Why does the "Re-Use" fee excuse for not releasing expanded scores only apply to Williams ?

[King Mark 3,631]

Whenever we talk about the SW sequel /Prequel/Indiana Jones scores getting an expanded release , there's always people that say that the re-use fees would be too expensive and nobody is interested in making the investment or that it wouldn't be profitable enough.

 

Why does this reasoning ONLY apples to Williams scores.

 

MOST scores recorded nowadays get complete 2 c.d./complete  releases right off the bat (including the non Williams Spielberg score Ready Player One) , or within a few years of the original OST (including Rogue One and Solo, both Star Wars movie scores) . Videogame music get lavish 10 c.d. releases with every single cue/alternate/demo ever recorded.  TV scores (like Mandalorian) get complete OST's of every seasons right away. 

 

So why is Williams  the EXCEPTION, it's like nah the re-uses fees are too expensive and nobody would want to pay that. Do all these other composers use special orchestras that have no re-use fees or something? Why does this re-use fee excuse and "might not make enough profit" applies only to Williams and why is it so freaking complicated compared to other composer's music?

[Brando 1,860]

I could be mistaken, but Powell was the one leading the way for Solo's Expanded Album, and I think Mandalorian isn't complete either, I thought I saw someone say a few pieces were missing. Don't quote me though, I could be wrong.

[King Mark 3,631]

yeah but "a few pieces missing" isn't the standard one c.d. release we've been getting from Williams since the 1980's.

 

But even if Powell or Giacchino  are "leading the way", that doesn't explain why re-use fees are a non issue when it always is THE issue with expanded Williams scores. I bet even if Williams was leading the way they would say "can't happen, too expensive..."

[Chewy 2,388]

1 hour ago, Brando said:

I could be mistaken, but Powell was the one leading the way for Solo's Expanded Album

The fees only apply to scores recorded post 2005 in LA.

Powell didn't have to deal with this issue since Solo was recorded in London.

 

Technically, the re-use fees aren't even an issue for expanded SW prequel scores or Indy first 3 movies.

 

Rogue One is actually the first Star Wars score for which re-use fees had to be paid (though we have no information if that's what happened).

 

So, that Rogue One expanded release is actually the one leading the way, and now we know it is possible for Disney to expand recent scores recorded in LA 

[Manakin Skywalker 4,891]

Rogue One getting an expansion, and the amount of music released for Mando Season 1 I would assume in pretty strong evidence that the fees were never actually the issue here. It's glaringly obvious that Williams was the primary factor holding these expansions back. And as I've said a couple times before, it's entirely possible that he has come around, it's just going to take probably half a decade to expand *9* films. For all we know they could have been in the works already for the past year or two. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[greenturnedblue 372]

Gia scores dont need expanded releases because the sessions always leak anyways /s

[Faleel 5,346]

2 hours ago, King Mark said:

TV scores get complete OST's of every seasons right away. 

 

 

I wish!

[Richard Penna 3,684]

5 hours ago, King Mark said:

Videogame music get lavish 10 c.d. releases with every single cue/alternate/demo ever recorded.  TV scores (like Mandalorian) get complete OST's of every seasons right away. 

 

I get the point you're making, but this isn't true. Can't speak much for video games (some curated albums I've seen suggest they're not), but TV shows absolutely do not get complete season releases.

 

I echo Manakin - it's most likely Williams not being ready to expand his most personally important franchise. Also, given what they mean to him, I'd bet he'd go through a MM-curated playlist with a fine-toothed comb

 

The point where I agree with you is what the heck is holding them up with property like SW. For the prequels (where surely elements can't be a problem) I can see only two viable reasons - Williams doesnt want them expanded yet, or Disney doesn't see it worth the effort, in top of just doing another repackaging.

