction between writing for a trailer company, and writing library music.Companies that specialise in trailer music have one set of clients. Library music companies have another. There is very little cross-over.
> 
> As to questions about writers' share/publishing. There are various scenarios:
> 
> ...


Thanks for your input, Daryl!
As I newbie to this it can certainly be overwhelming sometimes. Especially when you read from older sources (even just a couple of years ago), as the business is shifting constantly.

I like this thread, I'm learning alot and I hope other readers do too.


----------



## Daryl (Oct 29, 2022)

Galbaniél said:


> Thanks for your input, Daryl!
> As I newbie to this it can certainly be overwhelming sometimes. Especially when you read from older sources (even just a couple of years ago), as the business is shifting constantly.
> 
> I like this thread, I'm learning alot and I hope other readers do too.


No problem. This whole field can be a nightmare, particularly as what used to be "standard", is no longer standard. Feel free to ask as many questions as you like.


----------



## jcrosby (Oct 29, 2022)

Galbaniél said:


> The problem is that I sort of already know they wouldn't be interested in those tracks in particular, since they aren't made with sync in mind (key changes, weird endings, mood changes, etc) and even if they could be interested in a few, I don't think I would want to sell my masters to those anyway.


I'd think about taking the time to send them cues with production music in mind. Good production libraries these days have pretty high standards, if they're a solid library they're going to be listening to your music with that in mind. Assuming they do have high standards then the odds are that more people get rejected than accepted. IME it's a good idea to air on the side of caution and approach libraries with the mindset of _your 1st impression is your last impression_.



Galbaniél said:


> But they can still showcase my level of production and writing skills and I could pair that with a question if they have a certain mood/style they're in need of and a promise to get back to them with a few new tracks in their prefered style that are written for sync. Or is that approach something you would advice against?



There's a couple things about this scenario you should consider... There's no guarantees they'd say 'Sure send me something in style X, Y or Z'. Even if they were to, you'd still want to ask yourself how quickly you can realistically follow up with 2-3 tracks that do... And, is it likely to be within a quick enough time frame for them to remember your previous email?

Some libraries are easier to work with than others, but you never know who your dealing with initially... That's why I personally think it would be wiser to lead with a couple tracks that are written/arranged with production in mind.


----------



## Galbaniél (Oct 30, 2022)

jcrosby said:


> Some libraries are easier to work with than others, but you never know who your dealing with initially... That's why I personally think it would be wiser to lead with a couple tracks that are written/arranged with production in mind.


Thank you. That was the conclusion I was leaning towards also, but very nice of you to share your take. I guess I just unrealistically wished to find a way to provide them with the exact style and mood they were currently in need of.

But as you pointed out, it's better to use my first impression to offer them something they _might _want, than to present something they probably wouldn't want, or even couldn't have.


----------



## Alchemedia (Oct 30, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> It's worth mentioning that in todays world (IMO) all stock photography outlets today are more or less asset stripping their clients.


With the advent of Kodak's now defunct Photo CD, for which I was a consultant, and the Internet most stock photographers who were earning $100k+ saw the value of their imagery quickly dwindle to nothing and went bankrupt in the mid/late '90's unless they were creating unique conceptual imagery, in which case they probably weren't shooting primarily for stock.


----------



## HarmonKard (Nov 1, 2022)

Daryl said:


> Not true in the slightest. For PRS members, for example, it is illegal for anyone to take the writers' share, other than the writer.



It is EXTREMELY true.

And what is in the UK, is not the same in the rest of the world.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Nov 1, 2022)

HarmonKard said:


> It is EXTREMELY true.
> 
> And what is in the UK, is not the same in the rest of the world.


Are you saying PRS can take a portion (or all of) the writers share in the UK? Even without consent? That sounds criminal.


----------



## HarmonKard (Nov 1, 2022)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> Are you saying PRS can take a portion (or all of) the writers share in the UK? Even without consent? That sounds criminal.


That is not at all what I said.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Nov 1, 2022)

HarmonKard said:


> That is not at all what I said.


What are you saying? I'm just trying to see how PRS differs.


----------



## HarmonKard (Nov 1, 2022)

I didn't introduce PRS into the convo.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Nov 1, 2022)

HarmonKard said:


> I didn't introduce PRS into the convo.


Sorry, maybe I misunderstood.....


----------



## HarmonKard (Nov 1, 2022)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> Sorry, maybe I misunderstood.....



Yes you did misunderstand. I am not the one who introduced PRS into the convo, and quoting that post doesn't change that.

Why not quote the first time I posted in this thread?


----------



## Daryl (Nov 2, 2022)

HarmonKard said:


> It is EXTREMELY true.
> 
> And what is in the UK, is not the same in the rest of the world.


I don't know what companies you work with, but with all the ones I know it is not true.


----------



## Roger Newton (Nov 2, 2022)

HarmonKard said:


> It is EXTREMELY true.
> 
> And what is in the UK, is not the same in the rest of the world.


What you're talking about is where there are what could be called spurious splits in writers share through made up names.


----------



## HarmonKard (Nov 2, 2022)

Daryl said:


> I don't know what companies you work with, but with all the ones I know it is not true.


Well, I am not going to list what companies I work with, but many (not all) production houses do it this way. It never used to be this way, but this is how the industry has shifted, and will continue to shift.


----------



## HarmonKard (Nov 2, 2022)

Roger Newton said:


> What you're talking about is where there are what could be called spurious splits in writers share through made up names.


No - no spurious splits, and no made up names here.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 2, 2022)

HarmonKard said:


> Well, I am not going to list what companies I work with, but many (not all) production houses do it this way. It never used to be this way, but this is how the industry has shifted, and will continue to shift.


So as you're being coy, may one ask, for example, who your US distributor is?

All I can say, is that neither of the labels I run use this dishonest method, and we will never use this dishonest method.


----------



## HarmonKard (Nov 2, 2022)

I am not meaning to be coy; apologies if I came across that way. Just trying to speak the truth. 

My US distributor - well, I have several, assuming you mean publishers/music libraries. As stated, I am not going to list them here - would you like me to send you a PM, if you promise to keep the info private? 

_neither of the labels I run use this dishonest method_

It's not a dishonest method - not when the publisher tells you exactly where the writers and publishing is going. And no, none have told me up front, and no, the contract does not get that specific, but they all have told me when asked, with no reservations about it. You may not like it - and neither do I, but it's not _dishonest_.


----------



## Daryl (Nov 2, 2022)

HarmonKard said:


> I am not meaning to be coy; apologies if I came across that way. Just trying to speak the truth.
> 
> My US distributor - well, I have several, assuming you mean publishers/music libraries. As stated, I am not going to list them here - would you like me to send you a PM, if you promise to keep the info private?
> 
> ...


All I can say is that if any of the Writers' share goes to someone who is not the writer, it is, by definition, dishonest.

Anyway, I've given my views, so I don't need to say any more on the matter


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Nov 2, 2022)

HarmonKard said:


> it's not _dishonest_.


It certainly is when the contract does not get _that_ specific (basic stuff), that is a major red flag and 100% dishonest. You, as a writer, have the power to negotiate those terms. I have yet to work with a US, Canadian or European publisher that works in this manner. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## HarmonKard (Nov 2, 2022)

Well, looks like we have a differing definition of dishonesty.


----------

