TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- label exclusivity
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

label exclusivity

Anyone happen to know if its common for labels to sign you on as an 'exclusive' act, meaning there's language in the contract stating you're not allowed to sign under the name "_____" to any other label. I know this is pretty much standard with bands but was wondering if the same applies for EDM labels

well not worded like that. That would make a remix a breach of contract. They would stipulate the rights or whatever you have arranged to works created by your legal name. That gives them control on what you can do. A label would be nuts not to cover that angle. They will also have some sort of claim to any trademark you develop while the contract is valid relating to either you in everything you do or music.

EDM is weird. Lots of idiots that don't know what they are doing. I've seen 2 page contracts. So and so agrees to make kickass trance head bangin 4 am for 4 years and we split the money. I would worry if a contract was under 20 pages.

A contract has to define everything. Even your name, that has to be clarified as to what is your legal name, what happens if you change your legal name, what happens if you die while still under contract.

But when everything is said and done, if the label is run by nit twits, you can do anything you want. Contracts matter when the people writing the contract can actually enforce said contract either financially or professionally. Joe Blow raver kid that spends his money on his boutique label ain't gonna sue you because his money will be going to tripple stacked green dolphins.

The label that I have some tracks signed too have put in clauses for options. I send things to them first regardless but as per my contract thats what im suppose to do. Send them my tracks that I make first.
If a big label believes that you are awesome they will want to protect their investment in you maybe?

lets be honest. These small contracts are just pleasantries. They aren't really contracts. just an agreement. I mean legally bounding sure, but that is irrelevant. If a major label does find the next deadmau5 and steals him away, you will a downpayment on a house just to retain a lawyer and if the label is making money, they will drag it out because they know how much money you have.

it's late and I'm having a hard time articulating how retarded it seems to sign under your legal name, i'll try again tomorrow at work

quote:

Originally posted by Looney4Clooney They would stipulate the rights or whatever you have arranged to works created by your legal name. That gives them control on what you can do. A label would be nuts not to cover that angle. They will also have some sort of claim to any trademark you develop while the contract is valid relating to either you in everything you do or music.

Alright.. who would actually do this? Does this mean that if I wanted to branch outside of EDM they would own the rights to whatever I got involved in? Maybe I'm not understanding this correctly but only an insane person would sign a contract like that. I would only be interested in handing over the rights to 1 particular artist identity because I'm involved with a bunch of different things. I don't think an EDM label for instance would be interested in a noise-core album.

Reject any kind of exclusivity unless it refers to a single track/release/artist handle. Reject any exclusivity that mentions merchandise. Reject any kind of exclusivity when dealing with shit labels. Reject any kind of exclusivity on your real name.

Accept exclusivity if the money/returns outweighs all the applicable terms above.

Apart from signing tracks/releases exclusively to another company you should be very very cautious with exclusive deals.

The nature of a music contract is about making you exclusive. That is the whole point. If a label doesn't , they don't care, they wont push your music making their role redundant.

quote:

Originally posted by Looney4Clooney The nature of a music contract is about making you exclusive. That is the whole point. If a label doesn't , they don't care, they wont push your music making their role redundant.

I'm not sure how relevant that is to blokes in bedroom studios churning out a track a week, especially when they'll start making tech house in April and by July it's dubstep because that's what all the kiddies are ripping to Youtube.

As you've mentioned, all but the most established labels couldn't enforce a contract even if they wanted to anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Looney4Clooney The nature of a music contract is about making you exclusive. That is the whole point. If a label doesn't , they don't care, they wont push your music making their role redundant.

Yes and the nature of the current EDM industry is to take anything that might become famouse one day but not to put any effort into it. So one should reject any type of exclusivity (except for tracks/releases) unless the returns make it worth it.

There are some labels out there that claim exclusive rights to all your artist handle related merchandise in their default contract for instance. Those are the ones with money and smart ass lawyers and too lazy to pay petty cash artists -> profit!

Thanks for the info guys I might not end up signing at all if there's nothing to be gained from it. I don't even plan on producing any other EDM tracks, I just have this one house release I want to get out there. It'll be interesting to see how this goes.

I think the people here might be over-emphasizing the negative aspects of record labels for various reasons not to say that's a bad thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Storyteller Yes and the nature of the current EDM industry is to take anything that might become famouse one day but not to put any effort into it. So one should reject any type of exclusivity (except for tracks/releases) unless the returns make it worth it. There are some labels out there that claim exclusive rights to all your artist handle related merchandise in their default contract for instance. Those are the ones with money and smart ass lawyers and too lazy to pay petty cash artists -> profit!

a label serves no purpose other than push your music. They are no longer loan companies but marketing companies. If they aren't pushing your material, they are serving you no purpose. So with a good label comes exclusivity. nobody is going to pump money into something that isn't theirs,

I could see them owning an artist name but anything beyond that isn't realistic imo

they don't own the name. What might seem draconian is just standard legal talk to protect their investment. If you don't see the point, they probably aren't investing in you so why are you even bothering ? UNless I suppose you are just using the as a stepping stone for exposure.

some people may see me as stupid here, but i signed exclusive for 2 years with mistique. i dont feel i am at all, i really love the vision of the label, and im still getting much better every year, i see it as a learning experience, and they've helped me develop not only as a producer but how i handle myself in the business in SOME ways. overall, im very happy, after my exclusive deal runs out ill still be releasing with them after, if they let me that is :} im getting so close to the sound i want, but i know im still far away.

so basically i just cant release under msz anywhere else for a bit. that being said, its good to spread your name on other labels, even my label bosses do it, even though have a good thing going.

the point is control. And having your material on other labels ie mix cds , is more a publishing issue. That is the only thing to never conceit

You can't release as MSZ on another label but you can release as a different name anywhere you want right?

no. There is a difference between releasing on a label and having a label license the use of your work on your label. Labels are not stupid. They will have a clause that makes such obvious loopholes closed. It isn't a bad thing. If a label was that dumb , well do you really want to be a part of that label ? Dumb labels will rip you off more often than labels that know what they are doing.

false, i can.

its a bit tempting starting off on a clean slate, there are some productions im not super proud of

well your label is run by idiots. I thought that disclaimer was clear. I can't account for labels that don't know what they are doing.

A label invests money in you, you are a brand, and then you release some shitty awful track on some other label destroying that brand. What sane label would actually not stipulate something in the contract that outlines such obvious things that would come up.

lol who would agree to something like that

fortunately i dont do business with armada.

agree to what ?

Umm lets role play,

I'm willing to invest 100 000 in pushing your music. For the next 2 years, I thought it might be reasonable that you don't you know , take the brand i'm pretty much creating to other labels that have invested 0$

ithat isn't unreasonable.


Look, everyone here that is on a label that makes less than 5000 a year from your music, You aren't really a part of the music business. Your label isn't really a label and you don't really understand the point of view of a label that actually does what a label should do.

Ask yourself exactly what your label is actually doing ? Probably nothing. Yet they take 50% invest 0$. You don't care because you don't sell so to you , it just feels cool.

quote:

Originally posted by Looney4Clooney agree to what ? Umm lets role play, I'm willing to invest 100 000 in pushing your music. For the next 2 years, I thought it might be reasonable that you don't you know , take the brand i'm pretty much creating to other labels that have invested 0$ ithat isn't unreasonable.

okay but you are an EDM label and I have 3 other projects I'm working on that don't fit into your catalog at all

EDIT: I get what you're saying. I don't doubt that's how things work in the 'real world'

but i enjoy looney's fairytayles.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.