One of the key issues at the World Soundtrack Awards Music Days, one of the major events for film composers, was how to negotiate a fair contract. The industry program’s closing committee thoroughly considered this issue, exploring the hidden contradictions and complexities of publishing rights and acquisitions in film music.
The dialogue, held in partnership with the European Composer and Songwriter Alliance, used the Alliance’s recently released report, Contracting Audiovisual Composers: Current Practices, Challenges and Recommendations, as a starting point. In its statement, ECSA said the profession was becoming increasingly precarious, with “secrecy surrounding contractual practices and a lack of comprehensive legal or contractual guidance” making creators vulnerable.
“This problem has been exacerbated in recent years by the increasingly concentrated European audiovisual market and the rising market share of non-European video-on-demand platforms,” the report continues, highlighting how composers in this context are “negotiating in the dark” and forgoing royalties for “often measly” lump sums, reducing the sustainability of their careers. “If they refuse such a contract or wish to contest its terms, they face the risk of being blacklisted and excluded from future work opportunities.”
To discuss best practice and key struggles, WSA assembled a panel consisting of Sarah Glennan, CEO of the Film Composers Guild of Ireland; Valérie Dobelaire, founder of film composer agency Strike a Score; Harriet Moss, commercial rights director at Faber Music; Johan van der Voort, media composer and teacher of copyright and contract law; and Dutch/Irish composer Aisling Brouwer (“The Buccaneers”). Here are five takeaways from their conversation.
You should know as much about music rights as you do about music technology
Glennane based this on a quote from British composer Kevin Sargent as a way of highlighting how important it is to protect creative legal rights in the industry. “There’s a fundamental level to it,” Moss added. “If you have a contract, it has to be in writing. Make sure you understand it. If that’s not possible, pay someone to read it and manage it for you, whether it’s through an agent, a publisher, or a lawyer.”
“It’s important to be able to talk to other composers about it,” Brouwer said. “Because these terms that we’re signing have become commonplace, and that’s what’s creeping into the industry. The more people who agree to it, the more it becomes the new norm. As composers, we have tremendous power to come together and claim our rights. And we have a responsibility to protect our sources of income, because so much of it has already been taken away.”
Beware of hoarding
A buyout agreement is generally an agreement in which a composer relinquishes all rights to his work and any future revenue generated by that work in exchange for a one-time fee. According to the ESCA report, 53% of its members have experienced buyer agreements and 47% of audiovisual composers identify buyout practices as one of the main challenges to fair compensation.
Van der Voort brought up the big streamers when talking about the issue, saying, “I would love to be hired by Netflix, but their contracts are terrible.” “What actually happens is that you’re working with a not-so-famous director, but your music could[later]end up on Amazon or a streamer. I made a movie 10 years ago and it just got sold to Disney+. That’s what happens. What kind of contract did you sign 10 years ago? Am I getting paid for this? A lot of composers don’t think about the future. What do you sign up for? You have to be very careful about that.”
The composer also emphasized how “American” an outright purchase agreement is, given that in many European countries and the United Kingdom it is not possible to buy out a writer’s share, adding, “In the United States, a company may own the entire work. You might be able to get a writer’s share, but that’s what they give you. Whereas in Europe, we have writer’s rights, and basically they can’t take away my writer’s rights, even if I sign all kinds of contracts on top of that.”
Glennane said the acquisition deal was aimed at depriving him of a source of income and characterized the composer as a “speculator.” “It’s a speculative career. You want your work to be great and to be recognized creatively and financially. Royalties exist in this kind of ecosystem to reward that speculation and investment.”
Production companies are not publishers: pseudo-publishing
The ESCA report calls “pseudo-publishing” a practice in which producers and broadcasters require composers to “sign off or significantly reduce the rights to publish a work without fulfilling their legal obligations” in order to undertake traditional publishing services “related to the exploitation of the work” and maintain transparency.
During the panel discussion, Glenne cited examples such as the use of game music in game adaptations to illustrate this practice, and emphasized that production companies are not publishers and therefore are not the best party to negotiate publishing rights or assume responsibility.
“The problem with pseudo-publishing is that they just steal the rights and don’t do anything in return,” van der Voort said. “An example of this is when you work with a director who is affiliated with a production company, what happens is that some pseudo-publisher contacts the production company and says they’ll set up a publishing company for you. Film production companies are not music publishers. In the Netherlands, I’ve consistently seen people sign composers to contracts and then nothing happens. They just lose money.”
Moss, who also works in publishing, advised composers on the possibility of single-song assignments, or SSA. “You can publish an album or a soundtrack, but then you not only get that representation, but also the possibility of secondary use, if you allow it.”
AI copyright issues
Conversations surrounding AI were featured on several panels at WSA Music Days. Many of the participants cited a certain fatigue with the continued discussion on the use of artificial intelligence in composition, as this theme was the main guiding principle of last year’s edition. Still, this is an important discussion when it comes to rights negotiations.
Moss talked about how he manages a “small catalog” of approximately 13,000 copyrights. “We know all of our composers and their works inside and out, which means that as soon as we hear something our hair goes up, but we’re working with every technology possible to look for things like fingerprinting to protect a composer’s work.”
“But it’s a difficult balance to strike,” she added. “There’s a lot of movie music that is very similar, and that’s always a problem. There’s definitely some gray areas.”
Long live the murder fee
At the end of the panel discussion, participants were asked what advice they would give to budding composers. Most of them agreed on one important point. That means you always pay the killing fee. “You have to have a kill fee in case something goes wrong creatively or there’s fallout,” Moss said. “That does happen, so you need to make sure that it’s clearly stated (in the contract) that you’re going to get paid for the work that’s already been done.”
“I do a lot of low-budget projects where the fees aren’t that high,” Van der Voort added. “But there may be other parties that want to invest. So all of a sudden they have money, but they can’t change anything about the movie except the music. All of a sudden they have money to pay a great composer and they’re off the project.”
