Thanks, Ben!

Here is the opportunity info:

opportunity ID: FT12AF05
posted: May 4, 2012
last date to submit: July 30, 2012
peer rating: May 11, 2012 - August 6, 2012
expected decision: August 31, 2012

Thanks Benjamin that's very helpful and also a warning to us all. It would be better if every opportunity had a copy of the contract available when advertised and also clearly said if exclusive or non exclusive.
best regards Tony

Thanks! Your note confirms my suspicions that library requests are not a great opportunity for composers and performers, though it is entirely possible some are legit. If there isn't money on the table in an opportunity description, I don't bother spending money on a submission.

Thanks, Ben! This is a big disappointment and let down. I'm beginning to wonder if there is any hope at all for any type of success here at BJ. Again, 'Sad news'.
But, Thanks!

Spot on Ben and thanks for the notice. I also agree, it should be a normal business function of Broadjam to screen the opportunity providers before allowing them to list on this site. Also agree with Tony that the providers terms be attached to the opportunity, possibly in the form of a PDF.

In Fact, contracts are. When you click on the "I agree to terms and conditions box" when submitting to an opportunity. That sentence is highlighted blue and is a link to the contract. However, many contracts are long and verbose with legal jargon, often shielding the the true intent of the contract in confusion.

I rarely read these contracts and only send them on to my attorney when they want to license a song, and the contract they e-mail to for signature needs professional inspection.

That said, just submitting can be costly for me.

My point, is that we ought not be subjected to unclear, or at the very least, bad contracts.

This site calls licensing "opportunities". However, the opportunity is implied for the artists who anti up their best, for merely the hope of an equitable exchange on the part of the "opportunity" provider.

Broadjam should simply not let said types of companies pray on us, who pay for membership here. What does paid membership become if we become exposed to thieves and vultures and pay to be submitted to them?

It is a problem that needs to be addressed.

hey Ben, I have the same contract here.... this is what I sent back to them earlier today (before having read your message) :
I have read the agreement and still have a few questions:

in paragraph 3 it's said that you take 50% of the gross income.
then in paragraph 5 you say that " Promotional expenses incurred by F5M
shall be recouped from gross licensing fees and sales income
prior to the calculation of royalties payable to composer."

that would mean that I am paying for these expenses alone.
So that would mean that if the expenses in a period are as much as my half of
the gross income for that period, I would end up with nothing?
Where is stated, how high those expences could become?

I mean, you take 50 % of the gross income (wich feels like a lot) , so why not share all promotional expenses as well?
make it an even 50-50!

in paragraph 6 it's read that if only one of my songs has been licenced, the agreement could
last forever? (more than 5 years)
( it can only be terminated if you haven't used my songs for licencing in a period of 5 years!) why is that?

regards
Floris

Also, When I metioned that I had other songs written for them, and asked them to listen to it, the answer was?:
"Thank you for sending more tracks. We appreciate it. I will let you know if we can use any of them when I can find some time to listen to them. As of right now, we are waiting for your agreement so we can place your track in our library. If we find any other tracks that we can use, we will happily sign another agreement for those tracks."
I felt some pressure there that made me very cautious! Why in the hell do they have that much of a hurry for me to sign a contract!? that alone gave me second thoughts.... regards Floris ( My GF studied Law here in Holland)

Yes, basically, they can justifiably pay you nothing, and keep your copyrights forever, making money off your work and never pay you anything.

Ben and everyone, Just saw this and I have to step out for a couple of meetings. I will look into this upon my return and respond at that point. Thanks for your patience.....Regards, Roy

Yup, that's what I figured too! Sad story.
I am always cautious when it comes to sigining contracts!
It's a serious matter. in Holland we call them: "wurg contracten" translated: Strangle contracts. This really needs to be adressed by BJ!

Thank you for passing that along Ben. Just goes to show you there are still low-life, artist scamming companies out there. I just hope no one has fallen for this scam already.

I'm sure many have, on scams just like that... and I'm sure they still have opportunities posted. I've started to license a couple of things outside of broadjam, and most reputable people I have spoken with don't look favorably upon broadjam. I used this venue as an experiment. That time is almost over and I think I'm going to move on soon. I hope many follow. Thanks Ben...

Thanks ben!

Thank you Benjamin for sharing this, and for everyone's input. This is truly an eye-opener, especially for me as I am learning the ropes of music licensing.

Benjamin and everyone, thanks for bringing this to my attention. We have called the provider and asked them to contact us. There are a couple of points I want discuss with them and once that happens, I'll post again.

