Categories: Honors and Awards, Music Publishing, Tags: aimp, association of independent music publishers, Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, los angeles, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music business, music industry, music industry lawyer, music law, music lawyer, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, music publishers, music publishing, Super Lawyers, Top Women Attorney, top women attorneys, top women lawyers, top women music attorneys, top women music lawyers, women in music, women in music industry
Thanks to the Association of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP) for highlighting my recent recognition as a Rising Star and one of the Top Women Attorneys in Southern California by Super Lawyers.
The AIMP is a great organization supporting the interests of independent music publishers and I am proud to serve on the AIMP LA/National Board.
Categories: Articles, Legal Disputes, Legal Issues, Music Industry, Music Industry Interviews, Music Publishing, Royalties, Streaming, Tags: acquisitions, ascap, BMG, bmi, consent decrees, copyright, copyright royalty board, CRB, David Israelite, department of justice, doj, EMI, Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, forbes, Kobalt, mechanical rates, mechanical royalties, mechanicals, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music business, music catalogs, music catalogue sales, music catalogues, music industry, music industry lawyer, music law, music lawyer, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, music publisher, music publishers, music publishing, national music publisher's association, nmpa, performance rights, royalties, songs, spotify
By: Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.
This article was first posted on Forbes.com.
It’s been a year since I wrote about Music Industry Cases to Watch in 2017 and, unfortunately, not much has changed. Here’s an update on what’s happening in the music industry and what to keep an eye on for 2018.
The Department of Justice v. ASCAP and BMI
Background: I previously wrote about this issue here and here, and there hasn’t been much forward movement. To briefly recap, performance rights organizations ASCAP and BMI asked the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) — which oversees the consent decrees governing ASCAP and BMI — to reform the decrees based on today’s digital age. The DOJ responded by ignoring the music industry’s requests for reform and instead mandating a model of 100% licensing, which restricts a performance rights organization to license rights to perform a work only if the organization has the right to license 100% of that work. BMI appealed the decision and got an immediate verdict in BMI’s favor. The DOJ appealed and oral arguments on the case were just heard. (More info here as well.)
What You Might Expect: It could go either way.
How It Could Affect the Industry: If the DOJ wins, then the music industry might need to change its business model and overhaul all of its longstanding licensing practices. If ASCAP and BMI win, then the music industry will be able to proceed with doing business as it has been for decades and continue making efforts to improve the existing system.
Potential Reform of Royalty Rates by the Copyright Royalty Board
Background: As I previously explained here, the Copyright Royalty Board (“CRB”) held hearings to potentially update the mechanical royalty rates paid to songwriters and publishers for reproductions of compositions. The current mechanical royalty rates for physical products and digital downloads are 9.1¢ for compositions five minutes or less in length, and streaming rates are at fractions of a penny. The National Music Publisher’s Association argued for rate increases on behalf of songwriters and publishers, while digital service providers (like Google, Spotify, Pandora, Amazon and Apple) offered alternative rate structures that may lower rates overall. The CRB recently raised some rates for master recording owners, but the determination on mechanical royalties has not yet been revealed.
What You Might Expect: Hopefully this first determination for master owners will predict a raise in mechanical royalties as well. Whether mechanical royalties are raised still remains to be seen, but any increases that are granted would probably not be enough to remedy the music industry’s struggle with the value gap. David Israelite, President and CEO of the National Music Publisher’s Association (NMPA), graciously provided some exclusive quotes for this article, saying: “We are cautiously optimistic the CRB will return a rate structure that values appropriately the contribution of songwriters to digital music services. This is a very important decision as interactive streaming services become the dominant format for the enjoyment of music.”
How It Could Affect the Industry: If the CRB maintains or lowers the rates in favor of the digital service providers, the music industry would continue struggling with low rates of payment. If the CRB increases the rates, it would help the music industry’s cash flow issues, but probably still not support the music industry at the level it needs. Israelite also commented to us, “Regardless of the decision, the time has come for the government to get out of the business of setting rates for songwriters and to let the free market determine the value of songs.”
