The Go-Go's Documentary

 I watched  the Go-Go's documentary on Showtime a month or so ago and I have been thinking about it ever since.   I know anecdotally that the film left out a lot.  I have even written about the group's dysfunction before https://tinyurl.com/y4e3p7f4.

Nonetheless this is an intensely watchable film and the early punk footage of the band is fascinating.

 

Ultimately the Go-Go's documentary serves as an unpleasant reminder of the music business as it existed in the 1980s.  I have very little nostalgia for those days.

 

The film is pretty honest in recounting the group’s history.  They ruthlessly fired two early members.  In one case they made their manager fire the bass player (reminiscent of the Beatles making Brian Epstein fire Pete Best).  They the forced their  manager, Ginger Canzoneri (who had shepherded them from the L.A. punk clubs to a No. 1 album) to seek more "experienced" managers to the point where she just resigned.  Finally, original member Jane Wiedlin quit the band rather than being forced to share her publishing with the non-writing members of the group.  Plus, there are drug problems, health problems and three really great albums.

 

I bring all of this up to make a point.  The issue with songwriting is serious and it can break up even the sturdiest group. Wiedlin says in the documentary the  new managers came to the group after they had completed their third album and tried to force them to sign an agreement to split publishing.  This was a huge mistake.  The time to discuss these type of issues is before a band records their first album.  Of course, this is easier said than done.  No group wants to sit in a room and discuss partnership agreements and music publishing splits, but I think it is really critical.  You can trace so many band breakups  back to music publishing disputes.  Lennon and McCartney were wise to cut their bandmates in on the publishing (albeit with minority shares) but songwriting and publishing were among the myriad of issues which helped break up that band.

 

I am glad that the Go-Go’s got past all of that and continue to perform today and I hope that this documentary can serve not only as a testament to a groundbreaking rock band but also serve as a lesson in band dynamics, loyalty and  diplomacy. 

            

Steve Weaver's Negotiating Exclusive Songwriting Agreements

I have been meaning for some time to write about my friend Steve Weaver’s book Negotiating Exclusive Songwriting Agreements.  This is not really meant to be a review because I am biased.  I reviewed Steve’s manuscript and was honored to write a blurb for the back of the book.

                What I said in my blurb is true.  There are so many worthless books on the music business and precious few books that tell you exactly what stuff means and how it works.  Steve’s book is a step-by-step analysis of an exclusive songwriting agreement,  meaning he analyzes each paragraph of the agreement from both the writer’s perspective and the publisher’s perspective and explains why each party asks for certain things and resists certain things.  This is really important information for anyone who is trying to get a handle on how these agreements are supposed to work.  One of the other things I said in my endorsement was that I wish this book had been available at the beginning of my career.   As a young lawyer, it really can be difficult figuring out how certain entertainment contracts are supposed to work and it can be difficult to know when you are asking for too much or too little. However, this book is not just for attorneys.  Anyone with more than a passing interest in music publishing can benefit from this book. The only other book that I have found as helpful as this is Randy Poe’s A Songwriter’s Guide to Music Publishing and I don’t know if it’s still in print.

                Steve has indicated that he hopes to write other books in this series “Entertainment Law Mentor” and I think he could do a great service  for the industry if he does write similar books on such topics as  recording agreements, producer agreements, manager agreements, etc.

                As Webb Wilder says “pick up on it.”. It’s available here as a Kindle edition: http://www.amazon.com/Entertainment-Law-Mentor-Negotiating-ebook/dp/B009INKQVS/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1353348800&sr=1-1&keywords=Negotiating+Exclusive+Songwriting+Agreements as well as in a physical format.

The Fray's Fray

I have been curious about the filing of a new lawsuit involving The Fray: King, Slade, Welsh and Wysocki v. Gregg Latterman and Gregg Alan Corp. in Federal Court in Colorado. The press reports made it seem as if the members of The Fray were suing their manager Gregg Latterman for somehow stealing all or part of their copyrights. However, after I reviewed the Complaint, I see that the cause of the action is much more subtle.

The manager in question is Gregg Latterman, a well-known entrepreneur, who, among other things, founded AWARE Records in 1993 and has been responsible for discovering and elevating a large number of talented artists over the past two decades. Apparently, Latterman had some sort of deal with EMI Music which gave him a share of EMI’s cut of income (and perhaps copyright interest) from any writer he brought to the company.

The suit alleges that Latterman entered into an oral management agreement with The Fray in November 2004 and helped sign the band to EMI in July of 2005. The suit claims that the oral management agreement was reduced to writing in 2007.

The suit DOES NOT claim that Latterman took any portion of the band’s publishing. Rather, it claims that as a manager, Latterman breached his fiduciary obligation to inform the band of his deal with EMI. The suit references a clause in the Management Agreement which prohibits the manager from commissioning any “engagement or agreement under which Artist is employed by or otherwise engaged by Manager or any firm or corporation owned by, controlled by or affiliated with Manager.”

As one would expect, the causes of action spelled out in the Complaint are fraud and misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, fraud in the inducement and breach of contract.

As is often the case, I am sure the backstory is fascinating. It is rare that disputes break out in public involving people with profiles as high as this. I am sure that one of the real issues here is leverage. When The Fray entered into their agreement with Latterman in 2004, they had little bargaining power and were in need of someone connected enough to get them noticed by and then signed to a major label and major publisher. Once a certain level of success is reached, the dynamic often changes.

An interesting question raised by The Fray’s lawsuit is how much they really knew about the relationship between Latterman and EMI. In the pleadings, they claim they thought he was receiving a “finder’s fee” from the company, and that in fact may be the case, albeit a highly lucrative one. It does seem hard to believe that were not somehow on notice as to Latterman’s deal with EMI.

