# Library Contract Offered - Opinions Requested



## PoppaJimmy (Sep 28, 2010)

Hello All,

I received a contract offer from a Library and I'd like opinions on the deal points as they seem questionable to me. First of all, I have no experience with librariies or any media music. I am an arranger/orchestrator/singer for live shows and have been in show business exclusively my entire life but all in the theatre. stage shows and, when I was younger, in show bands. I recently made some tracks using all sample orchestra material, sent them to a bunch of libraries and this offer I received has these points:

The library doesn't say it is Royalty Free but some online research states that it is. It is appears to be a fairly large, professional operation from what I can tell.

The contract is non-exclusive for the composer (not the tracks) so, I can write for whomever.

The tracks are exclusive and can be used only by this library for 5 years.

They offer a 20/80 split on the publishing (they get the 80, of course).

However, they also want a 50/50 split of the writers share.

Since it is royalty free, there are no synch and licensing fees and, of course, no up front payment to the writer.

I've been told this is not a good deal. I should not give up any of the writer's share and the publishing should be closer to 50/50. However, everything I read on these forums implies that things are terrible for composers now and all the deals are bad. 

FYI: This is not critical for me financially or career wise. It is something I thought I should try since I have a home studio and am learning about using it and about music for media. However, I still make my main living with live shows and will, hopefully, continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

I am not egotistical about 'my tracks.' I don't feel I have to keep them for the great offer or anything like that. I am open minded and willing to learn what is best. I really don't have any experience in these areas by which to judge but I know a lot of you do. Any opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thank You.

Be Well,

Jimmy


----------



## Mr. Anxiety (Sep 28, 2010)

I think you answered your own question, and correctly IMO.

If you don't need to do it financially, then don't take such a terrible deal. Don't play into this library's attitude that you aren't even worth all of your writers. And besides, they have no right to take your writers share.

If you want to practice your production, do it anyway; keep your tracks organized, and you will run into a way better scenario down the road, and will have all of this new material to offer!

Mr. A.


----------



## windshore (Sep 28, 2010)

This is a total crap deal. NO REPUTABLE LIBRARY would come up with anything like this. 

Stay far far away!


----------



## vlado hudec (Sep 28, 2010)

Hey Jimmi,

a contract, you described is not good (good olny for a company, not for a composer), I don't know, what quality is your music, but in this case, when company is royalty free and don't pay you upfont, the exclusive deal is very bad, in my opinion.

There are many companies on the market, which works non exclusively, so you can have your tracks in many companies simultaneously and this increase a chance for placements of your tracks and of course more $

Check this site, here you can find a list of music library companies

http://musiclibraryreport.com/


----------



## anogo (Sep 28, 2010)

If my math is right, they get 65% of any money generated and you get 35%.

What are they doing to earn that 65%? Are they actively promoting your works for use? Can they estimate what you'll make per placement? Can they tell you how many placements their typical artist gets per year? How many works does a typical artist have in their library?


----------



## madbulk (Sep 28, 2010)

And on the licensing fee? 65% there as well?


----------



## anogo (Sep 28, 2010)

madbulk @ Tue Sep 28 said:


> And on the licensing fee? 65% there as well?



He indicated that there are no licensing fees in his original post. No upfront money for the composer, as well.

I find it really frustrating/angering that contracts like this are out there. I have a number of friends who have been offered similar 'deals.' Occasionally, there is a bit of money to start (a few thousand dollars), but that's about it. 

Alas, I think musicians deserve a lot of the blame. Working for free, working on spec, agreeing to gratis licenses for 'exposure,' etc.

Anyhow, off of my soapbox.
Bryan


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 28, 2010)

Sounds pretty shady to me. I've never done a library deal (other than being hired to do "library tracks" for specific shows,) but I would think it unusual for them to take part of the writer's share. For guys who have tracks in libraries, is this common?

I would have guessed they'd want 100% of the publishing. Of course, that's assuming you get 100% of the writer's share, but still, in general I would assume libraries take all the publishing since they are indeed doing all the publishing work of getting tracks placed.

