I've had interest in some tracks for a US music library and they've sent an agreement which looks pretty standard (I've got a number of tracks with other companies though none of the 'big' ones). They've also sent some guidelines including "Please have a publishing company (as opposed to being self-published) as it insures that you get paid for your publishing share of the music!'
I haven't got a publishing company and have never had to have one before - just wondered what you think?

Thanks

Tony

Quote ACEG:

---

I've had interest in some tracks for a US music library and they've sent an agreement which looks pretty standard (I've got a number of tracks with other companies though none of the 'big' ones). They've also sent some guidelines including "Please have a publishing company (as opposed to being self-published) as it insures that you get paid for your publishing share of the music!'
I haven't got a publishing company and have never had to have one before - just wondered what you think?

Thanks

Tony

---

I know a little bit about this Tony as a good friend of mine writes for libraries. From what I gather, normally the library IS the publisher. What you say sounds a bit strange but hey, I'm no expert.

Dave

--------------------
AwesomeMastering.com - Hearing IS believing!

There has been a recent thread about this. IIRC, it transpired that the 'library' in question was only concerned with the master sync side of things. That may explain their suggestion you have a publisher.

As I understand, in the US unallocated publisher shares do not automatically revert to the writer. That said, self publishing would solve this. The only other thing I can think of is that a US publisher would register the works stateside and thus ensure a greater likelihood of collection of performance royalties.

Thanks for the replies - I think some US companies seem to do more active placement of music than traditional libraries and maybe they work differently. I shall continue to ponder.

Tony

I'm in the U.S. and I think things work a little differently between here and the U.K. where this is concerned... PRS/MCPS work in a different way than ASCAP and BMI do, and I think you guys actually get paid a royalty for master recordings as well as publishing, but we don't. Libraries here require that you have a publishing entity set up, which here is easy to do: you simply register that publisher name with ASCAP or BMI as the entity that publishes you. So if you're John Smith, you can register John Smith Music, Applejack Music, whatever publisher name you want, and assign it to collect your publishing. Most libraries will take the publisher's share because they're retitling your cue, but they still need a publisher name for your actual registration of that cue with them, the library. Over here, BMI will allow you to tick a box during registration that says "I'm the writer and I don't have a publisher, so I collect 100% writer's share and 100% publisher's share" in lieu of naming a publishing entity. But for the sake of the cuesheet, it really is important to have a publishing entity set up: it ensures that any time your cue turns up somewhere, you will get both the writer's share and the publisher's share of performance royalties. If you're in this biz for the long-haul, definitely set up a publishing entity, which is basically just a name on paper that collects your publisher's share of performance royalties. Most importantly: if you have any questions about this stuff at all, and PRS is your society, ask them for specifics: it's the kind of thing that you want to get right before you get started, because once that ball starts rolling it's really hard to change that information or to add it to already-completed projects.

Kerry

Thanks Kerry - very useful information and something I'll need to look into as I've got other tracks with US libraries.

Tony