I often get asked to provide music for free (ie no commissioning fee) which I don't mind if it is a fairly straight forward, short project; but, there can be misunderstandings about royalty fees. That is, the music or score can be provided for free but when used in a production its use incurs a royalty fee. To avoid such misunderstandings I've started using a simple contractual agreement - do other composers adopt this approach or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick?
Composing : Free or not for free? by Jon Moon
Other topics in Composing:
Check out Trending Discussions
Register / Log In
Like Free download and $$ to activate it...??
2 people like this
I see what you mean, but the royalty element is covered in a standard PRS license, so I don't ask for a separate payment; the user just buys a standard PRS or PPL license as normal.
1 person likes this
I agree standard license applies . New work for hire is usually by contract and is paid. Work for free is dead in the water now - 2004 is long over guys. There is a whole new generation graduating and they expect to be paid.They have bills, rent, grocery bills and student loans to pay and other expenses. Interns are paid a wage too. Anything else is a scam and is illegal.
I agree - impossible for a young composer to improve their art without being paid for their work in one form or another.
I'm in Canada so the rule are a little different but I'm really interested in this. We're finishing our 2nd no budget full length movie and involve a lot of local artist and got tons of free music. But since the goal wasn't to publish the movie outside the local community we never thought about royalties. How would you pay royalty in a situation like this? only if you get a distributor and pay a fee for each copy of the movie sold? or only if we sell soundtraks?
Gullaume, From what I have been reading. A studio/label counts on soundtrack to make money on. FWIW. So a full license would be in order. I would think a % of the Net Gross. or something like that. I will follow this and hope some experience chimes in. When I work with musicians, or use a stock footage file, the artist license says it must be combined within art; NOT a stand alone. Like a single from a movie for the radio, would be stand alone. Otherwise they have other deals to be made. Which would be between the label and the artist. IMO. Which I am sure would come up at time of label buying your movie?
This can be complicated - I don't know about Canadian law, but in the UK if I write music for a film it is registered with PRS as a soundtrack along with the details of the film. I think the film company then has to list sales / distribution figures. Simon is right to draw a distinction between an integral soundtrack and a single that is released separately from the film.
Then royalties can be waived by not registering with PRS but asking for the composer to be credited only. There is always room for flexibility, just a matter of equality - if the film / show makes money, the composer should get a royalty; if it's a non- commercial venture or for charity, the composer can decide that payment is not appropriate.
that make sense, thanks for the clarification! Like I said, until the movies get an actual distributor we don't have any revenue. I appreciate that you give me a clearer understanding of commission free vs royalty free to avoid awkward misinterpretation!