Cash or Publishing?

Take the cash, and get paid upfront.

Ok, in all seriousness, I have no idea what to tell you. My gut instinct, when there's money on the table in this business, is to take it. Because it doesn't last long.

 

Take the cash, and ask for credit for the session in the liner notes (not as a songwriter, since your bass part isn't copyright-able). If it goes platinum you have a great thing to add to your musical resume.

 

Assuming you mean they’ve agreed to give 25% of the copyright in each song, then it won’t take a lot of success to get to $600. And after that point, of course, you’ll have an on-going income stream thereafter.

Let’s look at some basic math. Every time a song sells on iTunes in the US, there’s supposed to be 9.1 cents set aside from the sale price and that 9.1 cents is supposed to be paid to the publisher (or publishers) of the song in accordance with the percentage of the song the publisher controls. If there is 1 publisher on one song (i.e., one person wrote 100% of the song), then all 9.1 cents would go to that publisher. If there were 2 publishers that each controlled 50% of the song, then each publisher would receive 4.55 cents each for each iTunes sale in the US. And so on.

Accordingly, if you are to be paid 2.3 cents (i.e., 25% of 9.1 cents) for each iTunes sale, then it would take sales of26,000 single units to reach $600 in publishing royalties. The 26,000 is a cumulative total so if an EP is sold, then that counts as 6 units (i.e., 2.3 x 6 = 13.8 cents for each EP x 4,300 units = $600). That is, it can be a combination of sales of individual songs or the EP as a whole.

However, the royalty rate I discussed above only addresses “sales” of the song (e.g., iTunes). There are tons of other ways that songs make money that don’t involve sales (e.g., radio performances, licensing, etc.). If one of the songs got licensed in a small to moderate budget movie or television production, it certainly wouldn’t be unusual to see a fee of $1,000-$2,000 which means your 25% share would be $250-$500 on that one sync license alone.

If you think those songs have potential value, these may be dice you want to roll.

Just make sure that there’s an email with all song titles with all writer splits for each song clearly listed and make sure all writers reply to the email saying the splits are agreed as set forth in the email (or in separate emails if you want to address titles individually).

Writers of songs can agree to split the copyright percentages of songs however they want regardless of the level of contribution. For example, it’s a common ethos in Nashville that if three people sit down in room together to write a song, then the song is split equally three ways. It’s not necessarily a function of who wrote how much. It’s considered a community effort and, in fact, it could be that someone’s only contribution is regarding the hook, but that contribution takes the hook from average to great. It’s not necessarily fair to say someone only deserves 5% of a song based on quantitative contribution when most of the “value” of the song significantly changed based on the small contribution

Our discussions in the past regarding bass lines revolve around the legal basis for making a claim that a bass line in a song is a copyrightable contribution to the authorship of a musical composition (i.e., in addition to the lyrics and the melody). My opinion is that it is not a sound basis except in very rare circumstances. However, as I said, there is nothing preventing songwriters to agree IN WRITING that a song is to be divided up however all the writers feel is fair.

Best,

MA

 

I have one answer : Pink Floyd- Money . Don't tell me that bass line isn't integral to the song.

I'd ask for the $600 and 1/4 of any royalties as a one fourth writer of each song.

Playing a bass part _ $100

Writing aforementioned bass part - 25% of royalty rights

 

Don't tell me I said what I didn't say. Thanks.

 

I don't know if this is a rational approach or not, but the idea of taking the risk of generating a small but long lasting income stream (i.e. taking a percentage of the future publishing) makes more sense if you do it often. That is, having many such projects out there so that the hits outweigh the fizzles. The more you do it, the better the odds that it will pay off.

 

On the other hand, unless he makes it BIG, are you willing, and able, to take him to court if/when he doesn't pay, or pay correctly? Think of the time, effort, and attorney's fees. Based on your assessment of the music, take the cash. He wouldn't be so willing to give away 25% if he thought it would be a big moneymaker.

 

Wise choice. The other thing that no one mentioned is you have to trust that the accounting is honest and they they will actually send you the money. People have very bad memories and worse math skills when it comes to money.

 

Nice, very nice! I like what's happening in the bass line on "Save My Soul". Strong trio.

 

Post 8 - I did.

 

That’s not necessarily true.

If the OP is given a share of the copyright in the song, then he will administer his share of the song and certain payments would be made to the OP (or his publishing designee) directly from third parties. For example, if the song were to be used in a movie or television show or video game, then the OP (or his publishing designee) would issue the license directly to the film company, television show, or video game maker and the OP would receive payment directly from the applicable third party.

