Musician's Royalties

[Steve Nathan]

I posted a while ago about the royalties collected by SoundExchange and the fraction thereof that is distributed to recording musicians. That fund is currently under attack, and I'd like to attempt to explain (succinctly), why that should matter to all of us.

The short story is that the AFM got in there and fought for a sliver of this money, with the intention of giving it to anyone who plays on a recording but does not get royalties for that recording. Obviously this is a big deal for me because that's how I've earned my living for 40 years.

But there are many other ways a recording can become a hit, everything from "upgraded" demos, to "bedroom" recordings that surprise everyone and garner 2 million Youtube hits.

The point is, if you've ever recorded music, it has the potential to be successful. The odds may be slim, but if you're lucky enough to win that lottery, you'll wish you'd taken a moment to defend your future income.

This fund is being challenged by record producers, who are already collecting royalties "upstream", but feel entitled to reach into the pockets of side musicians and take most of their benefit as well.

I posted a copy of a letter I sent, on my web site, with a link to a petition I started, and I want to share it with the KC.

PLEASE keep this restricted to just musicians. No Facebook uncles or grandmas allowed

 

CLONK

[Doerfler]

very well written, Steve.

[Joe Muscara]

Thanks for keeping us informed and involved, Steve.

[Geoff Grace]

I agree that "the number of tracks played" suggested amendment is problematic. In addition to the examples you listed at your link, a string section could take a wide variety of tracksincluding just a stereo pairdepending on how an engineer or producer chooses to track them. Under that scenario, a drummer could possibly earn more than the entire string ensemble and would typically earn more than a keyboard playeror any other instrumentalist. It certainly doesn't seem equitable.

 

How are things currently divided in songs that add a string section; orin the other extremein songs in which the producer plays on all the tracks, as often happens in EDM?

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Baldwin Funster]

I wonder if session musicians will now be forced to record incognito and without credits and sign nondisclosure contracts so the producers keep more money. Then the musicians could be sued if he or she attempt to collect from the fund.

And what about extraneous sounds like if janitors vacuum is used as a sound effect. Can he sue for a payment? What if a janitor wasn't the source of the sound effect and says he was? The potential for lawsuits could be overwhelming. I'm all for session players getting a slice of the revenue but I see issues that could tie this up.

[Steve Nathan]

How are things currently divided in songs that add a string section; orin the other extremein songs in which the producer plays on all the tracks, as often happens in EDM?

 

If there are 20 string players and a 5 piece rhythm section on a record, the 2.5% royalty is divided 25 ways.

 

The EDM/Producer is at the heart of this issue. Though the producer plays/programs all the parts, they are paid ahead of the players at the higher rate (typically the whole of 4.5% as defined by their "Letter of Direction").

Since they are drawing royalties already from SoundExchange for this recording, they are excluded from also drawing from the "hired hands" pool.

[Lindaru]

Thank you, Steve! Signed.

 

 

[Geoff Grace]

Thanks for answering my question, Steve. I've added my signature to the list.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[WesG]

Why haven't I read about this in the union rag? Did I miss it, or have they been silent?

[Steve Nathan]

Why haven't I read about this in the union rag? Did I miss it, or have they been silent?

 

This just happened in the last week or two. It is only an appeal at this point, but the expectation on the street is that if they lose the appeal, they will sue the fund (which will start the process of draining buckets of money to "the lawyers")

[WesG]

Thanks for letting us know. I invited all my musician friends to sign your petition. The odds of anything I've played on making money are slim to none, but I care deeply about what is right.

 

I've always been a big Star Trek fan, but I'm still mad at Gene Roddenberry for his treatment of the theme. He wrote unused lyrics so that he could collect songwriting royalties, and he replaced the singer with a Theremin, when he found out he was paying her royalties in syndication. So this attitude is certainly not new, but gosh. Per-track shares is ludicrous. Unless you can claim 3 shares for recording a Leslie?

 

Wes

[El Lobo]

Signed.

[The Real MC]

Per track royalties? 5.1 surround, here I come!!!

[Baldwin Funster]

Per track royalties. Watch the come back of MONO!

[Steve Nathan]

I heard from the two producers leading this charge, and they now claim that they never claimed to be entitled to multiple shares. This is not the impression they gave dozens of musicians, but I will take them at their word. I have sent out a "correction" which you can read below if you want.

 

Whether this was always their position or is just now their current position does not matter, so I have chosen to take them at their word. Tomorrow, I will be amending my posts and petition accordingly, and if this changes your feelings on the subject, you can easily go back to the petition site and "un-sign". I apologize to both Kevin and Nathan who clearly feel I've mis-represented them.

I will say that this does not change how I feel. The fund states clearly (from it's inception): "In accordance with the DPRA, the DMCA, and the AHRA funds are collected on behalf of non-featured musicians".

You could try to hang your hat on the definition of "non-featured musicians", but it is clear to everyone at the fund and everyone who worked so hard to get this benefit for the worker bees. The fund's statement also says distributions are for: "a performer who has not directly received a distribution from SoundExchange".

Again, you could claim that there is a technicality to be availed here, but since producers receive their SoundExchange royalties in accordance with documents called "Letters of Direction", I think the intent is crystal clear.

In addition to Kevin and Nathan, I have heard from some other musicians who also produce. Most agree with me on this, but a few feel strongly that they "work their asses off", and often for very little reward. They feel dissed by their exclusion from the musician sub fund.

Aside from the obvious, that if they are reaping little or no reward, musicians are reaping no reward either, the point I believe they are missing is that choosing to produce is a choice, a risk/reward investment. You choose to invest your time and talent in the hope that you will get a nice payoff. Yeah, times are tough for everybody, and producers aren't making what they used to, nobody is, but the difference is a producer chooses to gamble. They assume the risk of investing their time, and if their record is a hit, they benefit, not the side musicians. This fund is the only way hired players get any bump from the success of a record. And every time musicians split 2.5 cents, the producer has already gotten all of 4.5 cents.

You know, a waiter could slave for years living on low wages and small tips, but if he chooses, he could open his own restaurant. He'll work his ass off, long hours, preparing food, meeting the liquor salesmen, clearing tables, doing the books............ But, he's got great recipes, he's a better cook than just about anyone, and he may get lucky and one good review in the paper could set him for life. Or, he could struggle. People might grow tired of whatever cuisine he's good at, or the economy could fall and fewer people can afford to eat out. Whatever happens, it's the gamble he has chosen. If his eatery is a hit, he's a happy man, but if it's not, does he turn to his employees and demand a cut of their tips? Sorry guys, times are tough and my idea isn't paying off. I've got bills to pay so I'm just going to start taking some of your money.>

[Lindaru]

I am a big one for "give credit where credit is due". This should apply to money, too. If you worked on something, you partially own it. You should get the proper cut of the pie.

 

I remain signed.

 

 

[Joe Muscara]

Thanks again Steve, for keeping on top of this.

[BluesKeys]

Thank you Steve, U will be signing and passing it on

[Reverend Rhythm]

I signed

[Steve Nathan]

The two producers making this challenge have withdrawn their appeals! Thanks everyone for your help.

Now I can get back to making music

[Lindaru]