thanks for the quick response rann.

I'll let you know how it goes.

Apologies in advance if this gets waffley but its late and im not working tonite (that strange period between xmas and NYE) so fuck it, ive written lots. This is all me btw- not some cut and paste.


You need to do some reading and get some advice on what right you have as the song writer and performer.

-You as the writer have publishing/writing rights to assign to whoever you choose.

-You also as the performer in this case, you have the right to assign the rights to reproduce and distribute this particular recording ("performance") to a label. There is a HUGE difference between 'work for hire' vs the label purchasing a copyright.

Mechanical royalties apply to the recording.
Performing royalties apply to the writing (publishing).
The two sets of rights (which at the moment you and you alone control- they are part of what is known as the 'restricted acts') are different and seperate.

I will give a hypothetical example...:
You sign the contract as is.
The label then owns the recording, the track and the publishing (writing). Period. In effect, as it was a 'work for hire' you never owned it in the first place! Yes really...
20 yrs down the line..someone does a cover version of your song. This cover version is huge, sells a million copies, and gets played on every single daytime radio station once an hour for several years- its massive.
Your contract says:
"5. The Label will not be required to make any payments of any nature for, or inconnection with, the exploitation of the Track other than the
Compensation" (compensation being listed as 1) 50% of record sales net revenue and ringtone licensing net revenue and 2)50% of all other net licensing proceeds, should a 3rd party licensing
agreement arise with regard to the Track.).

Now, as you signed over the publishing rights to them, the label can then negotiate and keep any and all songwriting royalties earnt from this new cover version which is selling millions. It is theirs to do with as they wish.

Scary huh?


Now, if you had kept the publishing, or assigned it to a specialist music publisher , you would get a chunk of change (negotiable of course) as the writer.

In these days of sampling, endless cover versions and recycling of things many years down the line, and things like video games coompanies putting source music in their games I would be VERY cautious over what you sign.

quote:

label response: [quote: Publishing rights are traditionally assigned to the label to prevent the re-publishing of the material on other labels. Not that you would ever do this, but without this clause the artist would have the ability to essentially sign the track over to another competing label. It's a standard clause, especially in the world of digital labels in which the Territory is the whole World.

Without that clause, you still would not be able to release the recording (the "performance") you submitted to them on another label as they own the rights to that recording/performance.

The contract also says nothing about airplay/club/shop play royalties which if the label is registered with the PPL they will get as they own the publishing rights.

I hope that makes some more sense to you. Like I said, try and get some professional advice.

I know it may seem like paranoia or too in depth for a small track release, but believe me, the record business is full of people just lining up to suck every cent they can from you and bend you over and fuck you up the ass.
Never ever sign anything over without having a clear idea- or someone you trust having a clear idea- of EXACTLY which of your rights you are signing over.

Just be careful is all... and congrats!

wow alot of info here.

thanks for this mate.

Im not really sure how I should approach this, as the label is saying
they need the clause and you have just told me this is incorrect.

Could I write back and say "Without that clause, I still would not be able to release the recording (the "performance") I submitted to your label, on another label as you [the label] own the rights to that recording/performance". ??

as far as proffessional advice, I do not have a cent at the moment, and the label is pushing for the contract to be finalised within a few days. [ I wont be signing in a hurry though ].

Well, people have already given you a lot of advice here, but heres my two cents for all they're worth...

There are two parts to making money from a signed track usually, theres the amount of money you'll be given by the label straight up, and the amount of royalties that you'll recieve from the sales.

If you're signing the track over to the label (which you are) for any period (or forever), you can expect to recieve compensation direct from the label. This might be hundreds, or thousands or hundreds of thousands, but its the label paying you for giving them the rights to the track. The rights may still revert to you after 5 years or more, in which case its like the label is paying to rent the track off you and sell it.

Seperate to this is the royalties you might recieve on the track, which in your case is 50%. This all appears to be in order in your contract.

The things I would be concerned about are
1/ your not being payed upfont from what I can see. You should be payed if your signing the track over to them, and not simply using them as a distribution mechanism.

2/ your signing it over permanently. There should be a clause which makes the rights revert back to you.

3/ you don't have ANY control over the presentation of the track.... They can even change your liner notes here, I wouldn't like that but maybe your not fussed.

I suspect they're stuffing you around a bit with the rights, they don't need to have the rights, you can give them an exclusive (thats what they want) license to distribute the track for 5 (or whatever) years, with 50% of the royalties going to them....

Hope this makes sense; I haven't actually had any personal experience, but I have read up on this sort of stuff and I think this is all right. This is only for one track, so maybe its not AS important, but I strongly recommend you go see a lawyer anyway.