Many Lawsuits Against Spotify
Background: Spotify is an interactive streaming service required to pay both mechanical and performance royalties. As detailed here, Spotify has already agreed to several settlements for failure to properly pay mechanical royalties and has been sued several times for the same reason, with those cases still pending. Spotify made the argument that it shouldn’t have to pay mechanical royalties, despite previously admitting that it needed to do so.
What You Might Expect: Spotify’s argument is flawed in many ways, but their $16 billion valuation may hold some clout, or at least the funds to continue pushing their position. The music industry hopes to quash their arguments, but acknowledges that the lawsuits are just Band-Aids, and is striving to implement a more efficient system.
How It Could Affect the Industry: A legal decision set in Spotify’s favor could mean massive losses of income to songwriters, music publishers, and the music industry as a whole. Hopefully, the streaming giant and the music industry will find a way to work together for their mutual benefit.
Many Music Catalogues Being Sold
Background: It’s old news for music industry folks that a large number of record labels are owned by just a few major corporations. However, acquisitions of composition catalogues are now hitting the spotlight after traditionally not garnering much attention. The catalogue purchase and sale market is booming, and those of us in this space (like me) are regularly looking at either buying or selling catalogues, depending on who we are representing. Many music publishing companies are also raising a lot of money from outside investors in order to gobble up other substantial catalogues. There are even rumors of music publishing giant EMI for sale at a $3 billion valuation.
What You Might Expect: There will be a lot more of these deals happening in 2018.
What It Means for the Industry: The majors will continue to buy the indies, and the larger indies will buy competitors and smaller companies. The music publishing world might get smaller, but there will always be more copyrights to go around. The downside is that the investors coming in with the funds are usually not in the music industry, meaning that the music publishing industry may now have to answer to venture capitalists, which has been a problem for years with major record labels. The good news is that these non-industry investors will need current industry experts to manage the catalogues they have purchased, continuing jobs and revenue flows throughout the industry.
*This article does not constitute legal advice.
Special thanks to David Israelite, President and CEO of the National Music Publisher’s Association (NMPA) for graciously providing quotes exclusive to this article.
Erin M. Jacobson is a music attorney whose clients include Grammy and Emmy Award winners, legacy clients and catalogs, songwriters, music publishers, record labels, and independent artists and companies. She is based in Los Angeles where she handles a wide variety of music agreements and negotiations, in addition to owning and overseeing all operations for Indie Artist Resource, the independent musician’s resource for legal and business protection. Ms. Jacobson also serves on the boards of the California Copyright Conference (CCC) and Association of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP).
Categories: Music Contracts, Music Industry, Music Libraries, Speaking, Tags: attorney, composer, contract, copyright, Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, find a music attorney, lawyer, los angeles, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music business, music industry, music industry lawyer, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, music libraries, music library, music library contracts, music library deals, music licensing, music publishing, road rally, songwriter, speaking, sync, synch, synchronization, taxi
I will be speaking at the 2017 Taxi Road Rally, November 3-4, 2017!
Here is my schedule:
Friday, November 3, 2017 from 2:45-4:15 pm / La Guardia Room (Mezzanine Level / 2nd Floor)
Don’t Get Screwed! How to Protect Yourself as an Independent Musician with Erin M. Jacobson, Esq. An explanation of the most common types of ways independent musicians and songwriters get screwed and how to protect yourself before it happens. This class will include real examples from artist’s careers, as well as a discussion on what contracts are necessary to prevent these scenarios, along with an opportunity for Q&A with music attorney Erin Jacobson.
(I will also participate in the mentor lunch on Friday.)
Saturday, November 4, 2017 from 4:30-6:00 pm / La Guardia Room (Mezzanine Level / 2nd Floor)
Understanding Music Library Agreements with Erin M. Jacobson, Esq. Music attorney, Erin M. Jacobson will talk about the types of deals offered and explain what contract terminology and certain clauses mean. You may bring printouts of particular clauses that have you stumped and Ms. Jacobson will read them and explain what they mean! This class could save you a world of hurt down the road. It’s a Do-Not-Miss session if you’re pitching to music libraries!
