Publishing / Copyright Question

[thesecession]

Regarding this clause:
"Composer grants Administrator exclusive rights to grant non-exclusive music use licenses of the Work to third parties for any purposes in any and all media."

Does this mean as the composer, you need a license to use your own song in your own short film? (even if you own copyright & the recording 100%)

Thanks

[BertKoor]

I don't know where you got this from. I think it's from a template licensing contract with a purpose: exploitation of publishing rights by an "administrator".

I read it as the admin gets exclusive rights to sell it on and on and on.

Does that apply to you? If not: delete that clause. Do you draw up a contract with yourself? I certainly don't. But then I'm not involved in publishing a film with music.

One thing I can think of to let this be relevant: multi talent John Doe has multiple business. He sells home-crafted music to John Doe Publishing ltd. A thousand turnips go from the left pocket to the right pocket and John personally is relieved from all duties. Now in the hands of John ltd who may do whatever. Like sell a license to John Doe Motion Pictures ltd. Maybe there's a tax benefit somewhere...

[Shabdahbriah]

Regarding this clause:
Does this mean as the composer, you need a license to use your own song in your own short film? (even if you own copyright & the recording 100%)

Thanks

No. YOU are not a "third party". That would be other people/companies, who would pay a fee/royalty/license, etc. of which YOU should get a percentage. The "non-exclusive" bit, means they don't own it to the exclusion of anyone else using it. (like sample/loop libraries EULA)

"Composer grants Administrator exclusive rights to grant non-exclusive music use licenses of the Work to third parties for any purposes in any and all media."

This could be anything from hosting/distributing it on a website, like 'Amazon', to live performances, or adaptations/remixes with different instruments etc., to video/film soundtrack/score, or elevator/corporate (piped) muzak, to an excerpt (30-second spot/10-second intro, etc). "Licenses" (and fees) would generally vary according to type of "use", frequency (number of plays, in advertising), and size (perceived value) of market/medium where that use occurs, etc. [2c]

[Perimeter Sound]

"exclusive rights to grant non-exclusive"

^ That doesn't even make any sense....Either these folks don't speak English as a first language, or they don't have a clue about law, and either way, the cut & paste dollar store contract doesn't mean a thing since it doesn't even make sense.

"explicit rights to grant non-exclusive"

^ That is what it should read. Otherwise you'd end up paying them to use your own material, and/or paying them a cut when you went and sold or licensed it somewhere on your own without their help.

[low_low]

Depends on if it's your copyright or not. You said "as the composer .." which I assume means you're the creator and the copyright holder, but if you created it as an employee as a "work for hire" then you probably aren't the copyright holder and you would be subject to whatever license you receive.

More likely, however, is that you are the copyright owner and that you are the one issuing the licenses (through whatever means), so as the copyright owner you have all the rights of copyright (i.e. reproduction, preparation of derivative works, distribution, performance, and display) and you can mint whatever kinds of licenses as you want to. Of course you could also be subject to the terms of your own licenses .. if, for example, you granted an exclusive license to someone, then you couldn't turn around and break that by using it yourself w/o causing problems.

[low_low]

"exclusive rights to grant non-exclusive"

^ That doesn't even make any sense....

It makes perfect sense ... the copyright owner is granting a business the EXCLUSIVE right (meaning only they have this right) to grant NON-EXCLUSIVE licenses (meaning they are the only ones who are able to grant non-exclusive licenses).

[jancivil]

"exclusive rights to grant non-exclusive"

^ That doesn't even make any sense....Either these folks don't speak English as a first language, or they don't have a clue about law, and either way, the cut & paste dollar store contract doesn't mean a thing since it doesn't even make sense.

"explicit rights to grant non-exclusive"

^ That is what it should read. Otherwise you'd end up paying them to use your own material, and/or paying them a cut when you went and sold or licensed it somewhere on your own without their help.

I don't think it's a mistake: I think the idea is to exclude "composer" from granting these non-exclusive (3rd party licensees) rights so that "Administrator" gets a cut of _any_ monies proceeding from licensing of this "Work".

[low_low]

I don't think it's a mistake: I think the idea is to exclude "composer" from granting these non-exclusive (3rd party licensees) rights so that "Administrator" gets a cut of _any_ monies proceeding from licensing of this "Work".

That's what I think too, and they probably don't want you cutting a deal with another distributor and causing competition for them.

[jancivil]

Right.

[BertKoor]

Got a contract with paragraphs you don't understand the implications of? Then cut them out or rephrase it in understandable language, but never sign.

Anyway, thesecession (the "O.P.") last visited Nov 2016 so it's all moot what his contract proposal exactly says / means. But y'all like necroing threads anyway..