Sly Stone To Finally Get Paid

The music industry history is littered with artists who claim they were duped into bad contracts and not paid a fair amount. There are many that claim that the internet is making things worse. There are those whose work fails to earn out and find themselves locked into a perpetual agreement. There are those who establish themselves only to find that the contract doesn’t reflect the change and is inequitable. Van Morrison claims he never earned a cent for writing and recording 'Brown Eyed Girl' and even penned a song, 'The Big Royalty Check' to vent his anger in later years. However, sometimes justice works and those who need it and were duped out of it, get their reward.

Sly and the Family Stone created a bridge between 60s and 70s white and black audiences and between soul, R&B. pop and were the fathers of funk and their driver Sly Stone was the most colourful of the band. Their hits included ‘Family Affair’, I Want To Take You Higher’ and ‘Dance to the Music’. They even appeared at Woodstock.

However, Stone found himself owed millions of dollars in royalties and has been fighting for some 5 years to get paid. Unfortunately, his fight led to years of struggle with him even being homeless and living in a van in LA. In 2013 an appeal was rejected that deemed BMI, Sony, and Warner were not liable to pay and the argument moved towards events that took place back in 1989 when Stone signed his financial control over to his lawyer Gerald Goldstein and the company Even St. Production. He claimed that they had diverted millions in royalties, leaving him unable to get the money he said was due him.

Stone, testified that he had not received any royalty payments between 1989 and 2000 but attorneys for Goldstein and Glenn Stone contended that the singer was paid millions, but broke an agreement to make new records.

A LA jury has now found in Stone’s favour and awarded him $2.5 million in damages against Even St. Productions, $2.45 million against Goldstein and $50,000 against attorney Glenn Stone. A total of $5 million. However, the defendants claim that they will fight the ruling so the case unfortunately is likely to drag on.

Another Day at The Races

This weekend my wife read a friend’s self-published book on Kindle. Yes, there were a couple of typos and a couple of other mistakes one would expect a proof-reader to have picked up, but she enjoyed it and found it well constructed. Coming from a lady who selects, buys firm and then reviews and sells hundreds of titles and thousands of units every month, this is a compliment. And she suitably gave the work a review on Amazon.

When we read about the debate about self-published versus traditional published works we often hear the continued posturing over who makes the most money and also who is just destined to remain in the ‘long tail’ of books and who can make something happen just by their adoption, process and marketing clout that can go automatically into the bestseller ‘short head’ of books. It starts to beg the question, so what and are we looking at the situation and opportunity the right way? 

Today the blogs and industry continues to debate the new breed of self-publishing alternatives. The establishment viewpoint often remains the same as it ever was. It’s undeniable that money can buy a hit and that the trade also can select their winners. Some say it’s like a day at the racers and placing bets in a crowded field. Like all gambles the bets don’t always come home or deliver the odds expected of them. But there again, you wouldn’t expect to see a donkey in the Grand National, or a thoroughbred steeplechaser on the beach at Blackpool. It’s about picking the right horses for the right courses.

Too many times today we hear consultants and industry watchers who have grown up in the old world, supporting it, even when it would appear to contradict what they say about the new world. Maybe it’s more a case of saying what the client wants to hear and like many pundits on the course they keep their hands in their pockets.

Perhaps we should stop thinking and talking corporate and start thinking and talking author. The author profile is already being raised with literary festivals, writer’s conferences and even though some of the higher profile events are being corporatized, many are not. Self-publishing is just getting more authors to question whether corporate suits them best, or whether it’s the right way every time.

Much of traditional publishing is outsourced with often only the money and control remaining in-house. 

Amazon, Wattpad, Sourcebooks and many more are now starting to offer both the author services and the channel to market and publishing has to take note. 

Some publishing houses have started ‘collection boxes’ for the great unpublished. Some have bought up smaller operations who already do it. But have these forays into the unknown been token gestures, or are they genuine initiatives to harness the growing masses? Can the traditional publishers truly accommodate more, or is it inevitable that they cut to the chase and limit themselves to only backing their favourites.