Looking forward to seeing you there!
Categories: Articles, Copyright, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Royalties, Streaming, Tags: black keys, bluewater, bob gaudio, copyright, Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, how much does spotify pay, lawyer, los angeles, lowery, mechanical royalties, mechanicals, music, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music business, music industry, music industry lawyer, music law, music lawyer, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, music publishers, music publishing, national music publisher's association, nmpa, performance, performance rights, rage against the machine, royalties, songwriter, spotify, spotify class actions, streaming, tom petty, weezer
By: Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.
This article was first published on Forbes.com.
Spotify has waged a war with the music industry. The streaming company has a history of not paying mechanical royalties to songwriters and music publishers, and has already settled two separate class action lawsuits for failure to pay mechanical royalties – the first brought on behalf of music publishers by the National Music Publisher’s Association (NMPA) and the second, known as the Lowery/Ferrick case, brought by independent songwriters. Now, a host of top songwriters, including Tom Petty and members of Rage Against the Machine, Weezer, The Black Keys, and more, have come forward urging the court not to approve the terms of the Lowery/Ferrick case. These songwriters oppose the settlement amount in the Lowery/Ferrick case because when the costs are broken down, Spotify’s liability for not paying mechanical royalties would be to pay a mere $3.82 per infringed composition. The maximum liability under the law for copyright infringement is $150,000 per infringed composition. Quite the difference.
As I previously reported, Spotify was also hit with two independent lawsuits – again for failure to pay mechanical royalties — brought by songwriter/publisher Bob Gaudio and music administrator Bluewater Services Corporation. Even more recently, seven other music publishers have sued Spotify for the same violation.
The Gaudio/Bluewater suits accused Spotify’s practices being reminiscent of Napster, which caused Spotify to fire back with the outrageous claim that Spotify should not have to pay mechanical royalties to songwriters and music publishers at all. More realistically, Spotify has argued that copyright law does not define streaming and places the burden on the plaintiffs to show that Spotify is creating a “reproduction” and therefore required to pay mechanical royalties.
As I explained in my last article, streaming requires several licenses – sound recording licenses from the record labels; performance licenses for the compositions from performance rights organizations such as ASCAP and BMI; and mechanical licenses for the reproduction of the compositions. Spotify now argues that it is akin to other streaming services like Pandora, who only have to pay performance royalties. However, Spotify’s argument is flawed for several reasons.
While Spotify’s argument that a stream does not require a mechanical license was recently rejected in court, Spotify can still continue asserting that argument going forward. If a legal decision in Spotify’s favor set a precedent on this issue, it could mean massive losses of income to songwriters, music publishers, and the music industry as a whole. While there are several theories as to why Spotify has taken this approach, the simplest answer seems the most obvious – Spotify doesn’t want to pay. The scariest part of this whole situation is that with Spotify’s massive amount of funds, it has the power to continue litigating this issue with efforts to change the laws and practices of the industry to conform to its unwillingness to pay for the music it uses. It is unacceptable that Spotify has built its entire business on the usage of music content, but yet continually tries to get out of paying for the very content that sustains its customer base. Without music, there is no Spotify and it’s time Spotify stopped making excuses and started to value the music that built its business.
*This article does not constitute legal advice.
Erin M. Jacobson is a music attorney whose clients include Grammy and Emmy Award winners, legacy clients and catalogs, songwriters, music publishers, record labels, and independent artists and companies. She is based in Los Angeles where she handles a wide variety of music agreements and negotiations, in addition to owning and overseeing all operations for Indie Artist Resource, the independent musician’s resource for legal and business protection. Ms. Jacobson also serves on the boards of the California Copyright Conference (CCC) and Association of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP).
Categories: Articles, Copyright, Film, Music Contracts, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Performance, Royalties, Tags: ascap, bmi, copyright, direct performance, Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, film, find a music attorney, internet, lawyer, los angeles, music, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music business, music industry, music industry lawyer, music law, music lawyer, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, music publishers, music publishing, netflix, performance, performance rights, placement, royalties, streaming, sync, synch, synchronization, tv, YouTube
By: Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.
