Summit Music - a reputable company?

[Steve Holt]

I've been offered a contact with Summit Music, based in LA. They describe
themselves as "doing business in L.A. for about ten years and have amassed
500+ TV credits. " All sounds good so far. They like my music (a series of
original cues I produced in-house). They want to license the music but they
also want to own the publishing if the music is used by their clients. I
continue to own the publishing outside of their usages. And they only pay
50% of the PROFIT on the licencing fees, after their own operating expenses
are covered.

Is this standard? Substandard?
Has anyone heard of this company? Are they reputable?

--
Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt

[EggHd]

<< This company doesn't appear to have a web page which concerns me. Web
pages are so easy these days it seems like anyone that is reputable
would have a web page. >>

This would weed out the sharks? A company with an easy to do nowdays web page?
Yikes!




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Karen Williams Johnson]

>"Steve Holt" > wrote in message >...
>> I've been offered a contact with Summit Music, based in LA. They describe
>> themselves as "doing business in L.A. for about ten years and have amassed
>> 500+ TV credits. " All sounds good so far. They like my music (a series of
>> original cues I produced in-house). They want to license the music but they
>> also want to own the publishing if the music is used by their clients. I
>> continue to own the publishing outside of their usages. And they only pay
>> 50% of the PROFIT on the licencing fees, after their own operating expenses
>> are covered.
>>
>> Is this standard? Substandard?
>> Has anyone heard of this company? Are they reputable?
>
>


"50% of the PROFIT on the licencing fees, after their own operating"
expenses are covered."

The above clause is a very big and very red flag. Writers are
supposed to get 50% of any and all monies received from their work(s).


_Any _contract that specifies a percentage of profit or net profit
must be specific to the nth degree as to what the definition of profit
and/or net profit means. In other words, every single ****ing item
allowed as a deduction against profit must be spelled out. If not,
they can charge anything and everything against your royalty account.


Rick (I am not a lawyer but my mother said I should have been.)Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
(from a friend's while in LA)



Karen Johnson

http://home.socal.rr.com/kjquilts/

[Bill Thompson]

>> "50% of the PROFIT on the licencing fees, after their own operating"
>> expenses are covered."
>
> The above clause is a very big and very red flag. Writers are
> supposed to get 50% of any and all monies received from their work(s).
>
>
> _Any _contract that specifies a percentage of profit or net profit
> must be specific to the nth degree as to what the definition of profit
> and/or net profit means. In other words, every single ****ing item
> allowed as a deduction against profit must be spelled out. If not,
> they can charge anything and everything against your royalty account.

Hate to do the me-too thing, but in this case, this paragraph needs to
be underlined twice!

I went into a deal like this once, with a guy I trusted, and for a while
it worked out quite well. Then there was a change in management, and
well, you can figure out the rest. Fortunately for me, the impact was
minimal. One of the two really bone-headed business decisions I've made
thus far.

Bill

[R Krizman]

<< They like my music (a series of
> original cues I produced in-house). They want to license the music but they
> also want to own the publishing if the music is used by their clients. I
> continue to own the publishing outside of their usages. And they only pay
> 50% of the PROFIT on the licencing fees, after their own operating expenses
> are covered. >>



This sounds kind of squirrely. If you do music for a music library, they will
typically take all of the publishing and may not even share sync fees with you,
but they will pay you to produce the music. (you'll keep the writer's share of
the ASCAP). Summit wants the publishing just for making the connection? Red
flag. Also, technically you can't keep publishing for other usages if it's the
same music. What some people do is re-title the same piece of music to
accomplish this, but I think that is a suspect practice and perhaps not legally
sound (although it does happen).
Finally, I'm guessing you'll never, ever see any licensing fees.

I dunno, Steve, use your own judgement. But these people are not making any
investment in you at all and already they're asking for the biggest piece of
the pie. Anybody can go and hang out that shingle. I have made deals almost
that bad, but it's been for music that's been floating around unused in my
library for years.

-R

[Steve Holt]

"R Krizman" > wrote in message
...
> << They like my music (a series of
> > original cues I produced in-house). They want to license the music but
they
> > also want to own the publishing if the music is used by their clients. I
> > continue to own the publishing outside of their usages. And they only
pay
> > 50% of the PROFIT on the licencing fees, after their own operating
expenses
> > are covered. >>
>
>
>
> This sounds kind of squirrely. If you do music for a music library, they
will
> typically take all of the publishing and may not even share sync fees with
you,
> but they will pay you to produce the music. (you'll keep the writer's
share of
> the ASCAP). Summit wants the publishing just for making the connection?
Red
> flag. Also, technically you can't keep publishing for other usages if
it's the
> same music. What some people do is re-title the same piece of music to
> accomplish this, but I think that is a suspect practice and perhaps not
legally
> sound (although it does happen).
> Finally, I'm guessing you'll never, ever see any licensing fees.

This is precisely what they're doing... re-titling the works. They're saying
that by doing this I still own all the rights including publishing for all
other purposes except for theirs.

> I dunno, Steve, use your own judgement. But these people are not making
any
> investment in you at all and already they're asking for the biggest piece
of
> the pie. Anybody can go and hang out that shingle. I have made deals
almost
> that bad, but it's been for music that's been floating around unused in my
> library for years.
>

I hear you. But the works we're talking about are from a film score demo of
cues that I wrote to sell myself as a composer. Most of these pieces were
not writeen with the expectation of direct revenue.


Steve Holt
INNER MUSIC
Music Creation & Production
http://www.inner-music.com
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/steveholt

[R Krizman]

<< This is precisely what they're doing... re-titling the works. They're saying
that by doing this I still own all the rights including publishing for all
other purposes except for theirs. >>

I know a lot of people who treat this as common practice, but it's not
sanctioned by any attorney I've spoken to. Speak to the legal department at
your performance rights society. I suspect you could probably do it and it
wouldn't be a problem, but who knows?

<< But the works we're talking about are from a film score demo of
cues that I wrote to sell myself as a composer. Most of these pieces were
not writeen with the expectation of direct revenue. >>

So you probably have nothing to lose, right? So what the hey?

Honestly, I have a hard enough time making these decisions for myself, but like
the radio dispatcher used to say when I was a cab driver: "Keep moving,
gentlemen, keep moving". I mean, even if you're ripped off, at least you're
putting stuff out there and starting to pull on the thread.

-R