I assume they're not paying you an advance for signing over the tracks? If not, then 5 years seems like an awfully long term.

I would definitely not take this deal.


----------



## José Herring (Sep 28, 2010)

The only reason to take such a bad deal is if you think the experience will help you in some way down the road. I don't see any upside in this. I'd walk away.


----------



## rgames (Sep 28, 2010)

Those are some weird terms - the library is taking part of the the writer's share? That sounds like a work-for-hire only there's no hire (nothing up front). In order for it to be work-for-hire, they need to hire you somehow. Otherwise, like John said, you keep the writer's share for sure.

And there are no license fees? Or they keep all the license fees? There's a difference there.

If this were a non-exclusive deal it would sound bad. But the fact that it's exclusive makes it sound REALLY bad. Also I'm surprised they're offering a termination date on the exclusivity - I've tried to get that a few places and they all say no way. That's the only good thing I see, though 5 years is a long time.

Are you sure you're reading the contract correctly? I'm relatively new to the library music world but I've looked at a lot of contracts and haven't seen anything like this.

Care to tell which library?

rgames


----------



## madbulk (Sep 28, 2010)

If this were a non-exclusive deal, it would be comparable to Pump.


----------



## rgames (Sep 28, 2010)

Don't think so - Pump takes half of publishing and none of the writer's share.

But the big difference is that Pump collects license fees and splits them 65/35. The deal described above has no license fees and weighs the royalties heavier to the library. Much worse than Pump, I think.

And, of course, Pump is non-exclusive.

Geez, sounds like I'm defending Pump. What is the world coming to? Pump sucks but I'm using them as an example of a better deal...

rgames


----------



## José Herring (Sep 28, 2010)

rgames @ Tue Sep 28 said:


> Those are some weird terms - the library is taking part of the the writer's share? That sounds like a work-for-hire only there's no hire (nothing up front). In order for it to be work-for-hire, they need to hire you somehow. Otherwise, like John said, you keep the writer's share for sure.
> 
> And there are no license fees? Or they keep all the license fees? There's a difference there.
> 
> ...



He's read the contract right. I got contact by somebody a while back with the same exact deal. I just responded by saying that you can have some of my tracks that are just sitting here no problem and you can keep the publishing and I'll take the writers share. Never heard from them again. The weird thing is if I remember correctly the guy who ran the company was or is a composer who was also the main music sup at a major tv studio. He's apparently made quite a good living doing this. I don't know anything about the library music business, but this one just seemed odd to me.

Jose


----------



## PoppaJimmy (Sep 28, 2010)

Hi Guys,

I'm still following this so, all new opinions are welcome. I am uncomfortable naming the Library at the moment because I don't know the legal or ethical ground when it comes to that. I'm pretty sure I read and explained the main points of the contract correctly.

As I said I am a noob in the Library and Media world and haven't been doing Virtual Orch. stuff that long either. I'm 55 y/o and been a pencil and paper guy until the last 4 years. Had to learn everything from scratch (I didn't know MIDI wasn't sounds!) including Sib. and the whole sample world. Been working on it between gigs. Gotten really good with Sib. since I use it almost every day. Still working on the rest.

Started learning a bit about the library world and thought I would give it a shot. I know it takes years to develop an income and my mockups aren't all that great yet. I figured I would keep working on them, learn from my mistakes, submit and get feedback, figure out how this whole media world works, etc. If it works out, it might be some supplemental income as I get older (as opposed to right away). If it doesn't, I haven't lost anything and have learned a lot. Don't have even the slightest aspiration to be a film composer but the library/TV/Commercials thing seems like it might fit along with my "real" job arranging/orchestrating for live shows.

The big red flag for me was the split of the writer's share. I just don't get how they can ask for that. The other stuff, the publishing percentage, the 5 years exclusive use, the lack of upfront fees, the lack of synch and license fees are all things I didn't know enough about so, I asked a couple of people and thought I would post here as well. The people I spoke with said pretty much the same thing you all are saying. Basically, the deal sucks and I shouldn't do it.