A synchronization license is a license to use a composition in an audiovisual production. (A master use license is a synchronization license for the master recording.) A placement can be quite lucrative, but it’s important to understand how your music is being used. Here’s a basic overview of the main points in a synchronization license:
The licensor is the person who owns the music and giving permission for it to be used in the audiovisual project. The music publisher owns the composition and the record label owns the master recording. Independent musicians might own both.
The licensor’s information will also include the licensor’s ownership share of the composition or master that is the subject of the license. Also, the writers of the composition and their performance rights organization information will be listed.
This is the person receiving the permission to use the music in the audiovisual project. This is usually a production company, studio, or network.
Timing is how much of the song will be used in the audiovisual project; for example, it could be thirty seconds or an entire song.
This is basically how the music will be used. There are many different terms thrown around to designate the type of use, but without using a bunch of industry-specific terms, examples would be playing in the background, with or without people talking over it; a live performance; played on a radio; an opening or closing theme; or in the credits.
The territory covers where in the world can the music be used within the audiovisual project. This might be worldwide, for a specific country, or even a local area.
The term is for how long can the music be used within the audiovisual project. This might be in perpetuity or only for a specific length of time.
This is a big talking point because it includes the types of media in which the music can be used as part of the audiovisual project. This can include TV (and what types of channels), theatrical (movie theatres), film festivals, the Internet, all of these, or only some of these. The rights section also includes language about whether the music can only be used in the specific project itself, or also whether it can be included in promotions for the projects and if so, what types of promotions.
Everyone’s favorite topic, i.e. the fee you are getting paid for the use of your music! This is going to be a negotiated fee based on the type of use, popularity of the song, and other factors.
Direct performance rights are not present in every sync license, but are being seen more frequently. Basically, some licensees want to pay a buy-out fee of your performance royalties in an effort to move away from paying blanket license fees to the performance rights organizations (who would normally collect your performance royalties and pay those to you). One problem with this is that the licensees still have their blanket licenses with the performance rights organizations, so a buyout of performance royalties would leave you out of any income generated from performances over the amount of the buyout.
This is for your attorney to handle!
One should always have an experienced attorney look over any license you receive. Contact me if you have a license you need reviewed.
Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. The content contained in this article is not legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific matter or matters. This article does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between Erin M. Jacobson, Esq. and you or any other user. The law may vary based on the facts or particular circumstances or the law in your state. You should not rely on, act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking the professional counsel of an attorney licensed in your state.
Advertisement.
Categories: Articles, Business, Infringement, Legal Disputes, Legal Issues, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Royalties, Streaming, Tags: bluewater, Blurred Lines, bob gaudio, can't take my eyes off of you, copyright infringement, Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, erin m. jacobson esq., forbes, four seasons, frankie valli, gaudio, infringement, lowery, Marvin Gaye, mechanical, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music industry lawyer, music law, music lawyer, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, music publishing, nmpa, notice of intent, richard busch, royalties, sherry, spotify
By: Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.
This article was previously published on Forbes.com.
When you stream music on Spotify, are you aware that as you are enjoying your favorite song, Spotify might not be paying the person who wrote that song?
Spotify has been sued for upwards of $345 million by Bob Gaudio and Bluewater Music Services Corporation for failure to pay mechanical licenses when their compositions are streamed on Spotify. Gaudio, a former member of Frankie Valli and The Four Seasons, wrote and publishes some of the group’s biggest hits including “Sherry,” “Big Girls Don’t Cry,” and “Walk Like a Man,” as well as Valli’s solo hit “Can’t Take My Eyes Off of You.” Bluewater administers the publishing for compositions like Player’s “Baby Come Back,” Miranda Lambert’s “White Liar,” and Guns ‘N Roses’ “Yesterdays.”
