| It's all too easy to get the wrong impression when entering into a publishing deal. If you can afford to, you should always get a music industry lawyer to look over an agreement for you before you sign it. It need not cost a fortune, and it may prevent you from losing a great deal of money in the future.
If you really can't afford legal advice then at least consider the points made here to stop you agreeing to the worst of the scenarios in which your royalty income could be reduced. Some of the examples given here are extreme cases but they are designed to illustrate the pitfalls that can lure the innocent songwriter or publisher. CONTROLLED COMPOSITIONS
The Controlled Composition Clause is normally applied to record royalties that are earned in the U.S.A. and can have an absolutely amazing effect on the amount of income you may receive when these clauses are applied to you. There are several types of clauses and any of them, but often all of them, can be applied to your income. Remember that in the U.S.A. there is a cent rate (currently 8 cents and referred to as the Statutory Rate) that is paid for each song on a recording. However, that is not normally what happens. The first element of the Controlled Composition Clause attempts to limit payments to "75% of statutory rate". This is even nastier than you think as it not only reduces that 8.00 cents to 6.00 cents, it is also designed to stop you benefiting from the increased rate that is available when works are longer than a certain duration. Next, there is the clause that says that only one recording of any composition will attract a royalty. So, all those dance records with more than one mix of a track will really lose out! They have probably already lost out because they did not get the bonus amount because the track was of a longer duration. As if all this was not enough, there is a final kick in the shape of a "cap". This would typically say that the total royalty that would be paid on an album would be the amount payable (including all of the limitations already discussed) |