[fiveminuteplan]

I was recently asked to have my music be a part of a local comp CD and podcast by someone I don't know. They sent me an artist agreement, which I read and found to be somewhat vague. It seems to have some questionable language in it, and it doesn't really make it clear what I'm agreeing to. I was wondering if someone who was knowledgeable in this sort of thing could take a look at it and advise me on its content. I'm not saying that these people are trying to cheat me on purpose, it may just be that they're ignorant and don't really know how to write up an agreement. If something needs to be changed, I'd like to give them particulars on what it is, but unfortunately, I don't really know where to start.

It's attached to this post, it's only a few paragraphs. Any help would be greatly appreciated. It's just supposed to give them the right to play my music on their podcast and to put a song on their comp CD.

[Brent]

I don't like it at all. There are a few reasons, too.

• It's never stated exactly what it's being used for or any limitation of use for both the method of performance and the expiration of the contract. It should say how many copies of this CD are being produced (or up to X amount) and it should also state the length of time your material may be used for the podcast. If you were to "make it big", then in theory as it is now they could still play your music and make unlimited copies of it and you wouldn't get a dime.

• The second bullet there says you are a member of ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc. but it still ONLY grants performance rights. This is a problem with the entire contract actually. Performance rights cover a podcast, but mechanical licensing covers reproduction on a CD. Two completely different things.

• The wording on performance rights could be a lot better with regards to ASCAP, BMI, SESAC. Anyone has 'right' to perform those songs, the issue, though, is royalties. It needs to be clear that they are released from paying royalties for that particular recording.

• Sampling permission might have been given to the person to make the recording, but they must also be sure that uncompensated performance is included in those rights because the person whose work was sampled won't get anything either.

• I REALLY dislike the finer print wording below the bullet points. They expect you to agree to hold harmless and never prosecute them even for loss or damages stemming from THEIR NEGLIGENCE? I don't like the sound of that at all. They can screw you over all they want or sit back and LET it happen knowing you can't hold them responsible.

• "I accept full responsibility for the cost of any legal fees" FOR WHAT?! You can't prosecute them, so how can there be legal fees? That also leaves it VERY open-ended. If they are taken to court for whatever reason are YOU then responsible for footing the legal bill for them? That line shouldn't even be in there.

• Then it goes on to say that YOU agree to be held liable for any loss or damage incurred by them as a result of your negligence, gross negligence, willful misconduct or fraud?! So not only are you responsible for THEIR negligence and screwups AND legal fees, but they expect you to cover them as well for anything that you giving them your music for free might cause. And then it goes on to say you are responsible for third party losses and damages as well....???

• "I understand that any event of this nature involves a level of risk" What event? This isn't clear at all. Makes it sound like you're agreeing to perform somewhere now.

I don't like this contract at all. If they went through the hoops to designate their business as a Limited Liability Corporation then they certainly know what they are doing with this contract or have the representation that does know. It could very well be a case of ignorance and they wrote it themselves trying to add an air of "We know what we're talking about" to it when they are actually legally opening you to a lot of vulnerability.

[fiveminuteplan]

Wow, thanks Brent, that really helped a lot. I really don't know what they're up to. I e-mailed them back with the stuff you said. I guess I'll find out what the response is like.

[LC7rock]

Originally Posted by fiveminuteplan

They sent me an artist agreement, which I read and found to be somewhat vague. It seems to have some questionable language in it, and it doesn't really make it clear what I'm agreeing to.

Now I know this is an old post but, it seems clear that...


MOST BUSINESS IS LIKE THAT ANYMORE!! nobodys honest anymore! Especially businesses!! I wouldn't sign it unless I got more info and actually met a representative.

[snizzle]

This is almost a year old...

...and you just simplified and restated what was already said.
-shane

[fiveminuteplan]

Yeah, this is old. I didn't sign it. CLORPSED!