Streaming requires several licenses –sound recording licenses from the record labels; performance licenses for the compositions from performance rights organizations such as ASCAP and BMI; and mechanical licenses for the reproduction of the compositions. While Spotify has deals with the major labels, and blanket licenses with ASCAP and BMI, Spotify has not complied with the requirements for mechanical licenses and payments for all compositions streamed on its platform. Obtaining a mechanical license in the United States is compulsory, meaning that a person or company wishing to reproduce a composition must follow the guidelines in Section 115 of the United States Copyright Act to serve a “Notice of Intent” on the copyright owner and pay said owner the compulsory license fee. Spotify has followed this procedure for compositions affiliated with the Harry Fox Agency (the closest body the United States has to a mechanical rights society), but there are many compositions not affiliated with the Harry Fox Agency that Spotify would need to contact and pay directly – and Spotify largely has not done so.
This is not the first time Spotify has come under fire for its inadequate licensing practices. In 2016, Spotify reached a $30 million dollar settlement with the National Music Publisher’s Association (NMPA) for unpaid mechanical royalties, and Spotify just settled another class action suit for $43.4 million dollars. While maximum statutory damages rates are $150,000 per infringed composition, Bluewater claims that Spotify will only have to pay songwriters $4 per infringed composition after litigation fees are paid. Per the previous settlements, Spotify must also implement a better system to properly track and pay mechanical royalties, and Bluewater asserts this has not yet happened.
The attorney for both Gaudio and Bluewater is Richard S. Busch, most recently in the news for his representation of Marvin Gaye’s estate in the “Blurred Lines” case. Echoing my previous sentiments, a press release citing Busch’s complaint sums up the issue in a single sentence: “Songwriters and publishers should not have to work this hard to get paid or have their life’s work properly licensed, and companies should not be allowed to build businesses—much less billion-dollar businesses—on the concept of ‘infringe now and ask questions later.’”
*This article does not constitute legal advice.
Erin M. Jacobson is a music attorney whose clients include Grammy and Emmy Award winners, legacy clients and catalogs, songwriters, music publishers, record labels, and independent artists and companies. She is based in Los Angeles where she handles a wide variety of music agreements and negotiations, in addition to owning and overseeing all operations for Indie Artist Resource, the independent musician’s resource for legal and business protection. Ms. Jacobson also serves on the boards of the California Copyright Conference (CCC) and Association of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP).
Categories: Articles, Copyright, Music Contracts, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Royalties, Tags: buy, catalog, catalogue, copyright, copyrights, Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, find a music attorney, heir, heirs, inherit, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music business, music catalogue, music catalogue rights, music catalogue valuation, music catalogue value, music heir, music industry, music industry lawyer, music law, music lawyer, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, music publishers, music publishing, recapture, royalties, sell, song catalogue, songwriter, termination
By: Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.
I see many spouses or children that inherit a song catalogue from a songwriter relative, and are not familiar with the music business or how to administer intellectual property rights of music.
Here is the first thing to do: Hire a music attorney experienced with managing catalogues and music publishing.
When I work with heirs on how to manage a catalogue they’ve inherited:
Selling the catalogue is a personal decision, it depends on whether one would rather receive royalty checks or instead receive a lump sum upfront in exchange for the catalogue. This depends the circumstances of each individual situation, both from a financial standpoint and whether the heir wants to have a continuing relationship to the catalogue.
Inherited catalogues are special for family legacy reasons, but also because they come with their own set of decisions. Many heirs have not had previous experience with the music publishing business, and either miss important milestones that would put the catalogue in a better position, or they rely on existing deals with companies that are no longer looking out for the best interests of the catalogue. Banks and other trustees often complicate matters, as well as representatives not experienced in music publishing and copyright management. Many of these personnel only look at the numbers. I personally love older music and understand the sentimental value of a catalogue beyond the income it brings in each year, as well as whether and how it can be profitable in today’s market.
Again, the first step in dealing with a catalogue you have inherited is hiring a music attorney experienced with music catalogues and who can make the right plan for your catalogue.
Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. The content contained in this article is not legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific matter or matters. This article does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between Erin M. Jacobson, Esq. and you or any other user. The law may vary based on the facts or particular circumstances or the law in your state. You should not rely on, act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking the professional counsel of an attorney licensed in your state.
