|
label exclusivity
|
View this Thread in Original format
| meriter |
| 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 |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
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. |
|
|
| johncannons1 |
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? |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| 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. |
|
|
| meriter |
| 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 |
|
|
| meriter |
| 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. |
|
|
| Storyteller |
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 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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| tehlord |
| 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. |
|
|
| Storyteller |
| 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! |
|
|
| meriter |
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. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| 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, |
|
|
|
|