[Raiders of the SoundtrArk 2,433]

I like to think that Williams is okay for the expansions as long as they are done by MM in a beautiful set like it was done with HP but Disney doesn't want to invest that much in those, preferring a sessions drop digital only release ala Rogue One

 

Or both parties are waiting that all the Williams Star Wars materials are gathered, which means waiting for Obi-Wan to drop

[Disco Stu 15,495]

6 hours ago, King Mark said:

Whenever we talk about the SW sequel /Prequel/Indiana Jones scores getting an expanded release , there's always people that say that the re-use fees would be too expensive and nobody is interested in making the investment or that it wouldn't be profitable enough.

 

Why does this reasoning ONLY apples to Williams scores.

 

MOST scores recorded nowadays get complete 2 c.d./complete  releases right off the bat (including the non Williams Spielberg score Ready Player One) , or within a few years of the original OST (including Rogue One and Solo, both Star Wars movie scores) . Videogame music get lavish 10 c.d. releases with every single cue/alternate/demo ever recorded.  TV scores (like Mandalorian) get complete OST's of every seasons right away. 

 

So why is Williams  the EXCEPTION, it's like nah the re-uses fees are too expensive and nobody would want to pay that. Do all these other composers use special orchestras that have no re-use fees or something? Why does this re-use fee excuse and "might not make enough profit" applies only to Williams and why is it so freaking complicated compared to other composer's music?

[Jurassic Shark 12,054]

You should all be happy that JW takes his time to curate a good listening experience. Right, @Thor?

[Richard Penna 3,684]

 

7 hours ago, King Mark said:

MOST scores recorded nowadays get complete 2 c.d./complete  releases right off the bat (including the non Williams Spielberg score Ready Player One) , or within a few years of the original OST

 

Pretty much the entire board supports your frustration that SW/Indy aren't getting treated the same as some other franchises, but you're just plain wrong here. There are isolated instances of a comprehensive/near complete set at release time or soon after, but most are just as curated as Williams does.

[GerateWohl 4,356]

I guess, it gets time for the next John Williams release or we will get more and more threads like this and the "Why doesn't Disney like Williams music anymore?" one.

John Williams fans on turkey.

[Jay 37,346]

Almost nothing in King Mark's initial post is accurate or relevant to the issue at all.

 

Re-use fees only apply when talking about scores recorded in the USA or Canada through the American Federation of Musicians (AFM), so scores recorded in London like Solo or How To Train Your Dragon, or video game scores recorded in Japan, immediately have nothing to do with this conversation.

 

Furthermore, it's only scores recorded with AFM musicians after July 2005 that have re-use fees so high the specialty labels can't afford to pay them; the specialty labels have built their entire business around expanding scores from the start of Hollywood through July 2005, and the proper inclusion of the AFM has always been a part of that process.

 

Stuff like The Mandalorian, Ready Player One, Avengers End Game, Dune, The Batman, etc are NOT complete releases produced by a specialist in archival restorations, so again have nothing to do with this conversation.  What you're really talking about there is simply really long OST albums, and from the way we understand things, re-use fees DO NOT have to be paid for OST albums, as they are under an expected use of the music being recorded.  As for why a different composer might get a long OST album and a Williams score might not?  That is due to exactly one person, John Towner Williams, who crafts the OST album he wants and that's that.  If he wanted his scores to get 2-disc OST albums off the jump, believe me it would happen.

 

Back to AFM fees for catalog releases (expansions of scores that had an OST album or premiere release of scores that didn't), the composer of the score has zero correlation to the re-use fees conversation.  Williams' AFM scores pre-July 2005 are on the table to expand by the specialty labels, while scores recorded post-July 2005 are not, exactly the same as it is for any other composer.

 

Out of the hundreds (thousands?) of scores recorded with the AFM since July 2005, only 4 that I know of have received an expanded release: Giacchino's 3 Star Trek scores, and Rogue One.  His Trek trilogy happened because Paramount and Varese negotiated a special rate for the AFM for those 3 Deluxe Editions only.  Rogue One we know nothing about the behind the scenes process, but presumably Disney Records either made a special deal with the AFM, or just paid their asking price without negotiation.  We don't know.