Perhaps we should not be focusing on the end delivery, the published book, but on the total author relationship, development, communication and reward system. Is it good enough to pay royalties after months when others pay after weeks? Is it good enough to give someone one liners on a royalty statement and expect it not to be questioned? Is it good enough to have only one development process and approach and not offer multiple options? Is it good enough to buy and retain a wide berth of rights and only use the minimal? Are non-compete and first nation contract clauses the way to go? 

There are many more questions and some are applicable to some and not to others, but the questions are increasingly more about the needs of the author and consumer and less about the maintenance of the corporate machine.    

AuthorCare Begins With Transperancy

Today we read Hugh Howey’s blog post ‘Bread and Roses’ on what he believes the Authors Guild should be focused on and an author’s perspective on today’s marketplace. His views will not be shared by all, but they convey a frustration that is often felt by many, not necessarily on the activities of the Guild, but on their position within the market.

It is a given that we have to both encourage authors and reward them. Yesterday they often could secure healthy advances and had a clear measure of their sales and expectation of royalties. If there was an issue they could instigate an audit. Today they increasingly see a net receipt environment where they can often lose the distinction of sales and revenues and performance between the different channels. There is also is an increasing tendency by some to create a catch all bucket called ‘special sales’ and the author may be left with a feeling of ‘take it or leave it’ and potential frustration.

Does the reward match their expectation, exceed it, or disappoint? Some publishers will work hard to manage expectations, communicate openly and explain the results, but others may only supply consolidated entries on their statements.

Digital sales in particular should be transparent to all. Everyone should be able to track sales in real time and calculate revenues accordingly. However, that isn’t often the case and sales reconciliation across digital channels isn’t always easy for publishers, let alone agents and authors, and some publishers even outsource the process to specialist. Imagine, an ebook licence is sold today. There is no reason why with today’s technology that can’t be reported either in real time or near time to the copyright owner. There is no reason why every online retailer can’t supply a standard feed. Alas that isn’t the case.

When we look at Amazon’s KDP self publishing facilities, the author sees sales as they accumulate and can see payments due, which are then paid monthly direct into their account. Even if we ignore the percentage of receipt paid as being significantly higher than that paid by publishers, the transactions are transparent and the money often flows quicker.

Today we see a growing self publishing movement and although many make little money, they often feel that they are at least able to seen what sales they make. In creating an open and relatively transparent service, the likes of Amazon are also nurturing trust and swaying authors to follow them. Getting them back into the traditional publishing process may be harder than some imagine.

Customer service and Authorcare begins with communications and transparency and the one thing that counts is the reward in units sold converted into royalty paid.

Retaining Author Relationships In A Transparent World

Technology and communications are changing not only our culture but also our relationships with others. It is not just about how and what we communicate but also about the transparency and openness of the communication. Where once we could not see, we now can and this can start to question and even undermine the trust and inter-dependency in relationships we once took for granted.  

We can all now see our financial transactions and business is now viewable in real time 24x7. Even our location, what we are doing, what we like and dislike can be tracked and visible to many. There is often no hiding place unless you are switched off. As recently witnesses in the news, even governments are exposed and they need to maintain their trusted relationships within an increasingly hostile environment.

When we look at the book business and it value and supply chains, this increased openness and transparency is opening up both new opportunities and also starting to question relationships and process we once took as given.  Increasingly, we are all questioning the value that others add and are now looking to technology and information to support these. These changes are changing relationships and what we expect from them and potentially exposing that thorny issue of trust.

We can no longer deny the rise in self-publishing. What was once seen as the slush pie and vanity publishing is fast becoming respectable and a vibrant publishing market in its own right. As this door widens it could impact on the traditional publishing chain and question what rights are traded, the terms and even the commercial relationships themselves. The process between rights and royalties may have been to many authors something that just happened, but as the likes of Amazon’s KDP and Kobo’s publishing and other services start to show live sales being accrued along with earnings, what once was a mystery to many authors is starting to become transparent. This shift is significant as it starts to force new rules on all and merely sticking to the old ways may in fact end up driving more to the new ones.

