# New spinoff music library is looking for material



## RiffWraith (May 29, 2014)

One of the L.A.-based libs I do work for - which is exclusive only - has recently started a spinoff lib. About two months ago, the owner/operator requested I send all of my non-ex stuff to him for inclusion in this spinoff. He has just sent me an email, and part of the email was,_ if you know any other composers that might be interested in this project, please pass my contact info on to them!_ Again, this is non-ex, there is no up front money, they keep 100% publishing, you keep 100% writers, and if there are any sync fees to be had, you will get 40%. I know this is a bone of contention for some who feel it should be 50, but 40% of a good sync fee is better than 50% of no sync fee. In addition to the up-front money (which isn't great, but it's something) the reason that I like working with this exclusive lib, are the network placements that I get - which, as most of you probably know, generate way more revenue than cable. Obviously, there are no guarantees that any placements from this new spinoff will be for network, but at least the contacts and relationships are already in place. Don't get the impression that this as a "huge, ground-breaking opportunity"... but it is another potential source of revenue if you already have non-ex. stuff just sitting around.

I don't work for, nor with either lib here; just putting out the word that the guy who owns and runs the lib wants to build up his cat. If you are interested in submitting tracks, pm me. I will not be screening anything, so no worries there! :lol:

Cheers.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 29, 2014)

So let's recap.

He wants to:
1. Pay nothing up front and therefore risk nothing.
2. Promise nothing.
3. Keep half of the total royalties and more than half of the sync fees.

Sounds great!


----------



## rgames (May 29, 2014)

An exclusive lib is spinning off a non-exclusive? That's odd - seems it's been going the other way in recent years. Maybe everybody thinks the grass is greener on the other side...

And Jay - I don't see anything wrong with it. It's non-exclusive and that's a pretty standard agreement for such a library. Sure, they have no skin in, but there are no limitations on you as there would be with an exclusive deal.

rgames


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 29, 2014)

rgames @ Thu May 29 said:


> An exclusive lib is spinning off a non-exclusive? That's odd - seems it's been going the other way in recent years. Maybe everybody thinks the grass is greener on the other side...
> 
> And Jay - I don't see anything wrong with it. It's non-exclusive and that's a pretty standard agreement for such a library. Sure, they have no skin in, but there are no limitations on you as there would be with an exclusive deal.
> 
> rgames



Didn't say there was. Just providing the bullet points. 

But back in my songwriter day's we always wanted an advance on a song because we knew they would be more motivated to push to get it recorded if they had paid something for it. People rarely assign much value to that which they get for free and with no risk.

But if someone thinks it is wise, I have no problem with that.


----------



## RiffWraith (May 29, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri May 30 said:


> So let's recap.
> 
> He wants to:
> 1. Pay nothing up front and therefore risk nothing.
> ...



:roll: 

Save for that 10%, I have just described every non-exclusive library there is. You act as tho what this guy is doing is different - it isn't.

Yes Richard, I thought it strange too. 

Cheers.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 29, 2014)

Once again, didn't say it was, just breaking it down.


----------



## rgames (May 29, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu May 29 said:


> But back in my songwriter day's we always wanted an advance on a song because we knew they would be more motivated to push to get it recorded if they had paid something for it.


Would they pay you an advance then allow you to give the song to someone else? I bet not...

If you're going to market your song through a bunch of different channels then I wouldn't pay you for it. If I get exclusive rights to it, then I will.

rgames


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 29, 2014)

rgames @ Thu May 29 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Thu May 29 said:
> 
> 
> > But back in my songwriter day's we always wanted an advance on a song because we knew they would be more motivated to push to get it recorded if they had paid something for it.
> ...



Whatever, I have no problem with any choice anyone makes. It wouldn't be a choice I would make, but that is OK.


----------



## vimonster (May 30, 2014)

The trouble with the 40% of a good sync fee is better than 50% of no sync fee is that 10%, or even 1% of a good sync fee is better than 50% of no sync fee. Where does it stop?

For no up front money, no track record I can look at and no placements lined up I wouldn't even consider it.

The only time I gave up more than 50% of sync was when there was up front money - not even recoupable - and the tracks were lined up for network use.

On the other hand, we all have different expectations and I think some people do do well out of non-ex deals of this nature.

I guess to each his/her own in the end.