Another example would be payment from PROs such as ASCAP and BMI. If the song generated performance income of any kind, then the OP’s affiliated PRO would collect and pay the money directly to the OP. Again, the artist would never touch the money.

There are many other examples, but the point is that controlling the copyright in the form of music publishing offers considerable control over making sure you are paid.

MA

 

My understanding is that Roger Waters wrote 100% of the song and he played bass. Therefore, that example seems inapplicable here since he couldn't really give himself 25% of a song he wrote by himself.

If your point is that he would have deserved a copyright interest in the song if he hadn't been the sole writer, then, as I said, the people involved in the creation of a song are certainly free to recognize the value of various contributions from various writers and accord them copyright interests in whatever manner everyone can agree to. Alternatively, I've had band membership agreements where the band members agree to split the copyrights in the songs equally regardless of the contributions (i.e., one for all and all for one).

I'm not going into detail here, but I disagree that the bass line separate from the main melody in the song would have entitled Roger to a copyright interest in the musical composition in the event aother band member (other than himself) had written it, but, again, without debating whether he deserved one.

Also, if a bass player is a member of a band (i.e., as opposed to a hired gun), then it's likely they would receive a share of artist royalties from the sales and exploitations of the recordings based on his contributions to the recording as a bassist BUT those are different royalties from the ones being discussed here.

MA

 

Apart from the debate of whether the OP's contributions merit 25%, my experience is different on this point in other ways. I have had many, many clients that have done self-funded albums and they simply don't have the money to pay everyone (including me ;-). Therefore, giving a piece of the "back end" may be all they really have to offer. In fact, it is often with great pain that they have to give up something, but, again, the sad fact is they may not have the money to give to the people they want to have involved because the rates being charged are not affordable.

For example, I just completed a producer agreement for a producer client where the artist and the producer co-own the masters 50-50. Obvioulsy, if the masters are successful, then the producer will receive a huge windfall, but the artist was not able to pay the producer anywhere near his going rate and this was the compromise that was worked out.

I can assure you that the artist's reps were not too happy about these terms. And their willingness to give co-ownership had nothing to do with whether they perceived the masters as being "big moneymakers."

MA

 

Thanks for the thread input, Music Attorney.

I read an interview with a Lotus engine designer, and he laments his choice. I can't find the full interview, but I'll just put this condensed version of Lotus trivia from Wikipedia here in the thread...

"Harry Mundy, who designed the Lotus TwinCam, was offered the choice of payment for his work of £1,000 cash or a royalty of £1 per unit. Colin Chapman had signed a 1000 unit purchase agreement with Coventry Climax for the FWE engine used on Lotus Elite, and was on the last stretch of making 1000 Elites and accepting FWE deliveries in 1961. (The Elite's final factory production volume was 1030, with over 1200 registered with the Lotus Elite World Register currently.)

Mundy took the cash, and the TwinCam [was produced in numbers exceeding] 55,000 units."

Mundy took the cash because (IIRC) he wasn't sure at the time the TwinCam would be a successful engine and the dealings probably took place before Chapman had the signed the order from Coventry. Then again, Chapman might've had the deal with Coventry already sorted and knew he could guarantee the cash amount at least. Given Chapman's reputation, if he ate coal he could've produced diamonds.


Here's further fodder to fuel the fire...
...
More detailed renderings of Mundy's original design were carried out in 1961 by Richard Ansdale, who translated Mundy's rough drawings into a finished layout. Neither Ansdale nor Mundy were Lotus employees, and agreed to work on the engine for peanuts. Chapman agreed to pay Mundy a £1 royalty for every engine Lotus built, but Mundy figured Chapman could never build enough engines to make it worthwhile and settled for a £1,000 up-front royalty instead. Ansdale commented on his work, "I enjoyed doing it, out of friendship to Colin, and I wanted the project to succeed."

I, like Mundy, would prefer the royalties of £55,000+, but who knows if it'll sell. Got a crystal ball?
Youse makes yer deeszcishun and youse takes yer chances...

 

Well, I'm not an attorney so maybe you have a fool proof way to ensure getting paid what you are owed. I'm not speaking from personal experience, but over the years I've read a lot of articles about people getting cheated by the music industry. Call me cynical but I believe that when there is enough money involved they will find ways to cheat you.

 

MA, I realize that the artist may not have the cash to pay the musicians properly. But it sounds as if he offered the bassist a quarter, the drummer a share - who knows who else may have been offered this deal? This is not my particular specialty, but as you know, just because you have a contract, does not mean you will be able to collect on it, and there are fees associated with any contract dispute - lawyers must be paid, etc. Some profits would be paid directly, but not all, again, assuming there are not too many pieces of the pie being offered to others. Obviously up to OP whether he wants to speculate.