 

Regardless, there's zero reason to think that whatever process Disney Records went through to make Rogue One happen, couldn't also happen for Williams' Star Wars sequel trilogy scores.  Why hasn't it happened yet?  We have no idea.  The best thing we can all do to make it happen is to petition Disney Records.  We already know Mike Matessino would love to do them.  And of course, the original trilogy and prequel trilogy scores were all recorded in London, so re-use fees have nothing to do with them at all.

 

As for Williams' non-Star Wars scores that were recorded with the AFM after July 2005?  The best thing we can do to help those happen is to petition the AFM to change their re-use fee structure for older scores.

 

As for Williams non-Star Wars scores recorded with the AFM before July 2005?  I am pretty sure Mike has stated it's a goal of his to work on every single one.  So as long as the studio properly stored the elements, we'll get an expanded release eventually.

 

I hope that all makes sense.

[Edmilson 7,433]

I'd love an expanded edition for James Horner's Avatar, but it was recorded in California in 2008/09, so I don't see it happening soon. 

 

So yeah, it's not just Williams.

[Raiders of the SoundtrArk 2,433]

1 hour ago, Edmilson said:

I'd love an expanded edition for James Horner's Avatar, but it was recorded in California in 2008/09, so I don't see it happening soon.

With the release of the second one by the end of the year and to honor the late James Horner, I'm sure it might be possible that something happened to that one

[BrotherSound 2,242]

2 hours ago, Edmilson said:

I'd love an expanded edition for James Horner's Avatar, but it was recorded in California in 2008/09, so I don't see it happening soon.

 

I remember reading Intrada tried to negotiate with AFM on the reuse fees for Avatar, but was unable to reach a workable agreement.

[blondheim 1,157]

It's unfortunate that business and art are sometimes one

[Disco Stu 15,495]

LA musicians are getting screwed while more and more of their work gets outsourced to places like Nashville, London, Vienna, Budapest, Bratislava, etc.

[QuartalHarmony 542]

Isn’t there an argument that, by demanding such high re-use fees, they were pricing themselves out of the market and it was inevitable that, in a free market, it was only a matter of time before musicians outside the AFM started getting more work?

 

Mark

[Jay 37,346]

Re-use fees are the fees a music label pays to the AFM to re-use their music for a second purpose - a brand new album of music.

It has nothing to do with the cost of paying them to record the score in the first place.

[Smeltington 1,439]

It could impact your decision to use them to record something, if you were hoping to have more flexibility with the resulting recordings down the road.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

2 hours ago, QuartalHarmony said:

Isn’t there an argument that, by demanding such high re-use fees, they were pricing themselves out of the market and it was inevitable that, in a free market, it was only a matter of time before musicians outside the AFM started getting more work?

 

Mark

 

One could argue that, but the musicians involved are the best of the best sight readers in the world. One only needs to hear the comparative skills of any of the competing, cheaper orchestras to see that if you want high quality recordings turned around lightning fast you're only going to get it in L.A., with the only other exception being probably London. None of the cheaper Eastern European orchestras could handle a Williams score, for example (at least nowhere near as quickly). They also have the infrastructural advantage of recording in a huge variety of high quality recording stages, technical equipment, technical personnel etc.

 

Things may change in the future, but for now they have a lot of leverage. I'd love it if my local orchestra (Melbourne Symphony Orchestra) for example got some more commissions. But their fees would be comparable to L.A. without many of the technical benefits (the cost of living in Australia is high, so our wages and fees reflect that).

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

But aren't the fees, at least by original intent, supposed to serve exactly the opposite goal? I.e. to allow for more competitive pricing, because not every contract has to cover all uses - if you want to record something with an orchestra just to put it in a film, you get a better deal, but if you want to also sell a soundtrack, you pay more - and logically, if you only decide to release a soundtrack *later*, or release *more* music later, you'll have to pay extra, because the original deal covered less to allow for it to be cheaper.

 

It's an ugly situation for art, but essentially, what most of us would wish is for contracts to be cheap (so that every score gets a high quality performance) with at the same time no limitations on how and what the music may be used for - which unfortunately translates to: We want the musicians to be paid less, even if what they do will make the studios tons of money.

