Need Advice - "liscense A New Master" Of Same Recording For Tv Show Usage

[JessicaLFenton]

I've been in contact with someone who has expressed interest in using my songs in TV & Commercials. He does this for a living and is supposedly quite active/experienced in the industry.

He said in order to do this, I would need to copyright a "new master" of the same recording - listing him as 50% of the author. He would then turn around and use the "new master" in the TV and Commercials. So if an agency uses the song, we'd both get paid...

Example:

He wants to use my song "Wool"

I'd copyright a new "master" under a NEW title of the SAME recording - "Wool Two" - written by Jessica L Fenton, published by Mr. Man. (50/50)

He'd send "Wool TWO" to the tv agency for usage.

If the agency pays $500 for "Wool Two", I get $250, he gets $250.

He says this is very common and is tyipcally how it's done when putting your music in TV and commercials.

I have never heard of this method. Anyone have any input on this??

[john]

hey

Common doesn't equal fair, or even ethical.

So.... let me understand this correctly. He has the contacts, but no actual product himself?

I assume the track is already registered but as self-published?

It really depends on what exactly he owns half of. The song publishing rights? The publishing rights on that specific recording only? The synchronisation rights on that specific recording?

Synchronisation rights (VPL/PPL) etc are manged by publishers, but that is only part of what the publisher is responsible for.

The role being played by Mr Man (as described) is that of a song plugger, not a publisher. He's using the leverage of possible contacts who may or may not be interested in your work to obtain more rights than he would actually be entitled to imo.

Terms of contract aside I would be wanting to find out, for definate, exactly what he would be doing for his share, and get some evidence of previous song placements. His contract terms should also be limited to TV and film rights. That's if you want to do business with him at all.

Have you tried approaching publishers yourself, or song pluggers?

In terms of why you might want to consider a deal like this is because of the gain you would get from the value of his contacts. You need to be very clear about what you get from such a deal.

Personally I would look into plugger services to accomplish the same thing, and approach production companies myself, but that's me.

Hope this helps, but board member Lazz is the best to advise you I think.

Cheers

John

[Steve]

Can you put my name on it too? We can have a 3 way split then... That sound fair?

[Retrosaurus Rex]

This sounds hincky... If all he's doing is administering sync rights there shouldn't be a need for registering the copyright anew. I do understand that it is common practice to register the administered work with the Performing Rights Organizations (ASCAP, BMI, etc.) under a unique name, but in this case you retain all your authorship rights and this should be spelled out in the agreement. Also, as far as I know, when sync rights get placed it is directly with the production company or with the music director of the production. If he's talking about placing music with an "agency" it's possible the agency fee (which could be 50%) will come off the top and you're only getting 25% in reality. Before you sign anything have the agreement reviewed by an attorney experienced in entertainment law. I believe you can get a referral to such thru the PROs even if you're not a member.

Check out information about this from Pump Audio, which I believe is the largest administrator of sync rights, and has a lot of information laid out clearly on their site. Also, note that Pump very specifically states that their deal is not a publishing deal, and is non-exclusive.

Good luck! but beware of Sharks...

http://pumpaudio.com/artists/index.php

http://www.pumpaudio.com/artists/faq.php#q_c5

[Lazz]

Whether this deal is tyipcally "how it's done when putting your music in TV and commercials" I have absolutely no idea.

(I don't think it's true, and I certainly hope it's not true, and within my small world it's not, but it might be in yours.)

Having said that, I do know that it is not uncommon for someone else to wish for joint authorship credit.

Is this fair ?

That depends completely on what you get as a trade-off.

On the plus side:

* He is being up-front about it.

* He is specifying a new master so is not compromising rights in the extant master.

* It appears to be limited to one tune - so you get a chance to see how it works out without suffering extra damage.

* 250 bucks is greater than zero.

It's business.

You have to make a purely commercial decision.

You have to get relevant advice.

This isn't the right place for that.

This is one of those areas where you would really benefit from being networked in to a lot of established cumulatively experienced resources offered through membership in your local musicians' association and rights organisations.

They know all about it and are there to help.

Waste no time in joining.

Edited April 9, 2008 by Lazz

[Retrosaurus Rex]

I stumbled across an interesting article that shines some light into the murky waters of music licensing...

http://soundtempest.net/how-to-make-money-...usic-licensing/

BTW, wouldn't this thread be happier in the Business section?

[JessicaLFenton]

Yeah - I should have put this topic in the Business section. In fact, I will do just that.

Thank you for the feedback - everyone.

Mr. Man has stated that the new "master" of the original sound recording would give me Author Rights and him Publisher Rights. So if there is a license for the new master - i get 50% of it, he gets the other 50%.

Hmm....

[john]

Hey

I can move the topic over Jessica, let you do a new intro post

Cheers

John

[john]

Hey Jessica

Normally publishers get rights to the song/artistic work, not a specific recording. That is the domain of record labels.

As publisher he could be entitled to all publishing income. I say could because it all comes down to the contract you sign that governs this assignation of rights to Mr Man. If he plans on no contract then he is definately dodgy.

Out of interest, as publisher he could collect all publishing income, some of which he should give your share of (for example from sale of manuscript).

You have been given some useful advice. Contact your local musician's union, artist rights body, consult an entertainment lawyer.

Personally I'd also recommend you do your own homework on who he is, what he does and how good at it he is.

Cheers

John

[Lazz]

Mr. Man has stated that the new "master" of the original sound recording would give me Author Rights and him Publisher Rights. So if there is a license for the new master - i get 50% of it, he gets the other 50%.

Hmm....

Yay.

Already it's sounding MUCH better than sharing authorship.

50/50 is still unfortunately horrifyingly normal but, after all, if he makes it work for you, then he's going to be earning his 50%

Publishing deal means:

you should be able to write terms that specify synchronisation use.

you should be able to insist on rights reversion.

Don't understand what bearing a new master could have on the deal, though.

But look, Jessica, this is just not the appropriate place for advice about this stuff.

Check out the AFM - it will cost dues to be a member, but the benefits of their advice and support are HUGE.

No idea which office would be most relevant for you but the 'phone # for local 802 is (212) 245-4802.

Be a pro - get in the know.

Do it now.

Edited April 12, 2008 by Lazz