sounds ok.

Make sure they make you sign publishing contracts, too, or you'll lose author rights. Are you registered in Norway? You should be.

L.

___________________
Http://www.airwave-music.com is my new site. Djairwave.com is no more. A new era has begun

Would you care to explain?

Because when looking at what you're saying it just doesn't make sense to me. The terms above state the artist transfers all rights to the record label, which would include authors rights.

How can a separate contract change that?

___________________

Storyteller Website | Storyteller @ Facebook | Storyteller @ Beatport | Storyteller @ Soundcloud | Stephen J. Kroos - Europa (Storyteller Remix)
Anthony Mea - Get It On (Storyteller Remix)

quote:

If less is more think about how much more more would be. -Frasier

Record sales generate two types of earnings. Royalties and publishing rights. When a record company releases a record, a percentage of it shall be paid to the local author rights company, in the uk it's MCPS, in France it's Sacem, in the US it should be ASCAP.

So a record release generates two types of contracts as well. Royalty contracts and publishing contracts. Because in that percentage, there's 50% minus a small fee that should go back to the artist/composer/author and same amount for the publisher.

The publisher is a second company that handles administration of its artist's releases for author right companies.

author rights MAY NOT be transferred to a record company and/or master owner inside a royalty contract. A record company should get the right to generate sales from the author but in no way the artist may transfer his/her author rights to a record company in the same contract. It means that you're losing your author rights, and that you are that way losing your OWNERSHIP of the music as well as the ownership of the master copy that you deliver.

A record company provides a royatly contract. A publisher should provide publishing contracts in order to perceive publishing rights.

In some cases the record company is also a publisher, but in this case it should provide TWO different contracts, like we do with my label. You get a royalty contract and a publishing contract that you have to sign.

Beware, they all promise you 50% royalty but in fact they keep your author rights behind your back, and have all publishing rights so when you get ripped off, they won't protect you in any single way.

In some cases, the record label owners have a separate company that has exactly the same occupation (master ownership AND publishing) and they sub-license your track to the other company in order to take 50% off your royalty PLUS your publishing rights.

So, you get f... in every single hole if you sign anything that's not clear.

So, to conclude:

1°) Ask the label to add a clause to the contract so that sub-licensing to a company with the same owners will have no effect on your royalty share.

2°) Get separate contracts for royalty AND publishing.

L.

___________________
Http://www.airwave-music.com is my new site. Djairwave.com is no more. A new era has begun

fuck i wish i hada new this shit before i signed mine

quote:

Originally posted by Lolo Record sales generate two types of earnings. Royalties and publishing rights. When a record company releases a record, a percentage of it shall be paid to the local author rights company, in the uk it's MCPS, in France it's Sacem, in the US it should be ASCAP. So a record release generates two types of contracts as well. Royalty contracts and publishing contracts. Because in that percentage, there's 50% minus a small fee that should go back to the artist/composer/author and same amount for the publisher. The publisher is a second company that handles administration of its artist's releases for author right companies. author rights MAY NOT be transferred to a record company and/or master owner inside a royalty contract. A record company should get the right to generate sales from the author but in no way the artist may transfer his/her author rights to a record company in the same contract. It means that you're losing your author rights, and that you are that way losing your OWNERSHIP of the music as well as the ownership of the master copy that you deliver. A record company provides a royatly contract. A publisher should provide publishing contracts in order to perceive publishing rights. In some cases the record company is also a publisher, but in this case it should provide TWO different contracts, like we do with my label. You get a royalty contract and a publishing contract that you have to sign. Beware, they all promise you 50% royalty but in fact they keep your author rights behind your back, and have all publishing rights so when you get ripped off, they won't protect you in any single way. In some cases, the record label owners have a separate company that has exactly the same occupation (master ownership AND publishing) and they sub-license your track to the other company in order to take 50% off your royalty PLUS your publishing rights. So, you get f... in every single hole if you sign anything that's not clear. So, to conclude: 1°) Ask the label to add a clause to the contract so that sub-licensing to a company with the same owners will have no effect on your royalty share. 2°) Get separate contracts for royalty AND publishing. L.