I have looked at this contract and it is clear what it says. This is an exclusive deal where the provider owns the publisher share for 5 years. Although these terms are exclusive, this is fairly common with publishers. Most publishers want to have an exclusive arrangement and some will offer up-front payment. Libraries will generally offer a non-exclusive arrangement meaning that you can sign the song with multiple entities. The key here is there is a revision clause, meaning that if they don't perform, then the rights are returned to you. Also remember, you can negotiate every point in any contract. If the other party does not wish to do so, then walk away.

We know that many our competitors do not require contracts to be posted before their members submit to their opportunities, this is the exact reason why we do require it. In the future, if you or anyone reading this need clarification before you post, I will be happy to provide my thoughts. With that said, I am not a lawyer, but please don't submit to anything that you are uncomfortable with.

Although it would be much more equitable, it is unrealistic to believe that a publisher is going to pitch and shop music for a commission of 10-20%. If you can get it, definitely take it. If the writer has a catalog that is already producing a steady stream of revenue, then administration deals in this range are somewhat common. However, if a song is not producing revenue at the time of the deal, then it is unlikely that a publisher would sign it for less than 25% of the song.

Once I hear back from the provider and get their thoughts, I will let you know. Thanks again for your thoughts and bringing this to my attention.

I hope this helps and best of luck to everyone,

Roy

Thanks Ben. Definitely good to know

Hey guys, here is the answer from fader 5 that I just recieved in my e-mail:
Hi Floris,


"Thanks for your questions. At the moment, with the networks we're working with, the terms have to be as they are in the agreement.
The promotional expenses pertain to an instance where we would be promoting a particular theme or composer on their behalf. This is unusual and we have never done it.
We don't subtract any expenses from our composer's fees in general. When a piece is licensed you receive half of the upfront fee and you always retain your writers share.
Yes, in the event that the piece of music is used - that piece becomes part of the library for the life of the copyright.


I fully understand your concerns and appreciate your reaching out - again, the solid nature of this agreement is in direct relation to the agreements Fader 5 has to sign with it's major licensors."

For me that would be a "no deal" I guess....

Everyone, We spoke with the provider on this and consistent with information Floris provided above. Although it sounds aggressive, these are not uncommon contracts that providers need on songs when pitching to major networks. We will be discussing this further with them on Monday and possibly come up with some language that makes us all a little more comfortable. We have put the opportunity on hold until then and hopefully we will post an amended contract.....Thanks for your patience and have a good weekend.....Roy

Hi Roy,
I have emailed my contact at Fader 5, declining his offer.
He replied, that in this case, they are tied to the contract that's presented to them by the network that they represent. He also offered me to keep in touch. They will have other offers to make in the future that have less strict terms. thanks Roy for the opportunity! Who knows what may come of it in the future!
Isn't that what BJ is for, Bringing two parties together?
regards
Floris

Thanks for all the work you've put in Benjamin, from my "non-legal" background, the thing that I remember the most from the many doco's and biographies of songwriters I've consumed is that you never sell your songs. At the end of the day, if they're good enough they'll find a home. Selling off any song you've done better have some serious $$$'s involved. But having said that, I'm sure that Roy will edit out the "users" who may have perpetrated Broadjam, because to have these opportunity providers on here preying on all of us couldn't do the site too much good. Broadjam is just like any company, if it has a strong business charter, based on integrity and honesty for all it's members, it will grow and flourish.
Cheers,
Rob Chisholm

Floris, Thanks for your thoughts and info. With our opportunity service, our job is to connect buyers and sellers. I, personally, haven't spoken with them at this point, but it appears that they are bound by an upstream contract. Hopefully, I will get clarification today.

Rob,
Thanks for your thoughts as well. We have turned down many providers over the years as they just didn't make the grade. It doesn't mean they are bad folks, just didn't work for our community. You are right, we only succeed if our members succeed. We have been at it nearly 13 years and hopefully more succeed will come to our members. There is nothing that thrills me more than when one of our members gets licensed and eventually placed. And to see our members collaborate and push each other is really rewarding as well.

One other note to everyone: I highly recommend the book Music, Money and Success by the Brabec Brothers. I have read many books on the industry over the years and met many of the authors. This book is the best I've read regarding the do's and don't's in the biz. And it's written so a non-lawyer like me can understand it. Definitely worth the $15 investment.....Best of luck, Roy

I spoke with the provider on this. This particular listing was for a news piece for a major network. They required this contract from the provider as they may want to re-use the broadcast and/or song more than once. Therefore they don't have to pursue the licensing multiple times. Note that this particular network rarely uses non-exclusive material . The writer will still retain the writers share and performance royalties. Like I mentioned before, this is not uncommon. If you are uncomfortable with this type of agreement, please don't submit. The songs from this listing have been pitched and he is awaiting their response. The provider also said that he spoke with a couple of the bloggers here and cleared it up with them. He has stated that in the future there will be a different agreement. Hope this helps....Please let me know if you have any questions.....Roy

It may be becoming an industry standard , but it is not right or just.
If you go to their site, they claim to create all their own music. And then they come here and act like a pseudo- publisher. If fact they are not a publisher, but more like an agent. For they did not publish the work or create the work.