However, this is also a cautionary tale for managers who attempt to fill different roles in this new environment. Nearly every management agreement ever drafted contains the above-described language prohibiting “double dipping” and managers should not attempt to circumvent the effect of the clause; they should be upfront in disclosing these arrangements to their artists.

I am betting this case will settle quickly. But one never knows…

Single Song Agreements

For some time now, I have been wanting to write a basic analysis of a single song agreement because this simple document is the backbone of the music publishing industry. It is also can be tremendously misunderstood.

First and foremost, a single song agreement is an assignment of copyright. Section 204 of the Copyright Act of 1976 says that any assignment of copyright must be in writing. Therefore, unlike certain verbal assignments that that occurred under the 1909 Copyright Act, you cannot assign your copyright in a musical composition unless you do so in writing. Also, except in very limited circumstances, you should never agree to assign your composition as a “work made for hire.”

Also, if there is more than one writer on a composition, and they are both/all assigning their copyright interest to the same publisher, the single song agreement is the document which details the writers’ percentages of the composition. It is important to note that the law presumes the splits to be equal unless specifically outlined. This split should be decided upon as near the date of creation as possible. I was once embroiled in a lengthy court battle over this very issue.

The next important part of the agreement is the warranty and indemnity provision. The writer must warrant that the work is original and will not infringe upon anyone else’s work. Remember that this does not apply to titles or ideas, although some writers apparently think otherwise.

The scope of the indemnity provision is extremely important to the writer. Unless he negotiates with the publisher to limit his liability against third party claims, he could end up on the line for all of the publisher’s legal fees, even if the underlying claim is frivolous. This is a very real possibility and should not be overlooked.

The next important section (and songwriter’s favorite portion, most likely) is the compensation section. Typically, the writer can expect to receive a portion of mechanical royalties, synchronization fees and royalties, public performance royalties (i.e., from airplay) and print royalties. The print royalty section is the most archaic section of the agreement and goes back to the days when music publishers were essentially print publishers who sold sheet music. Today, a songwriter would be lucky to have their work sold as a piece of sheet music. Mechanical royalties are the royalties that are generated from the sale of records (you remember records, don’t you?), compact discs and legal digital downloads. Synchronization royalties are the royalties generated from a “synchronization” of a song with a motion picture (movie, TV show, commercial, etc.).

Typically, a publisher splits all of this income with the writer under the terms of the single song agreement. Public performance income (radio, live performance, etc.) is paid directly to the writer by his or her PRO, or performance rights organization. The three PRO’s in the US are BMI, ASCAP and SESAC. Under a typical single song agreement, the writer has no claim to the publisher’s share of public performance income, or vice-versa.

The grant of rights provision can be critical to the writer. Usually, the writer will want to make sure that the publisher does not have permission to change the title, lyrics or music to a song without the writer’s consent. Also, the writer might want to limit the use of the work in certain kinds of films, commercials and/or political campaign. Without limiting language here, the writer has no control over these types of exploitations.

The next salient section is the accounting section. The writer wants to be sure that the publisher accounts to him (i.e., rendering a statement and a payment if applicable) at least twice a year. Additionally, most agreements allow the writer to object to the statement for up to one (1) year after receiving the statement. The writer should endeavor to increase that amount of time to at least two (2) to three (3) years. This period of time can fly by and you do not want to lose your contractual right to question a statement.

Another major issue in a standard single song agreement is demo costs. Some of these costs are almost always recoupable (that is, taken for reimbursement by the publisher from the writer’s share of royalties). The writer will want to be sure that he or she has a handle on what the costs will be. Understandably, keeping a handle on demo costs is also very important to the publisher.

Also, though this is rarely an issue, the writer will want to make sure the publisher cannot exploit the demo without approval from the writer.

Finally, this leaves the issue of a reversion clause. Most drafts of single song agreements omit the reversion clause, although, in my experience, the publisher will usually add this clause if requested. Essentially a reversion clause provides that if the publisher does not commercially exploit the composition within a certain amount of time, it reverts to the writer. This is fair, because in most single song agreements (as opposed to exclusive songwriting agreements) the publisher does not “buy” the song from the writer; his or her part of the deal is to get the song cut. Further, if the publisher cannot exploit the song, it is not really valuable to his or her catalog, yet it has intrinsic value to the writer.

It used to be easy to figure out the terms of a reversion. Exploitation used to mean that a song was recorded and released by an artist on a record label with national distribution or included in a film with some sort of synch fee. In the current environment, where anyone with an internet account can distribute nearly anything, this distinction becomes much more vague. The writer must pay special attention to this provision to ensure that he can live with its terms.

I hope this overview provides some insight into the workings of this document and proves there is no such thing a “just a standard single song agreement.” Although these agreements may seem similar in scope, each section of each agreement needs to be carefully reviewed.

Bands splitting publishing- two views

"there is a thing called publishing, this is what people live off of when the are in a band. EVERY band splits publishing so that everyone in the band is equal. i have lived off $30,000 for 3 years now since we signed that record deal. its hard to play in a band when you dont have a car and another member has a brand new convertible. its hard to go to band practice when you see all the great steaks, cookies, booze, a brand new hd big screen tv, about 100 dvds, new furniture, and all that s..t. there would be days i was starving and i would go to practice at his house and i would see that even the dog was being taken care of."--Bob Ferrari, formerly of the Pink Spiders, quoted on the Nashville Scene's music blog, Nashville Cream.

"A band is a microcosm of society. You hire the the people you want to work with it and you work communally and you split the money evenly". REM's Peter Buck quoted in Mojo, September 2008.

Without editorializing, that pretty much defines the two different views of how musical groups should split publishing income.