We have long argued that physical and digital rights should be separated. We accept that the two go hand in hand and that they are different to other rights such as Film and subsidiary rights. However, the terms under which they are licenced should be separated. Right reversals have a defined physical trigger in most contracts and this works today. However in a digital content world this can easily become perpetual licence as the inventory never goes out of print. If the two are joined under the same revert clause then the physical work can be locked in perpetuity irrespective of its performance. Term time licencing of digital would make sense, but these leads us to consider the information needed by the author on which to base their relationship and trust. We now have to accept a greater transparency, openness, availability of detailed information and timeliness of payments.

Of course some may say the wheel isn’t broken so it doesn’t need fixing, others may say they have a contract and that is that, but it is not about today but tomorrow and maybe it’s time for a change and one that reinforces the relationships and trust and negates the need to go for a more transparent and open deal.

What we can’t deny is that the world around us is changing and with it our approach to what we expect out of those we do business with and there is no reason to believe that should be any different for authors. 

Should Music Contracts Reflect Today's World or Yesterday's? Part 2

No sooner had we posted our copy yesterday than the jury has ruled in favor of Universal Music Group in the label's court battle against Eminem's former publishing company FBT. This means that the royalty rates will stay as they are.

A verdict for the producers could have brought millions of dollars for artists whose contracts with record labels pre-date digital download sites and mobile phone ringtones. It also has probably strengthened the resolution of artists, such as The Beatles, who have todate refused to sell their recordings on iTunes, because they receive so little of the proceeds.

Should Music Contracts Reflect Today's World or Yesterday's

The one-week trial between Universal Music Group (UMG) and F.B.T. Productions (Eminem) closed this week with FBT asserting that ‘When a music fan buys a song off of iTunes, the record label hasn’t done very much to get it on their playlist, and thus doesn’t deserve the lion’s share of the profits.’ About $1.6 million is a stake, with Eminem seeking three times the current royalty in the trail and the implications of any outcome on others is obvious.

F.B.T. claimed the download arrangements are similar to the one UMG has with traditional record clubs, and under this licensing agreement, Eminem gets 50% of the profit. When an album is downloaded on iTunes, it falls under the “records sold” provision of the agreement, giving Eminem an 18.23% royalty rate. F.B.T. are claiming that Universal simply grants a license for iTunes to distribute the recordings and by doing so, minimises its manufacturing costs.

Lawyers for UMG countered that they put millions of dollars into building the technology to send music files to digital retailers, and so deserve the royalty they currently receive. UMG, state that because record clubs fall under a separate part of the recording agreement they have with the artist, the situation is not comparable. They point out that the royalty rates are the same (18.23%) for cassettes, vinyl and CDs, even though the manufacturing costs vary considerably. So if a digital download costs less for the record company to manufacture, why should that rate change?

Some artists would say that they lost out when they moved from vinyl to CD's. They are cheaper to manufacture, but the packaging deduction went up from 10% to 25%. They lost when they moved to downloads, since labels would still charge for packaging under existing contracts. How can an artist be held under a contract to not-yet-developed technology in record contract negotiations that took place years ago?

If FBT wins this case, it will have a bigger impact on smaller bands and also bands that are held to contracts signed in the 60s and 70s. Contracts that were signed before digital downloads became prevalent often have a different royalty rate for albums than singles which could seriously be impacted as digital downloads consider all tracks as singles and are paid at the lower rate under these contracts.

Should artists have the right to renegotiate their contracts when new technology emerges to deliver their music? Universal is not only fighting Eminem's F.B.T. in court, but their entire roster, and this again shows the level of the mess that digitisation is heaping on the music producers and why they are haemorraghing artists and some would say trust.

There is a lesson here for all media companies who believe that they can roll old contracts forward with little regard to the spirit in which they were entered into or the fact that things have changed.