[Fmpro] Pump and $MTV$

Wed Oct 3 20:50:04 GMT 2007

Hi Pete,

I don't know what you mean by MTV not paying license fees... do you mean to ASCAP and BMI?? That's incorrect.?And MTVN does pay an annual blanket fee to Pump Audio for use of their library. At the end of the calendar year, Pump pulls together all of the cuesheets generated by all of the MTV Networks, and then divvy up the per-cue royalty accordingly. This year's MTV rate wasn't high -- I think $17 per cue used -- and I had cues used all over the place, on MTV, VH1, Nick, Nick at Nite, Comedy Central.? So $17 for a cue on "Room Raiders" doesn't sound like much... but when that same cue appears in 10 episodes, and they play the hell out of those shows over and over,?the ASCAP money stacks up. I've been very surprised at just how much the ASCAP payouts were for MTV shows (pleasantly so!)? And with Pump you don't sacrifice your publishing performance money: Pump keeps 50% of it and you get the other 50%. You keep 100% of your writer's share of the PRO money.

I'm sure that library deals aren't for everyone. I tend to think of Pump more like an agent deal, where they keep a percentage of what they place.? And their penetration into every aspect of the media world has been impressive: something I never could've done on my own. The result for me, personally: it has helped me tremendously on the financial front because two years ago I left my music biz job and made the jump to composing full time. It's nice to be getting the additional PA and ASCAP $$ every couple months, for music that would otherwise be sitting in my hard drive somewhere.

I'm not a salesman for Pump, just a satisfied participant in their business. If it's something you've thought about, I think you can download their artist agreement from their website and pick it apart for the specifics.

Kerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Pete <musical411 at yahoo.com>
To: fmpro at nxport.com
Sent: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 4:37 pm
Subject: Re: [Fmpro] Pump and $MTV$

Thanks for sharing your knowledge Kerry!

I've been holding off going with pump. One of their
main customers is MTV. MTV doesn't pay any license
fees (unless pump is the only one with a better deal).

So, I figure I could just give it away myself to MTV
and keep all the publishing royalties. What do I need
pump for? I'm curious what percentage of your pump
placements end up on MTV/VH1 etc?

Also, for the same matter if they are going to license
a cue for just $10, is that worth giving up your
publishing royalty? What's the usual pump payment on a
cue? High, low, average? I heard $8 is average. True?

Thanks Again!
P e t e
S u r d o v a l

--- kirbyko3 at aol.com wrote:

> I did ask a PA?artist relations person about a
> History Channel doc that used a couple of my cues,
> about two years ago.? I was curious why I only made
> $10 per drop, and she told me what THC paid for a
> 1-hour program & explained that they used so many
> cues that?each composer involved didn't get much
> upfront.? She didn't have any qualms about telling
> me what that show paid for its rights.? I'm sure if
> a composer had a question, they would answer it. I
> don't have any special standing or status with them.
> 
> Yes, Pump does do the retitling thing where your cue
> becomes something like PA12345689 on a cuesheet.?
> I'll take a look at the contract and report back
> about notification periods & whether or not they
> continue to collect publishing income after that
> piece has been taken from the catalog.? In all
> honesty, I wouldn't care if they did continue to
> collect that money: they placed the cue originally.
> 
> I think a healthy skepticism of all things
> music-business-related is good, and certainly
> warranted in the case of the PRO's and music
> publishers. But as a frequent reader of all the
> posts on this list, I sometimes feel like people get
> very conspiracy-theory about everything, and I think
> that when conversations reach that point, it may
> tend to invalidate the legitimacy of other arguments
> that people on this list make.? It's sort of like
> Ahmedinijad's speech at Columbia last week: a lot of
> people found themselves saying, "You know, he's
> saying some things that are true... he kinda makes
> sense" until he said "There are no gays in Iran" and
> then you would've been hard-pressed to take ANY of
> his statements seriously.
> 
> - Kerry? 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Northam <mnortham at gmdgroup.com>
> To: fmpro at nxport.com
> Sent: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 3:51 pm
> Subject: Re: [Fmpro] Getty Images Launches Music
> Licensing Service
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The Film Music Pro List is sponsored by Film Music
> Magazine -  
> http://www.filmmusicmag.com
> 
> To edit your list options or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://nxport.com/mailman/listinfo/fmpro
> 
> 
>
________________________________________________________________________
> Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check
> out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
> _______________________________________________
> The Film Music Pro List is sponsored by Film Music
> Magazine 
=== message truncated ===

____________________________________________________________________________________
Got a little couch potato? 
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz 

_______________________________________________
The Film Music Pro List is sponsored by Film Music Magazine -  
http://www.filmmusicmag.com

To edit your list options or unsubscribe, visit:
http://nxport.com/mailman/listinfo/fmpro

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com