___________________
New Mix: March 2010 Promo
Soundcloud|Facebook

thanks rann, freak, kit.

waiting for labels response.

I am with the other gents on this but have my own perspective too.

You are basically signing away your music. I'll be frank, they are offering you pretty much nothing in return for your track.

They want publishing too! That is not good.
You need to get a very clear idea of what they are willing to do for you.

The thing that bugs me the most is that they can't even be bothered to check the content of their own contract as the grammar is heinous in some places and should not be present in a legal document.

If this is a purely digital label I would say don't bother. If you have the potential to press CDs or even vinyl make sure you negotiate the contract.
Check and see if this label has released on other formats other than just digital.

Sadly you see too many bright young talents sign away their music because they have been overwhelmed by the thought of being signed to a label. Take the time to speak to a legal professional. Although you have been very lucky with some of the responses here as there is plenty of good information do not be foolish and rely totally on the members of an internet community. Seek the advice of a professional. See if there are some points that you can negotiate. Sure it might make the deal go sour but if it's a sour deal already what have you lost?

Find out what sort of promotion they are going to give you. If they are not prepared to do that then you are better off starting up your own label.

Cheers
Nem

___________________
https://www.mixcloud.com/Calvin_Karass/

Legal professionals are expensive and cost money right? Is it even worth it even if it's a small digital label?

Legal professionals are expensive and cost money right? Is it even worth it even if it's a small digital label?

If this is a small digital label I would honestly tell them to get stuffed for giving me a contract like that.

Cheers
Nem

___________________
https://www.mixcloud.com/Calvin_Karass/

quote:

Originally posted by Freak Apologies in advance if this gets waffley but its late and im not working tonite (that strange period between xmas and NYE) so fuck it, ive written lots. This is all me btw- not some cut and paste. You need to do some reading and get some advice on what right you have as the song writer and performer. -You as the writer have publishing/writing rights to assign to whoever you choose. -You also as the performer in this case, you have the right to assign the rights to reproduce and distribute this particular recording ("performance") to a label. There is a HUGE difference between 'work for hire' vs the label purchasing a copyright. Mechanical royalties apply to the recording. Performing royalties apply to the writing (publishing). The two sets of rights (which at the moment you and you alone control- they are part of what is known as the 'restricted acts') are different and seperate. I will give a hypothetical example...: You sign the contract as is. The label then owns the recording, the track and the publishing (writing). Period. In effect, as it was a 'work for hire' you never owned it in the first place! Yes really... 20 yrs down the line..someone does a cover version of your song. This cover version is huge, sells a million copies, and gets played on every single daytime radio station once an hour for several years- its massive. Your contract says: "5. The Label will not be required to make any payments of any nature for, or inconnection with, the exploitation of the Track other than the Compensation" (compensation being listed as 1) 50% of record sales net revenue and ringtone licensing net revenue and 2)50% of all other net licensing proceeds, should a 3rd party licensing agreement arise with regard to the Track.). Now, as you signed over the publishing rights to them, the label can then negotiate and keep any and all songwriting royalties earnt from this new cover version which is selling millions. It is theirs to do with as they wish. Scary huh? Now, if you had kept the publishing, or assigned it to a specialist music publisher , you would get a chunk of change (negotiable of course) as the writer. In these days of sampling, endless cover versions and recycling of things many years down the line, and things like video games coompanies putting source music in their games I would be VERY cautious over what you sign. [/b] Without that clause, you still would not be able to release the recording (the "performance") you submitted to them on another label as they own the rights to that recording/performance. The contract also says nothing about airplay/club/shop play royalties which if the label is registered with the PPL they will get as they own the publishing rights. I hope that makes some more sense to you. Like I said, try and get some professional advice. I know it may seem like paranoia or too in depth for a small track release, but believe me, the record business is full of people just lining up to suck every cent they can from you and bend you over and fuck you up the ass. Never ever sign anything over without having a clear idea- or someone you trust having a clear idea- of EXACTLY which of your rights you are signing over. Just be careful is all... and congrats!

Great post Freak! (Also, same to kit, and nem (as usual!))

I really think there needs to be a sticky about this. I suppose a tutorial wouldn't quite fit, but at least a thread about what to go for and what to avoid, including a glossary of terms involved with contracts.

Very good post - thanks all, maybe make this sticky???

___________________
Kuroi
@ web/Kuroi Music
@ myspace/Kuroi Music

promo track: Mirco de Govia - Voller Sterne (Kuroi Remix)