# Can someone please explain to me "writer's share"?



## salbinti (Sep 4, 2009)

Hi - I am wondering about what exactly is the writer's share.

Say you start to write for a music library. You are offered a 50/50 split of the sync (usage license), Ok, that I get. But what is the writer's share? I have seen people say on this and other forums never ever give this up, but why?

Say you write a track for a library. A client of the library decides to you use your track in a tv show one time. They pay the library $4,000. Assuming there is no overhead and fees that need to be first recouped by the library - the library keeps $2,000 and sends you $2,000 - that is the 50/50 split, right? Ok, so again, what is the "writer's share"? I guess this confused me a bit:

http://www.alankorn.com/articles/publishing_2.html

"With the exception of print music, income from musical compositions is generally split on a 50/50 basis between the music publisher and writer. The publisher's half of this income is called the "publisher's share," and the writer's half is the 'writer's share.' "

That would mean to me that the $2,000 the composer got in the above example IS the writer's share, is that wrong? Then what if the library offers 50/50 on the sync/usage license, but 75/25 of the writer's share - if the 2nd 50 is already the writer's share?

If someone could kindly take a moment to explain this, I would appreciate it.

Also: when you write for a library, do you need to become a member of ASCAP, and/or BMI?

Thanks a bunch!


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 4, 2009)

Royalties are split between the _Writers_ share and the _Publishers_ share. So an even split on a dollar earned by writer Bill and publisher Jack would be fifty cents each. Bill received 100% of the writers share and Jack received 100% of the publishers share.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Sep 4, 2009)

There are license fees and there are royalties payed by the broadcasters on the performance of creative works..they are different and as the composer of a creative work, you are entitled to both. 

When you have music in a music library...the 50/50 split of the license they are talking about is the sync and master license they charge the commercial or trailer company to use the composition and recording of that composition in the first place. This is payed by the company putting together the commercial or trailer. Say...universal will pay a library a license fee to use a cue in a Universal picture movie trailer...or toyota will pay up front for a cue for one of their car commercials. Etc...

The difference between sync and master license is basically the sync fee is the underlying composition of the material synced to picture and the master license is the recording of that composition. (Think master recording). They are usually the same person/publisher...but not always. One could do their own recording of an old Frank Sinatra song...and if that were to be licensed for use in a broadcast project...they would have to acquire the sync license from Sinatra's people cause it was his song or his composition...and they would have to acquire the master license for the new cover recording of that song from the new singer who produced this brand new arrangement and recording of the song. When acquiring a license...there are always two one needs to acquire...the rights to use the underlying composition...and the rights to use the specific recording of that composition. With a music library you would be doing work for...they would be contracting you to create material for them and as a fee for administering your cue in their lirbary...they split these up front license fee with you 50/50. You don't have to agree to it. You are by law entitled to keep 100 of that money...but then again, if you choose to, you will not be in that library. That is the price of admission essentially for the music library these days. 

Now, getting to writer's share...

This is a whole different income stream of money. When a license cue plays on a broadcast medium (Television, radio, satellite, cable)...the broadcasters (NBC, ABC, CBS, HBO, MTV, Showtime, KIIS FM radio, etc...) have to by law pay a royalty fee for the right to broadcast a performance of that recorded work you created. As the composer, you are the writer and are entitled to 50% of this performance royalty. The publisher of the music (which is also you unless you sign away that right in a music library situation) also gets half of that royalty. There are two ways to look at this performance royalty. You can look at it as either one royalty for the writer and one for the publisher...or in reality, it is just one performance royalty that is split between the writer and the publisher 50/50. 

Here is the rub...there is a lot of money to be made with this performance royalty. A LOT. Every time something is broadcast with your music, as the writer, you will get a couple dollars here and there. Multiply that by the hundreds of stations around the country and the world who may be playing your music...and know that EACH one of those stations pays a separate royalty fee to you EACH time the music plays...this will add up quickly. 

So...music libraries are now starting to want to get a larger piece of this cash pie. By telling you they are splitting the writer's share of the performance royalty 50/50, they are really saying that they are going to take half of the writer's royalty (that you are 100% entitled to by law) and since they are also acting as the publisher...they are effectively now taking 75% of the overall performance royalty on the music that you created, you recorded and you most likely performed. Armed with that knowledge, you have to weigh if it is a good deal to you or not. Without playing by their rules and signing away those rights and royalty percentages...you will simply not have your music included in those libraries. 

For me, if anyone (library, filmmaker, production company, etc...) says they want some of my writer's share of the performance royalty, I walk away. It is a deal breaker. The publisher's share is established as precedent. For example, Danny Elfman does not own the original Batman music, Warner Brother's does. It was a work for hire. So as the publisher...they are entitled to the publisher's share of the performance royalty. but as the wrtier of that material...he is entitled to 100% of the writer's share. 

So...to end this long explanation...make sure you understand the difference between the upfront master and sync license fees and how you are splitting those...but then also understand that the performance royalty paid by the broadcasters (NBC, ABC, CBS, HBO, MTV, Showtime, KIIS FM radio, etc...) is a completely different income stream based on how many times your music plays on their station. And to ask for the writer's share of that income stream...in my humble opinion, is beyond crappy and sleazy. They are most likely counting on the fact that it is confusing and that since you do not really know what you are or are not entitled to (especially if you are a younger composer doing their first few library cues), they figure, "why not ask for those terms, they don't know what they are giving up anyway. Bwahahah!"

Lastly...BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, etc...are PRO's otherwise known as performing rights organizations. Their only job really is to track the performances of your creative works on the broadcasters stations and to collect those performance royalties on your behalf. If you are not a member, you will not be receiving any of those performance royalties you are entitled to. You can be a member as a writer (composer/songwriter)...or as a publisher (your publishing company which every composer should form)...or you can be signed up with them as both. You can not belong to multiple organizations at the same time (for all practical purposes)...it's one or the other. So, you pick...BMI or ASCAP in the US. (SESAC is by invitation only) Six in one...half a dozen in the other. They both have different formulas to track and pay performance royalties, but in the end, they do the same thing about equally as well.


----------



## videohlper (Sep 4, 2009)

And, although this is all about royalties (which was explained quite well -- nice one, Brian) -- let's straighten one thing out:

If you do licensing to TV and RADIO, a library DOES NOT make make $4000 sync licensing per cut. The average range is from $100-$190 per cut (it varies as most libraries have different rates -- and on top of that, most established broadcasters get heavy discounts). 

When you license a TRAILER cut for movies you get paid in the thousands (or more) because there are no "back end" (performance royalties) involved. The client pays a premium to "buy out" all the rights for that cut of music.

If my library was making that much for TV placement, I'd be writing this from my solid gold yacht. From the bottom of the harbor, because gold doesn't float. But I wouldn't care, as my fleet of submarines would come and rescue me.

Anyway -- just had to clear this up.

Stew


----------



## midphase (Sep 4, 2009)

"When you license a TRAILER cut for movies you get paid in the thousands (or more)"

Millions?


----------



## Lex (Sep 4, 2009)

midphase @ Fri Sep 04 said:


> "When you license a TRAILER cut for movies you get paid in the thousands (or more)"
> 
> Millions?



Billions!!

aLex


----------



## kid-surf (Sep 4, 2009)

Trillions!!


----------



## rJames (Sep 4, 2009)

kid-surf @ Fri Sep 04 said:


> Trillions!!



I think you're talking about script writers. (If your neighbor's house rents for $6K a month)


----------