[Holko 9,519]

But if the reuse fees are so prohibitively expensive that nobody pays them, they are getting paid less than if they were feasible.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Ah I didn’t realise that was the nature of the re-use fees, I assumed it purely had to do with equity for the musicians and mitigating the lack of royalties they get in a buy-out. Thanks for the info @Marian Schedenig, I should do some more reading.

 

It just occurred to me that this could be a contributing factor to the continual reduction in complexity we hear in Hollywood orchestrations. In conjunction with changing aesthetic tastes, shrinking pool of skilled orchestrators, crunch times etc as well of course. The simpler the music, the easier it is for any orchestra to play...

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

3 minutes ago, Docteur Qui said:

Ah I didn’t realise that was the nature of the re-use fees, I assumed it purely had to do with equity for the musicians and mitigating the lack of royalties they get in a buy-out. Thanks for the info, I should do some more reading.

 

I'm only going by what's been said over the years and what seems logical to me. But isn't what you describe here just what I've been saying? Allowing the musicians to have a cut if the music is released in many different forms to make more money, while allowing the "contractors" to save money if they're not going to do that.

 

It's also a question of balance, of course, but if A earns them more money because it is well paid and B earns them less because nobody is going to bother with extra releases due to reuse fees, they may still end up better paid than if A earned them less and B earned them a bit more and everything they've done could just be exploited endlessly.

 

Ultimately, it's similar to the concept of copyright: Allow the creators of a work to make money from it beyond the original point of creation rather than forcing artists to charge a huge amount upfront (and risk getting nothing, especially if they're not already big) and having the distributors get rich from it without them getting anything else (or having any say in how their work is exploited) from that point on. Of course, that also should be limited, especially the expiration time (looking it Disney), and how (or if at all) children/heirs of an artist should benefit from their work (which they themselves had nothing to do with at all).

[Jay 37,346]

The AFM re-use fee structure unequivocally WORKS, as we've had hundreds (thousands?) of scores pulled from Hollywood's archives and released as great albums from the specialty labels that were affordable to us, affordable to the labels that made them, and the AFM got paid for the opportunity to make those albums!

 

The only part that's broken is that they made the price of post-July-2005 scores so high, the specialty labels can't afford them.  That's the only part that needs to change.  The pre-2005 price is working great!

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

11 minutes ago, Jay said:

The only part that's broken is that they made the price of post-July-2005 scores so high, the specialty labels can't afford them.  That's the only part that needs to change.  The pre-2005 price is working great!

 

One could argue (again in alignment with copyright) that for recent works, higher reuse fees make sense, because it requires you to pay more if you are planning to further commercialise the music in the immediately foreseeable future. But of course that only makes sense with a time windows ending at a certain point after the original recording, not with a fixed cutoff date and open ended restrictions from that point on (which I believe is the current situation).

[Jay 37,346]

Exactly.  When they made this change in July of 2015, it should have been a rolling 10 years which have higher fees, not perma-locked to July 2005.

 

If they had done it that way, Williams scores like Geisha, Tintin, War Horse, and Lincoln would be on the table for the specialty labels to work on now

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

So it would seem that the ultimate issue here is one of value - both monetary and artistic - in a post-streaming world. The AFM set their price for exploitation of the music recorded by musicians based on trends in the market from nearly 20 years ago, back when CD's actually made money. The studios used to be able to work the masters into whatever releases they liked (often just a re-issue or remaster) and still make a hefty profit, while the specialty labels could work with the studios and cut a deal to produce expanded releases. But these days there's little profit to be made by releasing anything at all. The musicians, rightly so, want more money for their work, but the studios aren't willing to pay the premium that allows for exploitation when the return (from Spotify streams or physical media) is so dismal compared to what it was. 

 

The cultural value of having something like an archival release of the Prequels is undeniable, particularly in our circle. But we also have very high expectations; even the concept of an "archival" release is relatively new and a result of the diligent work of specialty labels. That's a lot of money for not a lot of return from a studio point of view. Do I have this right?