----------



## RiffWraith (May 30, 2014)

vimonster @ Fri May 30 said:


> For no up front money, no track record I can look at and no placements lined up I wouldn't even consider it.



You don't get up front money for non-ex. libs. Why is it that people feel you should? 

Guys - I didn't put this out there for people to moan and groan about the business model, nor for anyone to use this as a platform to tell the world that they themselves wouldn't do it. I put this out there as a good faith gesture to anyone who is interested in potentially making some more money. There is nothing wrong with discussing the pros and cons of non-ex. music libs, but this thread is really not the place to do it.

Cheers.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 30, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Fri May 30 said:


> vimonster @ Fri May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > For no up front money, no track record I can look at and no placements lined up I wouldn't even consider it.
> ...



Well sorry, you don't get to dictate the way it is responded to, whatever your intentions.


----------



## RiffWraith (May 30, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri May 30 said:


> RiffWraith @ Fri May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > vimonster @ Fri May 30 said:
> ...



Man, you can be some sort of jack-ass!!!! You just don't know when to stop talking, do you???

Who the hell said I was trying to dictate the way it is responded to??? I never said that! Why do you feel the need to go around and be so negative so often? Does it make you feel good? If you dont agree with something - fine. But if you see someone trying to do good for the community, do you really feel the need to crap on that thread? Just let it go... jeez....


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 30, 2014)

You specifically wrote " didn't put this out there for people to moan and groan about the business model, nor for anyone to use this as a platform to tell the world that they themselves wouldn't do it."

I would say that is trying to dictate the way it is responded top. And since I am one who said i wouldn't do it, that required my response in my view.

And now, i will happily let it go.


----------



## RiffWraith (May 30, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri May 30 said:


> You specifically wrote " didn't put this out there for people to moan and groan about the business model, nor for anyone to use this as a platform to tell the world that they themselves wouldn't do it."
> 
> I would say that is trying to dictate the way it is responded top. And since I am one who said i wouldn't do it, that required my response in my view.
> 
> And now, i will happily let it go.



And you STILL keep talking!!!!


----------



## rgames (May 30, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri May 30 said:


> Whatever, I have no problem with any choice anyone makes. It wouldn't be a choice I would make, but that is OK.


Again, who would choose to pay you to write non-exclusive library tracks? As I said above, I certainly would never do that if I ran a library.

Jay, you've lost me... I tried to understand by asking a few questions but you're avoiding them, so I'm not sure what you're after.

rgames


----------



## musicformedia (May 30, 2014)

Just a quick note here to say this deal is completely commonplace (bar the small % change). Nothing to see here folks. This is totally normal - people complaining here are just moaning for the sake of it.


----------



## sleepingtiger (May 30, 2014)

I, for one, am grateful to Jeff for sharing this information. Thank you, Jeff!


----------



## Stephen Rees (May 30, 2014)

Very cool of you to pass this along Riff. Musicians Helping Musicians. Hurrah!

I am not looking for this kind of work at the moment but if I was I would be in touch for sure.

Hope its a big success for anyone that has a go 

FWIW I started with a library that had no track record and no placement history. We all have to start somewhere, and by a quirk of fate (or rather the no doubt great work of the library founder) my tracks ended up in Extreme.

You never know what will come from an opportunity like this.


----------



## Ed (May 30, 2014)

Heh, I know what library this must be associated with, with the 40% licence fee . I don't know how well they are doing in the TV market with this new library but it's really really big name company (assuming I know which is being referred to) so it's possible for it to do very well. Hopefully they will be smart enough to still be very picky about what goes in even if its nonexclusive or they risk losing the assumption of quality by producers.

40% isn't bad necessarily. I write for a lib that gives 50% however it runs through a distributor which first takes 50% and then what's left is split with the library and the composer. So technically what sounds like 50% is really only 25% of the fee charged to the customer. So it is worth considering how the library works and it's distribution methods and popularity rather than just looking purely at the numbers. Also don't forget that if a licence fee is great or more than typical libraries you'll potentially be earning more than someone on 50% or more, but on the other hand they may get a lot more licences that while being much cheaper results in more money. All this should be fairly self explanatory but I say it anyway just in case someone hasn't considered it.


----------



## Mike Marino (May 30, 2014)

Thanks for sharing the information, Jeff. Really appreciate it!

- Mike


----------