Advertisement.
Categories: Copyright, Legal Issues, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Royalties, Videos, Tags: copyright, copyright royalty board, CRB, Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, find a music attorney, mechanical, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music business, music industry, music industry lawyer, music law, music lawyer, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, music publishers, music publishing, nmpa, royalties, songwriter
Read the article here.
Categories: Articles, Business, Music Contracts, Music Industry, Tags: ads, advertisement, attorney, beverly hills, brand, brand partnership, branding, commercials, concert, Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, find a music attorney, hashtag, influencer, influencing, instagram, internet, lady gaga, lawyer, music, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music business, music industry, music industry lawyer, music law, music lawyer, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, music management, music publishing, placement, rights' holders, rights' owners, royalties, social media, soundtrack, sync, synch, synchronization, the music industry lawyer, YouTube
By: Erin M. Jacobson, Esq.
Today’s music industry is no longer about income from sales. Artists, writers, and the companies that represent them need to find innovative ways to generate additional income streams. In addition to sales, many on the music side have discovered the value of getting synchronization (sync) placements in TV and film. However, this discovery has led to the sync market being oversaturated, and in many cases, reduced fees for sync placements.
Another avenue for artists and rights’ owners involves the branding and influencing space. Sponsorships and endorsements, as well as social media influencing, have become different strategies brands can use to market their products via influence from traditional celebrities or “ordinary” people with a substantial online following. Celebrity endorsements tend to focus on the celebrity status boosting the brand or using the celebrity’s image to make the brand relevant to a target demographic. However, the celebrity’s career does not have to have anything to do with the type of product(s) they are endorsing. Influencers are more specialized—they will promote products within certain circles and related to their expertise. For example, a fashion blogger and influencer would promote fashion-related products.
Consumers today want transparency in advertising and recommendations to come from personalities they trust. However, much of the advertising they see appears more transparent than it really is. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued guidelines for social media and other advertising. In endorsement deals I have done for my clients, there are often provisions stipulating that social media posts promoting the brand are accompanied by certain hashtags to clarify that there is an agreement between the brand and the artist to promote that brand. However, as these guidelines are just that, they don’t seem to be heavily enforced and a lot of product promotions are posted without such notification leading the consumer to believe the recommendations are organic and without any connection to or financial backing from the company.
In addition to transparency in advertising, consumers and fans want personal connections to personalities they admire. They want to share in the commonalities, hobbies, and lifestyle as it makes them feel emotionally closer to the personality and feel like they are able to live a similar lifestyle to the personality. Lifestyle brands often stem from a specific image and way of life stemming from a certain individual and material they are creating, but as society moves toward touching the inner need of individuals to express themselves, artists like Lady Gaga are combining the traditional model of selling the lifestyle of the celebrity and using the celebrity’s values to promote the fan’s expression of individuality.
While artists can tap into commonalities in the lifestyles of fans, doing so for rights’ holders like music publishers and record labels is slightly more difficult. Rights’ holders can seek these opportunities for their artists or writers to involve them as the “face” of a campaign, but in the case of a writer, this plan doesn’t work if the writer is not also a performer. However, in these situations, rights’ holders can seek to use the music as the “soundtrack” of a particular brand by using the sound, feel, and what the music represents to showcase a brand or lifestyle that appeals to consumers. This can be a symbiotic relationship where a more established brand can help break or boost a newer musical talent, but also where more established music can help to break or boost an up-and-coming brand. In most cases, sync rights will be involved in these campaigns, but the relationship can be extended for more than just a single placement. Taking it a step further, having the music or artists involved in events, stores, and activities in which the demographic participates and then having product to monetize at these venues can help to bring the campaign full circle. Both artists and companies like labels may be able to leverage online influencers by having them attend and post about the artist’s concerts or other events.
Opportunities on the Internet continue to expand, as social media now incorporates music and short videos and audio clips in addition to photographs. While some of the monetization of the use of the music in these posts can be questionable, short clips of audio and video can be the gateway to monetizing other avenues with more substantial revenue like concert tickets, merchandise, sales, and other participation that leads to larger opportunities.
