Originally Posted by bigbonthabeat
thanks for your response
, but this isn't re-titling. This is different. Retitling does not require this contract. This is co publishing:
Co-publishing Agreement ("Co-pub"): The co-publishing ("co-pub") deal is perhaps the most common publishing agreement. Under this deal, the songwriter and the music publisher are "co-owners" of the copyrights in the musical compositions. The writer becomes the "co-publisher" (i.e. co-owner) with the music publisher based on an agreed split of the royalties. The song writer assigns an agreed percentage to the publisher, usually (but not always), a 50/50 split. Thus, the writer conveys ½ of the publisher's share to the publisher, but retains all of writer’s share. In a typical "75/25 co-pub deal," the writer gets 100% of the song writer’s share, and 50% of the publisher’s share, or 75% of the entire copyrights, with the remaining 25% going to the publisher. Thus, when royalties are due and payable, the writer/co-publisher will receive 75% of the income, while the publisher will retain 25%.
I was just wondering if anyone had experience with this and what they liked and disliked about it.
Uh, if this company specifically licenses music for use in TV/Film then yeah, this contract is for a retitling deal unless it is an exclusive deal (meaning you can't give the music to any other company). retitling is officially known as "Repurposing".
in music libraries, these deals can vary a lot and do not parallel music publishing deals offered to bands/artists/songwriters. So most of what you will read in music industry books about publishing only partially applies.
Also, the most important part of the deal IS NOT how royalties are split. It's how the licenses are split. Just because you have a 75/25 copub deal on the royalties DOES NOT MEAN you automatically get 75% of the licensing. Most of the time you will only get 50% of the license and sometimes the contract wills state that you only get 25% of the license or maybe even none.
Not to be rude here... but you shouldn't be asking these questions on an internet forum and expecting definitive answers to your situation. You ABSOLUTELY NEED an entertainment attorney that specializes in copyright and intellectual property agreements... and one that also has experience in TV/Film would probably be the most ideal.
One thing I should also point out. Every company is different based on what markets they are rooted in. Some companies might not pay you any money up front but do the 75/25 royalty and 50/50 license split with you. Other companies might pay you an upfront fee, but then take all the publishing and all the licensing. Does that automatically mean you will make less money from the second type of deal? Not necessarily. Conversely, just because someone is giving you 75/25 and 50/50... doesn't mean you'll make a lot of money. The track still has to get "picked" for placement by the client.
Also look in the contract to see how blanket licenses, buyouts and barter deals are handled. What is the length of the publishing deal? What happens after the deal expires? What happens in the event that the publishing company is sold to another company? What happens to your music and/or your ownership at that point? A good example of this is, what if a royalty-free music library buys the library you are putting music into... all of a sudden your 75/25 goes "poof!"
This is why you absolutely and unquestionably need an attorney to look over the contracts for you, explain what they mean, and explain what you are leaving yourself open to. Just changing the wording of a phrase in the contract can be the difference between you making money and you getting screwed. Do you really want to trust that to people that legally aren't allowed to practice law or give legal advice (none of us have passed the bar exam, have we?)? Get a music copyright lawyer, the money you spend on the laywer will be pocket change compared to the money you make off your music, right?