# Work for hire contract = no PRO royalties for me?



## gsilbers (May 28, 2014)

i havent done one of these in a while. .. but this would be for an animated short demo. 

the contract says the music work will remain exclusive property of the filmaker. 

will i get BMI royalties under that agreement?


----------



## chillbot (May 28, 2014)

I have always in every single situation retained 100% of the writer's royalties for this. But yes all the music is the property of the production company or network and they get 100% of the publishing royalties. You need to make sure this is crystal clear in your contract.


----------



## MichaelL (May 28, 2014)

gsilbers @ Wed May 28 said:


> i havent done one of these in a while. .. but this would be for an animated short demo.
> 
> the contract says the music work will remain exclusive property of the filmaker.
> 
> will i get BMI royalties under that agreement?



Yes, in theory. But, I'm not sure where a "demo" would be broadcast that would generate any BMI royalties.


----------



## RiffWraith (May 28, 2014)

chillbot @ Thu May 29 said:


> I have always in every single situation retained 100% of the writer's royalties for this. But yes all the music is the property of the production company or network and they get 100% of the publishing royalties. You need to make sure this is crystal clear in your contract.



That ^

You use the word "demo" - are you writing music as a demo for this project, ie - as a demonstration of what you can do if hired? The only "demos" I have done is for an ad agency that a friend owns and operates. I don't know if companies do contracts for demos - do they?


----------



## gsilbers (May 28, 2014)

yes. sorry. its a friends demo but in the event it gets picked up or the music gets used for a release. 

i opened up an old contract and there is parts which say i keep writers share. 
ill add it. 
thx


----------



## JohnG (May 28, 2014)

yes you need that. If you agree to a "work for hire" you by definition get nothing at all besides what's in the contract and make the company the legal author of your work.

So most contracts say "notwithstanding the foregoing..." and then have that language that gives you the writer's share.

Pretty rough to have to give up publishing for a demo but whatever -- every situation has its nuances. I would simply propose a sync license so you own the music and the master recording but give them a license to use it in perpetuity throughout the universe and all that usual nonsense.


----------



## Daryl (May 29, 2014)

This is one good thing about PRS membership. You can't ever "give up" your writer's share, so no matter who tries to pressure you into doing it, you don't have to be the bad guy.

D


----------



## spikescott (May 29, 2014)

We're finding Work For Hire contracts very much more prevalent in this last year - especially from TV projects in the USA, but are also spilling over into the UK now. 

These are hateful, loathsome contracts that are totally undermining professional composer's income - but be warned - they are coming.


----------



## Daryl (May 29, 2014)

spikescott @ Thu May 29 said:


> We're finding Work For Hire contracts very much more prevalent in this last year - especially from TV projects in the USA, but are also spilling over into the UK now.
> 
> These are hateful, loathsome contracts that are totally undermining professional composer's income - but be warned - they are coming.


Yes, but they can't take the writer's share. That's the real issue, I think.

D


----------



## AC986 (May 29, 2014)

Daryl @ Thu May 29 said:


> Yes, but they can't take the writer's share. That's the real issue, I think.
> 
> D




Yes that's right Daryl.

For anyone who reads this that is confused see link below.


http://alterandkendrick.com/protecting-your-musical-copyrights/what-are-music-publishing-rights/ (http://alterandkendrick.com/protecting- ... ng-rights/)


----------



## spikescott (May 29, 2014)

adriancook @ 29/5/2014 said:


> Daryl @ Thu May 29 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but they can't take the writer's share. That's the real issue, I think.
> ...



Perhaps you're not fully understanding what a Work For Hire contract is - or its implications. This is not simply an insistance that you give up publishing rights to the Prod co or network - this is far, far worse.

JohnG nailed it when he said "If you agree to a "work for hire" you by definition get nothing at all besides what's in the contract and make the company the legal author of your work." 

Most US companies (including the biggies) have subtley changed their contracts to become WFH contracts and grant themselves rights to rename and reassign you're work as they wish. Once you have signed such a contract you no longer have any control or tracking on your work, it can effectively become their work and they will get the writers share of royalties.


----------



## Daryl (May 29, 2014)

If you are a PRS member you can't sign such a "Work for Hire" contract, so it is pretty much irrelevant for professional composers in the UK.

D


----------



## spikescott (May 29, 2014)

Of course - but many of the USA companies are trying it on - with fairly heavy handed tactics like take it or leave it. Its all pretty underhand. 

One thing's for sure, we can't ignore it. If you do any work in the US or with any US co. in the chain, you will come up against this. Irrelevant it is not.


----------



## Daryl (May 29, 2014)

spikescott @ Thu May 29 said:


> Of course - but many of the USA companies are trying it on - with fairly heavy handed tactics like take it or leave it. Its all pretty underhand.
> 
> One thing's for sure, we can't ignore it. If you do any work in the US or with any US co. in the chain, you will come up against this. Irrelevant it is not.


Yes, but as PRS members we can't sign these contracts. It doesn't matter what the production company says. We just can't sign them, because of previous agreements made with PRS.

D


----------



## spikescott (May 29, 2014)

There's a current move within BASCA to tackle this from our perspective and at least give composers who face such ridiculous terms some ammunition to fight back - contract clauses to insert etc.