However, if they hold your's or my copyrights, they can say whatever they want about it. I tried to negotiate with them to, and got no response. Which leads me to think they are poorly funded thieves. And if you did take them to court, the main issues the court would establish is "who holds the copyrights", which are the foundation legally for any contest in court.

The fact is, if they take your copyrights, and can deduce "costs" from your share arbitrarily, then you are not getting paid.

I don't think anyone here is willing to do work for free so that others may profit off of it. We all expect some reciprocation.

I know that this issue puts Roy between a rock and a hard place But I personally believe that broadjam should protect our interests from these types contracts.

OTHERWISE, why are we paying loads of money, and for what? Broadjam must either be a legit resource for artists, or not....and if not....then what is it?

Again here is what a legal pro with 35 years experience said. Let us not obfuscate the issue.

"This agreement is not acceptable for the following reasons:
1. It is an exclusive license AND assignment of all publishing royalties AND your copyrights to the songs

2. If the song is used - their right to the copyright is permanent and you lose it forever, for no payment.

3. There is no mention of any payment of up front sync fees - so presumably they get them all

4. The costs are deducted - before payment of royalties and there is no listing or limit on those costs

5. In short, you are giving them your songs into perpetuity with no compensation.





An honest licensing agreement will give you all of the composer and publishing rights and royalties. It will not take any of your precious copyrights. It will pay the licensing agent a fair percentage of the income, i.e. 10% to 20% as long as the licensing agent 's gig is producing income with the song. In other words, the licensing agent is paid as an agent. Costs can be deducted from the initial payment of royalties, but you have to know exactly what the costs are and be able to approve or change them. Otherwise the licensing agent can deduct anything as costs and pocket it. "

Check out Fader 5, google them, no better yet, here is the link: http://www.fader5.com/ 1

Take note as to how they will market your music as their creation. with no mention of you, I see no mention of Broadjam or Taxi or any other outsource.

I have sold many many song's copyrights. The operative word there is "SOLD". I have ghost written and not gotten credit for the work anywhere. But what I did get was "PAID".

YOU MUST INSIST ON GETTING PAID! Or pack it up and keep your day job.

Thank you for your due diligence Ben, I find that these "contracts" are becoming very common. I turned one of these down also. Praise for your stance!
Best~
Will

This is really good information what I've been finding out is. There are a lot of so called publishers who want to re title works. This is another red flag when you work hard to put music together and some one want to take it.

Ben,

Thanks again for the opportunity to discuss this publicly. Here are some additional thoughts.

1.) In your case, you are an excellent proven writer and have a good track record, so you will probably get a better deal than most. However, someone who is new or doesn't have a solid revenue generating history will never get deal like what is being suggested. While a writer may be excellent and have a brilliant future, they may never get an opportunity if they draw this line in the sand. I am not suggesting this is right or wrong. I am suggesting that each writer review every opportunity and makes sure it fits your own personal needs and goals. Like you did, they should review the contract before submitting. With that said, the standard pub contract for a non-revenue generating song at the time of the deal is 50% to the publisher. There are a few that will go as low as 25%, but very few.

2.) Some networks make demands that seem unfair and publishers have to comply or they don't a chance to get their content placed. That is the issue here. If it's a cue, jingle, snippet or a song that has never generated anything, then I would be more willing to give up the copyright. And If they don't perform in a specified amount of time, the copyright reverts back to the writer. One other note about this: Most placements on records require a similar contract to this. So it is highly unlikely that one would place song on a record without agreeing to comparable terms.

3.) Most supervisors and publishers have a musical background of some caliber. Many do write and, at the same time, place music for other writers. And many have websites where they don't convey exactly what they do.

4.) Many will ghost write if they are paid. Many writers will surpass payment for a credit in a production to get their foot in the door. Each individual should make their own choice.

5.) Maybe this discussion seems to put us between a rock and a hard place, but that's why we're here. You should bring these questions to the forefront and hopefully we can provide some clarification, or another point of view.

6.) We have turned down many providers as we didn't feel it was the right fit for our members. Obviously, there is no reason for us to post who we turn down as there is no benefit to doing so.

7.) Maybe we should create a blog and address some of these issues and other contractual points not covered here.

