—————-
Hi Art,

Sorry for the delayed response. Just had a look at the thread. It’s a hot topic indeed. To clarify, fingerprinting cannot discern between the same master recording that is in 2 accounts with different metadata. If library “A” fingerprinted a master recording and provided metadata with the title “123″ and library “B” fingerprinted the same master recording and provided metadata with the title “456″ they would both receive the same detection data but library “A” would see it as “123″ and library “B” would see it as “456″.

I wish I had a better answer for you. This is where having both watermarking and fingerprinting would be ideal.

Best,

Chris
—————

As Ron and others have mentioned this is the current state of the technology. The Holy Grail will be when we have some form of watermarking and fingerprinting combined.

@Michael that’s hard for me to answer, because I’ve never been in that position. I’ve always gotten paid up front, or I own it.

I would be very very careful and do some research. What kinds of sync fees does the library command? Do they do low ball blankets or gratis licenses? If a library has 10,000 tracks and they do a blanket license for 10K, what’s your split $.50 (fifty cents)? If they do gratis licenses hoping for back end, what’s 50% of zero? Do your homework.

At the very least, you want to know those two things, before you sign your music away in perpetuity. If they won’t give you straight answers, walk. If you want to gamble give them a few years, with a revision.

So, to answer your question. If a library is getting top placements, and DOES NOT do gratis licenses, or low ball blankets, I might put some music there. Otherwise, you’re giving away the cow for a handful of beans. IMHO.

Cheers,

Michael

Would anyone really just give music exclusively to a library for nothing but their writers share in return? As Ron stated it’s pretty standard for the European exclusives to split the sync 50/50 with nothing up front, but not getting sync would be just insane.

Illusory: Deceptive or based on a false impression (Black’s Law Dictionary)

When you just give music to an exclusive library you are giving up something of value, your copyright, but you are not getting anything of value in return, except for a “promise” to publish your music. There’s complete disparity in the bargain between the parties. The notion that the composer is getting something in return is an illusion. Even if the composer eventually sees backend money, they have expended time and money in creating the work, and the library has risked little or nothing. Further, the library has an asset which it can sell, and the composer will likely receive nothing.

An exclusive deal with no money upfront or no sync fee split is crap, and you should run from it…fast. Under those terms, you are just financing some else’s company.

In contrast, Ron Mendelsohn’s deal is THE GOLD STANDARD of fairness when it come to exclusive deals. That’s why he get’s, and keeps, top writers like Donn Wilkerson

Cheers,

Michael

Is the “legal” definition of an illusory contract one where it was totally biased in favor of one party and offering no advantage to the other?

To clarify: not all contracts are illusory. Any exclusive deal where there is neither upfront money, nor a split of sync fees, is illusory, because you are giving the other party something for nothing.

The are exceptions, like when you place a track with an RF library exclusively AND you retain the publishing. In the scenario, you are splitting the sync fee and getting 100% of the writers and 100% of the publishing.

Cheers,

Michael

FWIW- I had some correspondence with Sonoton over the Summer. The offer was 50% of income, no upfront money and no reversion clause. I really like to see either upfront money or a reversion clause so I didn't submit any material.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond and I am glad your company pays upfront fees. In my view it shows a commitment and more importantly a reason for you (the library)to actively try and recoup and make money.

This my general view on signing any exclusive deal .. As MichaelL says any contract has to be illusory.
I appreciate the difference in the recording and library side of publishing and am learning all the time thanks to this site

We really don’t want to open up an old discussion on this, suffice to say my view is that exclusive doesn’t always equal good and RF/ retitile equal bad Or vice versa for that matter.

I think you would agree, that before signing any contract in this business you should be aware of what you are getting into.