[Fmpro] Getty Images Launches Music Licensing Service

[Mark Northam]

On 10/3/07 12:34 PM, "kirbyko3 at aol.com" <kirbyko3 at aol.com> wrote:

> Excellent questions!? I'll tell you what I know based on my agreement with
> them, which is just the standard Pump artist agreement.
> 
> 
> 1. What does (did) Pump Audio "own"? Do they own copyright to the music in
> their library? If so, is it a derivative copyright?
> *** No, their agreement is a non-exclusive licensing arrangement with the
> writers and master owners. They act as
> agent for your work that's in their catalog. They keep 50% of the licensing
> fee and 50% of the publishing PRO income.
> You keep 50% of the PRO income and 100% of the writer's share of PRO. No
> different from some of the other music
> libraries out there, and certainly a much better deal than some of them, which
> want to make you sign a work-for-hire
> agreement with no upfront money, where they own everything outright but will
> give you 50% of the licensing fee if they
> should get it placed. In the meantime, you're dead in the water and can't
> exploit the work.

Don't get me wrong - PA sounds like a good deal, but one work looking
closely at like any deal.

This sounds like the "derivative copyright model" where they rename the cue
and get 50% of the publisher's performance royalties from any placements
they make - they would probably have to rename the cue in order to avoid
confusion at the PROs among different cue sheets. But the question still
stands: what does PA exactly own?

* Only a license?

* Any copyright interest in the newly titled derivative work? If so, how
long does that copyright interest last, especially if the work is pulled
from the PA library?

* If the placement keeps on earning publishing royalties for years, does PA
keep 50% of those even if the work has been subsequently pulled from the PA
library? That's a lifetime of annuities from a single placement
potentially...

 
> 4. Do PA composers with catalog get to see all actual amounts paid by
> customers who license musical works?  *** I suppose you could ask, but most
> broadcasters who use them have a per-show
> blanket agreement. Let's say they get $2000 for a 1-hour documentary. They
> keep 10% off the top as a music supervision fee
> (I know, I know) and the remaining amount is split in half. They take half,
> and the remaining half is split up among all the cues
> in that show.  A lot of cues used = you don't make much at all. A handful of
> cues used = you get more $$.
> 
> Compared to other production music libraries, it's a great deal for an artist
> or composer.

Yes, but it's the classic "trust me with no way to verify the numbers" music
library problem. You get a number on your statement with no way to
independently verify it back to the payor, the music user.  Imagine if your
agent called you up one day and said, "Hey - you got a gig! I won't show you
the contract I have with the production company, and I'm having them pay me
and I'll pay you,  but I can tell you, and you'll have to trust me with no
way to verify it, that the gig pays ]fill in the blank] dollars"

I don't know any composer who would react positively to their agent not
disclosing the actual amount of the sale, especially if the agent is paid
and the agent then pays the composer directly. Yet with almost every music
library, this is the scenario composers are faced with on a "take it or
leave it" basis.

PA sounds like a relatively good deal, but even with PA, composers are
utterly in the dark about the financial side of the deals PA is making with
music users, it would seem. Any other PA users have more info on this?

I'm reminded of the slogan, "Trust, but verify." Of course, impossible with
the PROs by design. But with people we appoint to be sales agents for our
music, I think we can expect more.

Best,

Mark Northam