soundtrack

[Mostess]

That first film synch. form was too broad, and applied more for contracted musical scoring. [...] This new form spells out that it only gives us the rights to have your song, "Stand in the Circle" play with our short movie "Don't Mind Me".

As Bill suggested, an acceptable contract solves this argument. Perhaps the second contract referred to here could be a good start. Can Obscurity, Yook, or Mr. Miller post it here so we can see what the fuss is about?

[obscurity]

That first film synch. form was too broad, and applied more for contracted musical scoring. [...] This new form spells out that it only gives us the rights to have your song, "Stand in the Circle" play with our short movie "Don't Mind Me".

As Bill suggested, an acceptable contract solves this argument. Perhaps the second contract referred to here could be a good start. Can Obscurity, Yook, or Mr. Miller post it here so we can see what the fuss is about?

I've already posted a quote from it, which I think gives you enough flavour to know that it's probbaly not a great starting point. I'd post the whole thing for you, but, y'know, gotta respect the copyright and all :)

[Mostess]

Your quote is from the second one? Man, that's rough. What was the first one like?

[obscurity]

Your quote is from the second one? Man, that's rough. What was the first one like?

[edit]
Wait, my mistake. That one *was* from the first. The second one isn't as offensive, and may actually be a starting point. I still wouldn't be happy signing it as it is, though. The big dealbreaker in the new one was actually:

Publisher shall indemnify costs, losses, damages and expenses (including reasonable attorneys fees) arising out of any breach or failure of any warranties or covenants made by Publisher herein.

Where publisher = me & yook.

[HeuristicsInc]

that sort of employee/work for hire provision has been added in the last few years as a way for record companies to keep artists under their thumbs and to give them even less compensation for what they do. it would be a good idea to avoid such languages.
-bill

[Mostess]

The big dealbreaker in the new one was actually:

Publisher shall indemnify costs, losses, damages and expenses (including reasonable attorneys fees) arising out of any breach or failure of any warranties or covenants made by Publisher herein.

Where publisher = my & yook.

Yeah, that's what I figured. No one wants to get stuck with the lawyer bill if there's a problem. We're all so poor. And the film festival people definitely don't want infighting on their watch. So much fear.

Sadly, I doubt any acceptable (to the film festival) contract won't have a clause like that in it. At some level, you're going to have to trust that the filmmakers won't do something so egregious that you'll have to sue. And if their film turns out to be a money maker, they very well could. Especially since the film in question is basically a music video for your song (and a kind cool one, I think).

It still would be useful to see the entire second document. I'm no lawyer, but it wouldn't hurt if SongFight had some ideas to contribute other than "don't trust them; they have legal obligations." And I shudder to think what will happen here if (when!) Glenn Case becomes the lead singer of INXS.

[obscurity]

At some level, you're going to have to trust that the filmmakers won't do something so egregious that you'll have to sue.

I think you may have misread it. That clause means we have to pay if *they* decide to sue *us*.

[Mostess]

I think you may have misread it. That clause means we have to pay if *they* decide to sue *us*.

If that's the case, I think you're being paranoid. If you hold up your end of the contract, you have nothing to worry about. You only pay damages and for their (reasonably priced) lawyer if they can prove you broke the contract.

But again, I'm no lawyer. Maybe I just don't know enough to fear this. And I'm not certain your reading is right, either (does "made by Publisher" modify "breach or failure" or "warranties or covenants"?). On second thought, your reading is probably correct.

[Eric Y.]

i think the point is, they created a song, and were asked for permission to use it in a film for free.

mister filmfight dude is all saying "well more than likely they wouldn't do such and such with it" and "there's a 99% chance that blah blah blah wouldn't happen", and they're being asked to sign a contract relinquishing artistic control of their song AND being held responsible for legal fees in the event of etc etc etc?

it's no wonder they aren't willing to go through that kind of hassle. if i was doing somebody a favour by permitting them to use something i did, i'm sure as hell not going to subject myself to all these uncertainties and whatnot and leave myself open for anything bad that potentially could (but probably won't) happen.

[erik]

All I can say is that.. you guys are all taking this too professionally. I mean, I know you gotta' have pride in your music and all that jazz.. But, do ya' really need to get this hostile over it? More than likely Mr. Miller wasn't going to put fart noises in it.. or turn it into a hardcore gangsta' rap. He was just going to put it in his movie. (His well made movie, i'm guessing. CPP are gods) So, your song would've gotten heard at a film festival! Thats pretty spectacular! If I were you, I wouldn't be so serious about your art.

Do *you* have some idea that your friend isn't going to do anything with the music except put it in the film? Sure, of course you do, it's your friend.

Do people who've never met your friend have any clue as to what he will do with the music? Nope, they've never met the person. So the only way they can begin to form an opinion is through their correspondence. That include emails and the kind of contracts that he chooses the get people to sign.