___________________
Official Site - www.sterilis.co.uk

Thanks for the reply Lolo. You should visit benebeats more often

___________________

Storyteller Website | Storyteller @ Facebook | Storyteller @ Beatport | Storyteller @ Soundcloud | Stephen J. Kroos - Europa (Storyteller Remix)
Anthony Mea - Get It On (Storyteller Remix)

quote:

If less is more think about how much more more would be. -Frasier

quote:

Originally posted by Lolo Record sales generate two types of earnings. Royalties and publishing rights. When a record company releases a record, a percentage of it shall be paid to the local author rights company, in the uk it's MCPS, in France it's Sacem, in the US it should be ASCAP. So a record release generates two types of contracts as well. Royalty contracts and publishing contracts. Because in that percentage, there's 50% minus a small fee that should go back to the artist/composer/author and same amount for the publisher. The publisher is a second company that handles administration of its artist's releases for author right companies. author rights MAY NOT be transferred to a record company and/or master owner inside a royalty contract. A record company should get the right to generate sales from the author but in no way the artist may transfer his/her author rights to a record company in the same contract. It means that you're losing your author rights, and that you are that way losing your OWNERSHIP of the music as well as the ownership of the master copy that you deliver. A record company provides a royatly contract. A publisher should provide publishing contracts in order to perceive publishing rights. In some cases the record company is also a publisher, but in this case it should provide TWO different contracts, like we do with my label. You get a royalty contract and a publishing contract that you have to sign. Beware, they all promise you 50% royalty but in fact they keep your author rights behind your back, and have all publishing rights so when you get ripped off, they won't protect you in any single way. In some cases, the record label owners have a separate company that has exactly the same occupation (master ownership AND publishing) and they sub-license your track to the other company in order to take 50% off your royalty PLUS your publishing rights. So, you get f... in every single hole if you sign anything that's not clear. So, to conclude: 1°) Ask the label to add a clause to the contract so that sub-licensing to a company with the same owners will have no effect on your royalty share. 2°) Get separate contracts for royalty AND publishing. L.

post of the year. someone sticky this or throw it in the production sticky

quote:

Originally posted by Lolo So, to conclude: 1�) Ask the label to add a clause to the contract so that sub-licensing to a company with the same owners will have no effect on your royalty share. 2�) Get separate contracts for royalty AND publishing. L.

I agree, but let's see if the label will go for that. I bet they won't. If you are going to start demanding clauses in the contract, you better get a music lawyer to write up those clauses. Don't let the label write up the clauses, they might get tricky and leave loopholes in the wording. I bet a lot of these small labels are not going to bother if you are going to give them a hassle. The larger labels are used to dealing with this kind of thing, I'm sure. If you are going to sign as an artist to a major label, I'd say yeah, get a lawyer and make sure you retain ownership of your music, thus your publishing rights will be retained. If you are signing single releases with a small label, where you'll probably only sell 40 copies of one track, don't sweat the details. It's not worth the hiring of a lawyer and worrying about all the BS.

As far as I understand it, the labels want ownership of your music in order to protect themselves from you shopping the same tracks to other labels. Right or wrong, I don't know, but it makes sense on some level. Also, if someone plagiarizes your songs, the label can go after them instead of you having to foot the legal bills. A lot of major publishing houses retain all rights to their artist's music, for this very reason.

Thank u very much for the useful info Lolo.

Thanks a lot for the reply. I don't think I'll bother asking about seperate contracts etc. on this one. As it was said..not worth the hassle. 2 extra pennies in my pocket ain't a big deal.

The only imoportant thing is that I'm not tied to THIS label when it comes to tracks in the future..right?

quote:

Originally posted by cm_producer Thanks a lot for the reply. I don't think I'll bother asking about seperate contracts etc. on this one. As it was said..not worth the hassle. 2 extra pennies in my pocket ain't a big deal. The only imoportant thing is that I'm not tied to THIS label when it comes to tracks in the future..right?

in fact it goes a lot further that that...

Find the label that suits your needs so you feel acomplishment every single time you release a track. Keep in touch with those ppl, be creative, and you'll find the right label, the right people to work with, and you'll feel much better.

I'm personally against label shopping with every single release, but it's just my opinion.

L.

___________________
Http://www.airwave-music.com is my new site. Djairwave.com is no more. A new era has begun

quote:

Originally posted by Lolo in fact it goes a lot further that that... Find the label that suits your needs so you feel acomplishment every single time you release a track. Keep in touch with those ppl, be creative, and you'll find the right label, the right people to work with, and you'll feel much better. I'm personally against label shopping with every single release, but it's just my opinion. L.

what labels do you recommend then?

___________________
Official Site - www.sterilis.co.uk