I appreciate the commentary as I am sure it has been educational for many of the folks reading this, me as well. Just to reiterate a couple of things. Review all contracts before you submit and only you can determine what is right and wrong for your career. If you are not sure, then consult with a legal expert.

To everyone, If you have any questions or thoughts that you don't wish to post here, feel free to send them to me directly through our customerservice@broadjam.com email address.

Best of luck to everyone,
Roy

Thanks for your feed back it is always good to hear good comments.

Hi Roy, everyone,
regarding the Fader 5 developements:

I have emailed my contact at Fader 5, declining his offer.
He replied, that in this case, they are tied to the contract that's presented to them by the network that they represent. He also offered me to keep in touch. They will have other offers to make in the future that have less strict terms. thanks Roy for the opportunity! Who knows what may come of it in the future!
Isn't that what BJ is for, Bringing two parties together?
regards
Floris

Thank you so much for bringing this to everyone's attention, Benjamin. And thanks to everyone for their thoughtful input in this thread as well. Very glad I'm aware of Fader 5's policy now. I had seen them advertised on Music Clout and I'm glad I didn't submit any songs to them.

Hi Floris, we had some correspondence back when you bought my pricing guide. Nice to see you are being offered contracts, even if you had to turn this one down.

I can confirm what Roy has written. This contract seems to be in line with others of it's kind. I've never seen less than a 50/50 split on a library contract. I guess maybe if I were a top tier writer it's possible, but I've actually seen libraries going the opposite direction 60/40 or 65/35 in their favor (which I don't sign).

This contract is exclusive, but is not making an upfront payment to the artist. It is however paying 50% of any sync fee. In my experience, usually it is either/or. If the exclusive library pays upfront, it doesn't split license fees, if it splits license fees it doesn't pay upfront. So this seems "normal".

What I would negotiate in this contract is " Yes, in the event that the piece of music is used - that piece becomes part of the library for the life of the copyright." I would want to see an income threshold here. Just because it is used doesn't mean you will see any significant money. I would rather see something like if the piece of music doesn't earn X amount of dollars in say three years, copyright reverts back to the composer.

Michael Nickolas

Hi Benjamin and anyone else intereted,

I'm glad I read your original post a while back because I've run into an interesting situation myself right now. One of my songs was selected by a "music production company" whose email states that I would "retain 100% writer's share and we retain 100% publisher's share. Any licensing fee received from the client will be shared equally (the standard 50/50 split). Sky Bound becomes the exclusive publisher of whatever songs you allow us to publish. We have NO rights whatsoever to music that you've created that we DO NOT publish. Songs that become a part of the Sky Bound Entertainment catalog cannot be licensed by any other party." I understand the 50/50 split for licensing fee, but it's the part about me giving them 100% publishing share that worries me. From reading everyone's posts above this isn't good for me and turns over the copyright to this company and I lose the possibility of future royalties. But I am also torn because part of me says I should sign with this company because I'm new and I'd like to get some possibility of exposure, but at the same time my gut instinct is to turn it down because I don't want to give up all of my publisher share and copyright ownership. I'm also not sure about signing with them because they are exclusive- I won't be able to try to license this song with anyone else. I looked them up, and they are new (est. in 2010). Their site says they "create" their music - red flag. Should I go with my gut and not sign with them, or should I bite the bullet and take a chance with them? I would appreciate any advice or insight you can give me.

Hi - I'm interested to know what you decided in the end with this, as one of my songs has also just been selected my Sky Bound Entertainement and like you I am totally new to this. If you did accept their contract has it lead to any successful pitches? Thanks, Lorraine

My rule is simply that I dont turn over copyrights unless their is money up front.... I have turned them over before when I have sold a song...but only for cash up front. Also, I will not turn over publisher rights to just anybody. If they ask for copyrights and offer nothing beyond platitudes then I will not do business with them.

But I am a hard liner in this respect. I would have to know which opportunity you are talking about.

I gota say your stuff sounds a lot like Stu Copeland's stuff. He did the music for that show "Dead Like Me" on HBO. He also played drums in The Police for 40 years.

Thank you so much Benjamin! I know some of those short pieces are a little cheesy/melodramatic, but I'm really trying to emulate a commercial sound for a few of theses pieces in particular. And thank you for the heads up about the credits!

I absolutely love Stewart Copeland's drumming, he is up there in my top 4 without a doubt. However, I've never heard any of his post-Police compositions--I'll have to check those out.

By the way, I was looking yesterday for your profile on Soundcloud--are you on it?

No, I am not.

Hark and thanks to ye! Haha many thanks, Nick. I'm going to check out your music now!