People aren't taking their art too seriously. Their taking the original contract as seriously as it should be taken. If you want to give people who don't know you the impression that you are not going to mess with them, don't include clauses in your contract that say stuff like "The Filmmaker (hereafter known as the Employer) gets to do whatever he wants with the music."

You can't expect people to sign something and then not expect that the terms outlined in the contract will be lived-up-to. If I sign something that the filmmaker gets to change the song in anyway, than I would fully expect him to do so. That's not hostility, that's an expectation I would rightfully have in this day and age.

So if your friend wants to not set off any alarms in people's heads, I would suggest a way simpler contract. I don't know what the new one looks like, and I'm not a lawyer, but something like: "Filmmaker gets to use The Song or parts of The Song for This Specific Project. Filmmaker has no rights to and expects no monies from The Song. Songwriter has no rights to and expects no monies from This Specific Project."

If I got sent a contract like that (but all translated into Lawyerese), it would more closely set the tone that your friend is trying to give: that he wants to use people's songs in his movies and not mess with people.

[millertime83]

The contract specified that the song could only be used for the particular video in question, Don't Mind Me. Yook and Obsucrity had seen the finished product, and it was about 6 months later I contacted them for documented permission to use it in a film festival. I respected them, which is why I asked permission to use it for Filmfights months earlier, which they agreed to, and asked to have their website and such placed in the credits, which we did.

Someone on FilmFights told me this was an acceptable Film Synch. Release form, and I am not a lawyer, so I thought so too, and sent it to them. They took offense and told us it was too broad, so I took out what I thought was offensive. I can't afford to hire a entertainment lawyer to write a contract for a Film Synch. to enter into a film festival, and all we were asking for is what the festival required: Written permission of the composer to use the work in the film.

[obscurity]

all we were asking for is what the festival required: Written permission of the composer to use the work in the film.

I repeat: if that was all you were asking for, you would have received it without a second thought.

[erik]

They took offense and told us it was too broad, so I took out what I thought was offensive.

Hey Brad,

I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just trying to get you a contract that works for you when dealing with people who you don't really know. Did you ask obscurity and yook what parts *they* thought were offensive? Not that you should have to cater to them, but if you never know what parts are the ones that they are taking objection to, then you'll never know how much you really have to change. IANAL either, but the part that obscurity quoted really does sound like they have to incur any costs should you decide to sue them. Is there a reason why you have such a clause in your contract?

If you faxed over a page that looked like this, would that be sufficient for Festival requirements:

Hey obs and yook, can I use you song in my film? Check one:

. . . . . . YES. . . .NO
yook: . . [ ] . . . .[ ]
obs: . . . [ ] . . . .[ ]

I mean, that's written permission by the composers to use the song in the film.

[Mostess]

I can't afford to hire a entertainment lawyer to write a contract for a Film Synch. to enter into a film festival, and all we were asking for is what the festival required: Written permission of the composer to use the work in the film.

What festival is this? Did they tell you that written permission had to be a signed legal document prepared by a lawyer? A cocktail napkin with "Brad can play his movie and my song at the festival, signed obscurity and yook" is written permission. Notaries public are everywhere.

I'm not sure why you see yourself as the victim here. Obscurity obviously consents to your use of the song in the film, and to your playing of the film at the festival. Unless the film festival is being harsh, there is no problem. And if the film festival is being harsh, your problem is with them, not us.

You've brought this discussion from PMs with specific people to the forum as a whole. And even then, there's stuff you're not sharing. Your "I'm sorry this required you to resort to using expletives." was disingenuous: any explitives were obviously not in response to your polite prose, but to the legal document, which you still have not posted. Your "friend" blathering about how we're taking our art "too seriously" and acting "too professionally" doesn't help your cause much, either.

I'm not sure what you expect from people, but whining that you can't get them to voluntarily waive serious rights for no compensation is very silly. Any distrust here is your fault. And a lack of cooperation is not hostility.

[starfinger]

I may be reading too much into this, but it sounds like the Film Festival is mostly concerned that the people providing the song are legally allowed to provide it -- i.e., they didn't rip a drum loop off an old Funkadelic album or something.

The contract language clearly needs to be toned down, but the issue is probably more complicated than we realize.

-craig

[brad]

This has definitely gotten over-complicated.

I've signed a whole bunch of licensing contracts for everything from tiny film festivals to mix CDs to local television to VH1. The amateur contracts tend to be the longest and weirdest and I tend to avoid them now just because it takes a lot of time to figure out what the hell I'm agreeing to.

All you should really need for the festival is signed authorization from the artist saying it's OK for you to use the song or excerpts of the song. Be as clear as possible with your language. Throw the word "forever" in there. Specify that it's for X dollars (X can equal zero). Get it signed. That's about it.

This stuff about being able to alter the song seems like needless ass-covering from people who are over-thinking it. Say what you actually want permission to do in clear language and I don't think you'll have any problems with anyone reasonable.