Can anybody suggest what kinds of numbers would be standard/ideal/minimum for libraries? I would really love to know what to look for. Understood that no one should take any of the writer's share. Everyone seems to agree on that. What else?

Be Well,

Jimmy


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Sep 28, 2010)

Library gets 100% of publisher, you get 100% of writer, you both split sync fee down the middle 50/50. That is a pretty standard library contract. Any place asking for WRITER'S share... run away, as that's illegal anyway.

If they ask for more than 50% of sync fees, you'd better hope they're getting a lot of placements. Some libraries I've worked with take more than 50% but don't get me more placements, or make me do more work to upload my tracks etc. Avoid those, IMO. Pump might take 65% of sync but in my experience they get quite a lot of placements and work very hard for you. All you do is send them your CD and you're done.

Upfront fees are becoming more uncommon. If a library does this, you won't get any sync fees. You'll get your writer's share, of course, but don't count on any backend there either. I have 3 CDs signed to a buyout library. THe upfront money is good but I have yet to receive a penny from those tracks via ASCAP, so I guess the clients aren't doing public performances. I wouldn't accept less than $300 as a buyout fee for a single full-length track though your tolerance might be lower. $500 should not be out of the question and of course I know some libraries do more than that (Killer is I believe still about $1000 per track.)

I wrote a whole article on this here that you might find interesting;

http://zirconmusic.com/tutorials/guides/how-to-make-money-from-music-licensing/ (http://zirconmusic.com/tutorials/guides ... licensing/)


----------



## RiffWraith (Sep 28, 2010)

zircon_st @ Wed Sep 29 said:


> Library gets 100% of publisher, you get 100% of writer, you both split sync fee down the middle 50/50. That is a pretty standard library contract.



That's hitting the nail on the head there. Occasionaly, as I have, you will come across a lib that wants to take your tracks, and either re-mix them, and/or add some live musicians. In that case, the standard fare seems to be that they get 60% of the license fee for the first license, to recoup their costs. This seems totally fair to me, especially if they tell you up front. But the deal as outlined by the op is just ludicrous.

Cheers.


----------



## PoppaJimmy (Sep 28, 2010)

zircon_st @ Tue Sep 28 said:


> Library gets 100% of publisher, you get 100% of writer, you both split sync fee down the middle 50/50. That is a pretty standard library contract. Any place asking for WRITER'S share... run away, as that's illegal anyway.



Zircon,

Thanks for the info. This makes perfect sense to me. Question: are you assuming in the above scenario that there is no Master License fee (Yes, I read your article - excellent info!!)? If there is one, should that also be 50/50 or would you expect something else? 

Be Well,

Jimmy


----------



## Mike Greene (Sep 29, 2010)

This is a minor point, but it's not illegal for someone to take part of your writer's share. Unethical, yes, but it's not against the law (in the U.S., at least.)

ASCAP and BMI both claim they don't allow it (which is not the same as being against the law,) but no matter what they say publicly, they knowingly let it happen all the time. "Power Rangers" being a famous example. There are all sorts of animated shows especially where part of the "deal" for composers is that they sign over all or part of their writer's share. I won't name the two most blatant companies here, but everybody in town knows who they are.

SESAC (the lesser known third PRO here in the states) actually does (or at least did) openly allow it and has (had?) a special contract for signing over your writer's share. I actually have one such contract from when I was offered a show on xxxxxx (a now defunct minor network) which routinely had the president of the network list himself as composer. (I didn't sign the contract, obviously.)


----------



## MichaelL (Oct 4, 2010)

Hey Andrew,

Great article --- thank you from another "outskirts of Philly" guy.

I agree with all who advise this is a terrible deal. 

_Michael


----------



## DKeenum (Oct 4, 2010)

Thanks for this thread! It really helps to see these things discussed.


----------



## PoppaJimmy (Oct 4, 2010)

DKeenum @ Mon Oct 04 said:


> Thanks for this thread! It really helps to see these things discussed.