In summation, today’s means of reaching consumers extends beyond traditional demographic analyses. Today’s marketing and ancillary income relies on finding ways to emotionally connect artists and music with consumers in an authentic way and enabling consumers to feel like they are able to express themselves and their ideal lifestyle through their association with the artists and music they consume.
Click here to contact Erin to review and negotiate one of these agreements on your behalf, or counsel you on your specific situation.
Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. The content contained in this article is not legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific matter or matters. This article does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between Erin M. Jacobson, Esq. and you or any other user. The law may vary based on the facts or particular circumstances or the law in your state. You should not rely on, act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking the professional counsel of an attorney licensed in your state.
Advertisement.
Categories: Articles, Music Contracts, Music Industry, Music Publishing, Royalties, Videos, Tags: administration, artist, contract, copublishing, Erin Jacobson, erin m. jacobson, find a music attorney, lawyer, legal, library, licensing, music, music attorney, music attorney la, music attorney los angeles, music business, music industry, music industry lawyer, music law, music lawyer, music lawyer la, music lawyer los angeles, music publishing, original music, pitching, placement, profit music, protect music, royalties, songwriter, start your own music publishing company, sync, synch, synchronization, writer
All music starts with a composition, which is one of the reasons why I love the area of music publishing. Despite the low streaming rates, there is still a lot of activity and money to be made on the publishing side of music. Whether you are a writer signing with a music publisher, or you self-publish your own music, here are the some typical music publishing contracts:
A Songwriter Agreement usually involves a writer transferring 100% of the copyrights to the song(s) in your catalogue and/or written during the term to a music publisher and a 50/50 income split between the publisher and the writer. While these were some of the most common agreements 60 years ago and are still used today, they aren’t entered into as often because many writers value owning their content more in today’s music market.
A Co-Publishing Agreement is very common today and involves a writer transferring 50% of the copyrights to the song(s) to the music publishers and an income split of 75/25 where 75% goes to the writer and 25% goes to the publisher.
An Administration Agreement is also very popular today and involves no copyright transfer—the publisher administers (handles licenses, tracks royalties, etc.) without owning copyright. This agreement includes a 90/10 income split where 90% goes to the writer and 10% goes to the publisher as a fee for doing the administration.
A Songwriter Split Agreement is something that always needs to be completed when co-writing songs with others. It is essential to minimize disputes between co-writers, but is also usually required by publishing companies, whether you are your own publisher, administer for co-writers or other unrelated writers, or are signed as a writer to a music publishing company. A Songwriter Split Agreement can be custom drafted, or one can use a template from Indie Artist Resource.
Many “placement houses” or “pitching companies” that have traditionally just focused on pitching music for placement in TV and film are now getting into the publishing game. The copyright transfer and income splits tend to vary on these deals, and I have seen a lot of them called “Co-Publishing Agreements” that really do not follow the traditional co-publishing model. These can get tricky because of term variations as well as retitling and other practices.
Music publishing is one of the most complicated areas of the music business and as you may have gleaned from this article, the associated agreements and principles can get extremely complicated. Any artists/writers should have an experienced music attorney draft their music publishing agreements agreements for them if they are administering their own publishing or publishing for others. An experienced music attorney is also invaluable to review and negotiate any publishing agreements or licenses presented writers, as an experienced music attorney knows what the terms and custom and practice should be, as well as has the training to catch problems or unfair clauses that writers may miss.
I regularly draft, review, and negotiate all of these types of agreements, so please don’t hesitate to contact me if I can handle one or more of these agreements on your behalf.
If you are interested in starting your own music publishing company and administering your own publishing or publishing for other writers, download Erin’s video on Protecting and Profiting from Your Original Music where she explains:
Click here to download the video now.
Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. The content contained in this article is not legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific matter or matters. This article does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between Erin M. Jacobson, Esq. and you or any other user. The law may vary based on the facts or particular circumstances or the law in your state. You should not rely on, act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking the professional counsel of an attorney licensed in your state.
Advertisement.