[vanilla ike]

i'll give you my music all day long......i want to share

[tonetripper]

Being in the film industry, myself, I can understand all the grief about these contracts. They are often too heady and the language is, as brad stated, a lot of ass-coverage to achieve the final result. Tone down the agreement to the basics and I'm sure since there isn't a lot of money made at festivals (I have worked on countless films that have been in a variety of festivals as a technician) but calling cards for the next job, which is probably some PA job on a commercial, will make it easier on all the artists involved. Maybe include something in the contract that gives said musician first dibs on the next picture made for work in the soundtrack by said film-maker. This, ofcourse, from my perspective is in lieu of the no-money clause that seems to accompany independent short films. So, when you make it big, make sure you don't forget about the people helping you get your shit off the ground.

And Miller I've been reading this thread and you HAVE to look at these contracts objectively as an artist. The language is clearly in favour of the film-maker and the musician is getting the bone. Take responsibility for your errors and right it according to the info represented by caring individuals for their own artistic needs in this thread. Two sides to satisfy. Films need music and music has never needed film. In fact videos I think have been to the detriment of the music medium and take the imagination away from the listener. But I digress, the language needs to be short, to the point, and not nearly as long-winded as I have read in this thread. Until you are paying anyone, no one is an employee and the contracts really, honestly are kind of green sounding IMHO. Wait til you get some financial backing before you start pulling out all the stops and playing pro.

Concluding this, I would have to agree with my man The Hip Cola and say that redcar would prolly be more than into this if the language wasn't so green sounding. Just my two cents. By the way I love film-making and have been a sound guy for a number of years professionally and soundtrack work is something The Hip Cola and I have been discussing for some time..... just so's you know.

[millertime83]

Oh there's a different Brad. I thought you were talking to me.

[erik]

You can usually be assured that people are addressing you when they use the [/quote] tag on pieces of a previous post of yours. I think most people were talking to you, or at least about your situation.

[millertime83]

You can usually be assured that people are addressing you when they use the /quote tag on pieces of a previous post of yours. I think most people were talking to you, or at least about your situation.

I enjoyed Red Skates.

[MintyHandy]

you guys are all taking this too professionally

To take a slightly different tack here...Brad (the filmmaker), you should be as careful and wary as these guys are being. If you're asking people to sign contracts you were given by someone else, without understanding what it said, then you might be signing contracts under the same conditions. For this reason, I cannot stress enough that if you get in the habit of signing contracts that give somebody significant rights that they "promise" or "will never" take advantage of, someone will take advantage of those clauses sooner or later, and you'll be out something of significant value. Plus, you'll likely become bitter. That's the way of things in the film industry as well as the music industry, because no matter how much the artists (you, for instance) love your craft and want to make good films, the business is populated by people who are in it for the money, and that's all they care about.

True story: two people, good friends for years. One is making progress in the film industry, and as a favor to the other, offers to shop the other's screenplay around. The deal: Person A (let's call him Bob) pays a token for short-term shopping rights, and Person B (Tom) agrees to kick Bob a small fee if the shopping pays off, or if Tom wants someone else to shop it. It's a simple affair, and they're both pleased as punch. Bob makes a lot of progress shopping the script, which leads directly to Tom getting an agent at a high-falutin' Los Angeles agency.

Uh oh, the new agency wants Tom to "get out of" their contract with Bob, because the agency can't shop the script unless they buy out Bob, which they don't want to do for such an unproven talent as Tom. So, Tom tries to sweet-talk Bob into signing a new contract that cancels out the original, claiming that it will just "make things easier", and that Bob would still get his fee, even though the new contract claims he will receive "no consideration whatsoever", etc.

Bob, however, feels swindled -- after all, Bob spent time and money getting Tom to the point that an agent would be interested -- plus Tom has been badmouthing Bob recently, and Bob got wind of it. So Bob refuses to renegotiate, and says he will hold Tom to the original contract. Tom's agent says "well, we can't shop it around, then, until the contract runs out, and we're not willing to buy Bob out." Now Bob sits on the script instead of shopping it, and Tom's agent can't shop Tom's best script.

Well, by the time the contract ran out, the agency had cooled on Tom. Now Tom's script isn't being shopped, Tom's agent doesn't call anymore, and Tom and Bob aren't friends any more. And this is over a contractual term that both parties intended to support (i.e., Tom originally had a sincere intention to pay Bob the contractually obligated fee, and Bob originally had a genuine desire to see Tom succeed when he agreed to take a token fee). Both Tom and Bob are to blame here, to a certain degree, but the catalyst was the agency's unwillingness to buy out the terms of the contract. That is a complication that neither Tom nor Bob foresaw when they wrote up the contract.

Yes, a true story. But this stuff happens -every day-. I've got piles of stories like that, all personally witnessed. Remember: contracts are good, but contracts are also bad. Embrace them, but also understand them. And remember that contracts are what we resort to when people aren't doing what they promised they would, so they matter.

Good luck.