Yeah. I figured with so many people trying to get into libraries now, and so many threads on different forums where it's obvious we don't really know the in's and out's of this, it might be valuable just to come right out and ask about a specific deal offer. That way, everyone gets a chance to weigh in with opinions and questions regarding things that are actually going on in the harsh musical reality we all have to face right now. Certainly, it has been helpful to me and I'm grateful to everyone who responded.

Be Well,

Jimmy


----------



## MichaelL (Oct 5, 2010)

ASCAP and BMI both claim they don't allow it (which is not the same as being against the law said:


> It happened to me. I wrote about 100 hundred tracks for a library that shall remain nameless, and the library's owner made his wife and kids co-writers on all of my tracks.
> 
> I suppose that's one of the reasons that I went to law school --after that experience!


----------



## midphase (Oct 5, 2010)

Why should these people remain nameless? Is it any different than any other business which has questionable practices? I mean if you go to a restaurant which serves you old stale food, you'd tell everyone what the name of the restaurant is. WTF is wrong with exposing some of these players on here as well?

Seriously...when a company or library behaves unethically, I think their names should be made public so that others can stay away from them....otherwise, by keeping the information confidential, I think one is being just as douchy by essentially protecting them and allowing them to continue their practices.

For example, one of the networks which famously used to expect its composers to turn over writer's share was PAX TV here in the US. They no longer exist, but the same company has reinvented itself as ION although I do not know if they are continuing their policies of pressuring composers to turn over cue sheet shares.


----------



## MichaelL (Oct 5, 2010)

Hi Midphase,

In my case, I've chosen to move on. I believe that the library is no longer active, so there's no danger to my fellow writers. 

With respect to the offer to Jimmy, this is not legal advice, but I see no reason to not identify the library in question.

He would be doing a service to us all to identify the library.

_Michael


----------



## Mike Greene (Oct 5, 2010)

I agree with Kays about naming names. So long as our facts are correct, there are no legal issues, so there is no reason not to tell us who these companies are.

With that said, I didn't name the two animation companies (DIC and SABAN) because I don't know if they're still doing the same sleeziness. And indeed, PAX was the network that tried to get me to sign over my writer's share to the president of the company. That one I didn't name either, because I think they may have been sold (before changing to ION) and I don't think the new owners do the same thing. But with these disclaimers that I don't what the current situations are, here you go.


----------



## wst3 (Oct 5, 2010)

It is always tricky business naming names...

There is that nagging doubt that you did everything perfectly that afflicts most of us<G>! And, there is the chance that change can happen.

In my less-than-positive dealings with companies I try to give consideration before naming names. There are deals I've been involved with that were so bad that I name names to protect others from these folks. But that is the exception to the rule.

I am not saying I am right mind you, only sympathizing with folks that are uncomfortable throwing stones. Seems to me there is more than enough mud-slinging in the world today without me adding to it.

HOWEVER, sometimes naming names helps to resolve a problem. Many years ago I had an issue with Waves ltd. This was around the time that they changed their copy protection from C/R back to dongles (I had survived the switch from dongles to C/R without incident.)

Anyway, if people asked about Waves I'd share my experience, and urge them to think twice before investing. It seemed to me unethical at best, and a clear violation of the EULA at worst, for them to require me to purchase a new version just to gain access to the iLok. But that was what they did, if I did not update I could no longer authorize my software (and this stuff ain't cheap!)

Well one day I get an email from one of their sales people, asking for details. I shared the same tale with him. A few days later I received a very nice email stating that they had, in fact, glossed over the fact that someone might be perfectly happy with their current version of the plug-ins.

They upgraded my to V4 for free (V5 was already out, not like it was a huge deal), and the thing that really impressed me was that they apologized for handling the situation the way they did.

And, they encouraged me to tell any friends in the same boat to contact them to get their upgrades gratis.

So sometimes it is good to name names.

And yet it still makes me uncomfortable!


----------

