[Fmpro] Pumps admin deal

[brad@bradheck.com]

In reference to the post below and to answer the question, NO PUMP  
does NOT own the copyrights...however...they do an administration deal  
at 50% commission of publishing share of performance royalties.  This  
is done with use of a "re-title" if needed.  Pump tracks the cue  
sheets for you, and does a fairly good job on the paper end of the  
deals.

This has been a quality thread...and very informative...more of this  
on the forum guys and girls!

Best,

BRAD HECK

There's a big difference. Gorfaine-Schwartz doesn't "own" anything. Does
(did) Pump Audio? It would appear at a minimum they had a contractual
interest in 50% of the publishing royalty stream in perpetuity for the
placements they made. But what about copyright???

A critical issue: Did PA own any portion of copyright in the music? That is,
did they own any intellectual property assets (copyright) or just the
nonexclusive right to re-llicense the works (no assets, just a contract)?

Was there copyright transfer as part of the sale?

If they owned derivative copyrights in all the works, they would certainly
have more rights to do with those copyrights what they wanted, subject of
course to the deal with the original copyright owner.

Suppose Pump Audio took $10 million and gave another company the
nonexclusive right to re-license a subset of the works in PA's catalog.
Should composers get any portion of that "placement" fee? If not, why?

Is this a catalog "transfer" from PA to Getty?

Now comes the Getty deal, where Getty now has the rights to license the
entire PA catalog. Did Getty buy a bunch of licensing contracts, or
something more, such as copyrights?

Where are the music lawyers when we need them?

Best,

Mark Northam