Thank you

The way they make this work with the performing rights societies is to re-name the track so that they can identify specific uses of the music to them and therefore get their share of the use of that music from the performing rights society.

So, this happens (re naming) as a way to work the system laid out by the performing rights societies. If there are issues around this for the artists then perhaps the performing rights societies need to stand up to their claim to look after artists interests by designing a system that works for the music licensing business today rather than lag behind.

I just want to continue a little further with some information that might help any producers contemplating the Getty amendment with 35% to the artist or possibly other similar situations some of you may be facing…I came across some legal information that may be a clue as to why Getty needs us to sign and approve the contract proposals..I pulled this from a textbook “Business Law and the Legal Environment” edition 5, concerning the Uniform Commercial Code:

Parties make a contract attempting to control their futures. But one party’s certainty can be undercut by the ease with which the other party may obtain a modification. Section 2-209 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) acknowledges this tension by enabling the parties to limit changes. The parties may agree to …and insist that all modifications be in writing and signed. Between merchants, such a clause is valid. But if either party is not a merchant, such a clause is valid only if the non-merchant separately signs it. I am guessing that musicians would not be classified as merchants since in the case of Pump, we are providing music to a publisher- (merchant) without compensation in order for them to sell these intangible goods on our behalf. Even if our contracts were reviewed under the common law, the amendment would be invalid and probably unenforceable. The law in regards to music is tricky to say the least but I hope this info may give some sense of optimism and allow more artists to stand up to companies like Getty and not jump to sign anything just because they say you need to.

Best-

I’m happy to see that so many people are pissed off about this and are participating in the debate. There are a lot of other options for artists looking to license their music, that aren’t trying to screw over artists like this.

Sam, your phrase “race to the bottom” sums up what I was trying to say about the diminishing “value” of music these days…Well said.

1. Can we take up the issue of Pump announcing:

-Licensing fees will now be 35% to the artist, 65% to Pump Audio/Getty Images
-This model will take place as of 7/1/09

2.Before doing that, let me suggest to Paul that he is reading the wrong part of the Pump contract in order to see the royalty split. Read section 10 “Allocation of Publishing Recipts”. The split is 50-50 in my contracts with Pump.

Returning to the new split:

1. Pump explains the cost of going international, which should benefit Getty (Pump is now wholly owned by Getty) and its Artists, requires the new split.
- My response is: if the Artists are going to invest in Getty’s expansion, will the Talent reap the reward if the venture succceeds? The Artists should expect a return to 50-50 split, with a return of their 15% investment, plus whatever it earned – like any investing.

2. Since when does Getty need capital from Artists!!!

3. Pump has explained that the Artists pay nothing out of pocket for Getty’s huge infrastructure.
- I explained that Getty pays nothing out of pocket to the Artist to produce the Artist’s work. THAT’S WHY 50-50 is a fair split. Neither Artist nor Getty would make money if the other’s services were lacking.

4. I LOVE the reference to __________’s Dillemma. (Forgive me, I am still learning its name!)
To give a name to the choice between love and revenge is a helpful way to organize one’s experience when in the flux of mind-dimming emotion.

IF composers had a union, and I was its leader, I would say – Let’s negotiate. We’ll give up our fair share of royalties for this new venture. If it fails, we walk away. If it suceeds, we want our investment back! And then a bit more!

But the organized party is Getty. Of course, in the Darwinian ecology of business, Getty becoming less fair allows a niche for a new “Pump” to develop, and claim the mantle of fairness with a 50-50 deal.

Forgive me, but isn’t this situation similar to the bank bailout: the debt and risk is Socialized. The profit, if it occurs, if Capitalism. That is, the taxpayer is disproportionately on the hook if the toxic assets prove worthless, and the private investors (hedge funds, et al) disproportionately shielded from risk.

Situation #1 is: Back in the 70s and 80s, when I was cranking out several songs a week from my little bedroom studio, like Bill C, I knew very little about publishing agreements and was sure I was on my way to fame and fortune when I signed my first publishing contract with no reversion clause. I thought, worst case, after the passing of a reasonable number of years with no cuts, I would simply contact them, ask for my songs back, rework them and move on.

I should explain that due to family responsibilities and my “day job” I wound up getting away from the creative part of the business for some twenty years. Now, I’m getting back into it.

Though the paper boy can still cash my royalty checks, some of the aforementioned contracts were fruitful – actual commercial cuts with real BMI payments, however small.

The problem now lies in those that were not. Of the half dozen companies I’ve been searching for over the last few weeks, I have managed to contact the owners or former owners of two. They both were more than happy to provide written statements returning those songs back to me. There are probably a dozen or so that I have had no luck in contacting. Is this material just dead? Could I assume that after twenty five or thirty years that no one would remember it, anyway?

Situation #2 is – A few of the songs that are contracted to these defunct companies are listed with BMI on spec that they would be cut, I suppose, which didn’t happen. I’ve tried contacting BMI via their email for advice on this, but thus far they are confusing copyright returns with simply crossing these publishers off the “royalty share” list. I tried to no avail to explain that these companies no longer exist and therefore will not be getting a piece of the pie. Is this something I really should pursue further or is it worked out between new publisher and BMI? What if I sign one of these songs to another publisher and they try to register it?

Thanks very much for your time and for the opportunity to ask my questions.

Jim