One of the key questions at the World Soundtrack Awards Music Days, one of the flagship events for film composers, was how to negotiate a fair contract. The closing panel of the industry program examined the issue in depth, examining the hidden contradictions and complexities of publishing rights and buyouts in the field of music for the screen.
Organized in partnership with the European Composers and Songwriters Alliance, the conversation used as a starting point the alliance’s recently published report ‘Audiovisual Composers’ Contracts: Current Practices, Challenges and Recommendations’. In it, the ECSA claims that the profession is becoming increasingly precarious, saying that “the secrecy surrounding contractual practices as well as the absence of comprehensive legal or contractual guidance” leaves creators vulnerable.
“In recent years, this problem has been compounded by the increasingly high level of concentration in the European audiovisual market and the growing market share of non-European video-on-demand platforms,” the report continues, noting that this landscape has seen composers “trading in the dark”, giving up their royalties for an “often meager” lump sum payment and reducing the sustainability of their careers. “If they refuse such contracts or wish to challenge their terms, they run the risk of being blacklisted and excluded from future work opportunities. »
To discuss best practices and key challenges, the WSA convened a panel comprising Screen Composers Guild of Ireland CEO Sarah Glennane; founder of composer agency Strike a Score, Valerie Dobbelaere; Harriet Moss, director of commercial rights at Faber Music; Johan van der Voet, media composer and professor of copyright and contract law; and Dutch-Irish composer Aisling Brouwer (“The Buccaneers”). Below are five takeaways from their conversation:
Learn as much about music rights as music technology
Glennane touched on the above, using a quote from British composer Kevin Sargent, to highlight how important it is in the industry to respect legal creative rights. “There’s a base level to this,” Moss added. “If you have a contract, it should be in writing. Make sure you understand it. Pay someone to read it or manage it, if that’s not possible, whether it’s through commissions from an agent or a publisher, whether it’s through a lawyer.”
“It’s important to be able to talk to other composers about it,” Brouwer said. “Because the terms that we sign have become commonplace, and it’s something that’s seeping into the industry. The more people accept it, the more it becomes the new normal. As songwriters, we have so much power by coming together and standing up for our rights and we have a responsibility to protect our revenue streams because so much of that has already been taken away from us.”
Beware of redemption
Buyout contracts are agreements that typically provide for the composer to relinquish all rights to their work in exchange for a one-time royalty fee, forgoing any future income generated by their work. The ESCA report showed that 53% of its members had experienced buy-in contracts and that 47% of audiovisual composers see buy-out practices as one of the main challenges to their fair remuneration.
Van der Voet brought up major streamers when addressing the issue, saying he “would love to be hired by Netflix, but their contracts are horrible.” “What happens is you work with directors who might not be that famous, but it might happen that your music is on Amazon or on streamers. [later]. I made a film 10 years ago that was just sold to Disney+. It happens. What contract did I sign 10 years ago? Do I get money for this? Many composers don’t look to the future. What are you signing? You have to be very careful with this. »
The composer was also keen to emphasize how full buyout contracts are “an American thing”, given that it is impossible to buy out the writer’s share in many European countries and the UK. “In America, the company can own the entire production. If you can negotiate, you can get your cut from the writer, but it’s up to them to give it. Whereas in Europe, we have the copyright, and basically you can’t take the copyright away from me even if I sign all kinds of contracts on top of that.”
Glennane stressed that buyout contracts aim to remove sources of income and that she considers composers to be “speculators”. “It’s a speculative career. You hope that the work you do is incredible and that you are recognized creatively and economically. Royalties exist in this type of ecosystem to reward that speculation and investment.”
Production companies are not publishers: pseudo-publishing
In the ESCA report, the practice of producers and broadcasters requiring composers to “assign or significantly reduce publishing rights in works while failing to fulfill their legal obligations” to undertake traditional publishing services “related to the exploitation of works” and to be transparent is called “pseudo-publishing.”
During the panel, Glennane brought up examples such as game music used in screen adaptations of the game to illustrate this practice, emphasizing that production companies are not publishers and therefore are not the best party to negotiate or be responsible for publishing rights.
“The problem with pseudo-publishing is that it grabs the rights and does nothing in return,” van der Voet said. “For example: you work with a director who works with a production company, and what happens is that some of these pseudo-publishers contact the production company and say they are going to start a publishing company for you. Film production companies are not music publishers. In the Netherlands we have seen people regularly convince the composer to sign a deal and after that nothing happens. You just lose money.”
Moss, who also works in publishing, advised composers on the possibility of a single song attribution, or SSA. “We can just release an album or a soundtrack, but then you have that representation and also the potential for secondary exploitation if that’s allowed.”
The question of copyright in AI
The conversation around AI dominated several panels at WSA Music Days. The subject being the common thread of last year’s edition, many participants present spoke of a certain exhaustion with the incessant discussions on the use of artificial intelligence in composition. However, it is a key discussion to have when it comes to negotiating rights.
Moss explained how she manages a “small catalog” of around 13,000 copyrights. “We know all these composers and their work inside out. That just means you hear something and your hair immediately stands up, but we work with as much technology as possible to search for fingerprints and that sort of thing to protect the work of our composers.”
“But it’s a difficult thing to balance,” she added. “There are a lot of film scores that are very similar, and that’s always a problem. There are definitely some gray areas.”
Long live the kill fee
At the end of the panel, participants were asked what advice they would give to aspiring composers. Most of them agreed on one key point: always have a kill fee. “You have to plan for a kill fee in case something goes wrong creatively or there is a fallout,” Moss said. “It happens. So you need something [in the contract] ensuring that any work you have already started is paid for.
“I do a lot of low-budget projects where the fees are not that high,” van der Voet added. “But there may be other parties involved who want to invest, so all of a sudden there’s money, but nothing can be changed in the film except the music. All of a sudden they have money to pay a big composer, and you walk away from the project.”