----------



## Daryl (May 29, 2014)

spikescott @ Thu May 29 said:


> There's a current move within BASCA to tackle this from our perspective and at least give composers who face such ridiculous terms some ammunition to fight back - contract clauses to insert etc.


Please don't misunderstand me. I'm totally on your side with this. I would never sign one of those contracts, even if I was allowed to, and as I said PRS members can't sign them anyway.

However, as with many things, the real problem is the US, and the attitude of some of the board members at ASCAP and the like, doesn't help. Until they can be convinced that signing away your writer's share is bad, there is no reason that the faceless corporations should act in a more moral fashion.

FWIW there are many members of this forum who don't see a problem with signing their rights away, so I guess we need to convince them first. :wink: 

D


----------



## RiffWraith (May 29, 2014)

Eh, guys.... every film score going back to god only knows when is a WFH.


----------



## chillbot (May 29, 2014)

spikescott @ Thu May 29 said:


> We're finding Work For Hire contracts very much more prevalent in this last year - especially from TV projects in the USA, but are also spilling over into the UK now.
> 
> These are hateful, loathsome contracts that are totally undermining professional composer's income - but be warned - they are coming.



Could you please explain what is in these contracts that make them so horrible? I'm genuinely curious, don't understand.

I know that WFH is not always all bad. For example I scored two of Discovery Channel's biggest shows about 10-12 years ago, they owned all the music but I kept the writer's share, as is usual. A few years later they realized they could make a lot of money off of the publishing and started their own library with my music as the basis of their library. It is still being used on literally 100s and 100s of Discovery Channel shows instead of just sitting on my computer doing nothing. I mean, maybe I could have sold them elsewhere but in all honesty the tracks were not very good, it's the best thing that could have happened to them.


----------



## Daryl (May 29, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Thu May 29 said:


> Eh, guys.... every film score going back to god only knows when is a WFH.


Riff, as I've already pointed out, the situation for PRS members is not the same as for ASCAP.

D


----------



## RiffWraith (May 29, 2014)

Daryl @ Thu May 29 said:


> RiffWraith @ Thu May 29 said:
> 
> 
> > Eh, guys.... every film score going back to god only knows when is a WFH.
> ...



Sorry, missed that. 

So, can you please explain.... how does the PRO dictate the status of the contract? The PRO is an after-the-fact entity. You get hired on the job, you neg the terms and conditions (usually about the same, save for the money) you do the work, you get paid, and later down the road PRS collects the royalties from you, and then distributes them to you. How does that influence the contract you sign?


----------



## Daryl (May 29, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Thu May 29 said:


> So, can you please explain.... how does the PRO dictate the status of the contract? The PRO is an after-the-fact entity. You get hired on the job, you neg the terms and conditions (usually about the same, save for the money) you do the work, you get paid, and later down the road PRS collects the royalties from you, and then distributes them to you. How does that influence the contract you sign?


When you join PRS you sign that all of your music is assigned to PRS. Therefore the only organisation that can agree to giving away your writer's share is PRS and they won't do that. You can sign what you like with the movie company, but PRS will still collect the Royalties, because you didn't have the authority to sign them away in the first place.

D


----------



## RiffWraith (May 29, 2014)

Daryl @ Thu May 29 said:


> RiffWraith @ Thu May 29 said:
> 
> 
> > So, can you please explain.... how does the PRO dictate the status of the contract? The PRO is an after-the-fact entity. You get hired on the job, you neg the terms and conditions (usually about the same, save for the money) you do the work, you get paid, and later down the road PRS collects the royalties from you, and then distributes them to you. How does that influence the contract you sign?
> ...



Well, wait - maybe we are not talking about the same thing... or maybe we just are misunderstanding each other. Starting with me :lol:

Living in the USA and being a member of ASCAP or BMI... you sign a WFH contract to do a film or TV show - you still get the royalties. I wasn't saying you don't. You typically dont get the publishing - but the writers, yes. You just have no control over the music - you can't dictate how and when it's used, you can't do anything else with the music (ie - use it in another film), etc. That's where the WFH comes in. And what I was saying, is that it's been that way forever.

Cheers.


----------



## Daryl (May 29, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Thu May 29 said:


> Daryl @ Thu May 29 said:
> 
> 
> > RiffWraith @ Thu May 29 said:
> ...


Yes. We weren't talking about that. Keep up at the back please. :lol: 

D


----------



## rgames (May 29, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Thu May 29 said:


> Eh, guys.... every film score going back to god only knows when is a WFH.


True. John Williams seems to be doing OK with WFH...!

My experience is in line with what JohnG said - I've only done a few WFH contracts and they've all granted back the writer's share of the royalties in the language of the contract. I've seen it stated here and elsewhere that "they can't legally take your writer's share" but I'm not sure that's true in the US. They can take whatever you agree to in the contract.

Keep in mind that WFH is the norm if you're an employee of Disney or Google or Apple or whoever. If you generate IP using the company's resources, the company owns every bit of it and you have no legal claim to any of the revenues generated from it.

There's a sentiment among some composers that WFH is bad. It is not. It's just a different business model. The WFH contracts I've done have all been pretty lucrative with good up-front money.

rgames


----------



## RiffWraith (May 29, 2014)

Daryl @ Thu May 29 said:


> Yes. We weren't talking about that. Keep up at the back please. :lol:


----------