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

13 minutes ago, Docteur Qui said:

The studios used to be able to work the masters into whatever releases they liked (often just a re-issue or remaster) and still make a hefty profit, while the specialty labels could work with the studios and cut a deal to produce expanded releases. But these days there's little profit to be made by releasing anything at all. The musicians, rightly so, want more money for their work, but the studios aren't willing to pay the premium that allows for exploitation when the return (from Spotify streams or physical media) is so dismal compared to what it was.

 

The thing is, I don't think speciality releases are on the map *at all* when these decisions are made. Soundtrack speciality releases even less so - they're a niche of a niche, something most of those making these decisions (and having to make these decisions) have probably not even thought of once in their life. And even for those of us who spend half their free time thinking about this stuff, they're a rather recent thing. It's not like there used to be a flood of expansions of recent scores all the time before the rules were changed in 2005. Rather, a few years earlier, what we have today (even though it's clearly been in decline for several years) was almost entirely unheard of.

[Jay 37,346]

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

the rules were changed in 2005

 

The rules were changed in 2015, it just affected scores recorded in 2005 and prior 

[stravinsky 206]

One of the most interesting threads I've read. Mr Jay your knowledge astounds me. 

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

4 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

The thing is, I don't think speciality releases are on the map *at all* when these decisions are made. Soundtrack speciality releases even less so - they're a niche of a niche, something most of those making these decisions (and having to make these decisions) have probably not even thought of once in their life. And even for those of us who spend half their free time thinking about this stuff, they're a rather recent thing. It's not like there used to be a flood of expansions of recent scores all the time before the rules were changed in 2005. Rather, a few years earlier, what we have today (even though it's clearly been in decline for several years) was almost entirely unheard of.

 

Oh absolutely, it was probably the large profit margin that studios were enjoying whenever they reprinted or re-issued albums that allowed niche labels any space to operate at all. And you're right about the quality of what we have now being completely different to 20 years ago; the notion of an "archival" release was unthinkable back then. Williams himself has been skeptical of that line of thinking, as evidenced by his micro-edits and comments shared by those who have worked with him on expansions.

 

As a niche audience we've become quite demanding (which I'm not at all complaining about), so when something like LLL's expanded Hook comes along using film stems or missing cues and inserts and it's criticised, the studios (and, arguably some of the smaller labels) turn around and say "well you should be thankful you get this in the first place". It's a curious position to be in.

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

9 hours ago, Jay said:

The rules were changed in 2015, it just affected scores recorded in 2005 and prior 

 

Right. 5 or 7 years, 15 or 17 years, hard to tell the difference at the moment. Since the pandemic, I'm having a hard time remembering whether something happened last decade or last week.

[Jurassic Shark 12,054]

As you grow older, your short term memory worsens, so it probably happened during the last decade.

[Jay 37,346]

Since it's relevant, here's Mike Matessino's post about it again:

 

"For AFM recordings made before July 3, 2005, NO reuse needs to be paid to the musicians at all, provided a) that it’s for a physical format release with a 5000 unit maximum, and b) that the musicians list is published, preferably in the packaging. For recordings made after that date, whatever the musicians were paid to record the score for the film has to be paid to them again, 100%. That’s why it’s called “reuse”. They were paid to play music for sync purposes, but an album is a new use.

 

So, hypothetically, if 120 people were paid $360,000 to record the music for the film (musicians, orchestrators, copyists, at an average of $3K a person), then a label would have to pay that exact same amount to AFM in order to put out an expanded album. That makes it impossible to consider even before you get to licensing, publishing, production and manufacturing.

 

The 2005 date was established in 2015 and applied to recordings going back 10 years prior, but unfortunately it was not a “sliding” date as it really should have been.

 

Mike"

[Richard Penna 3,684]

21 hours ago, Jay said:

What you're really talking about there is simply really long OST albums, and from the way we understand things, re-use fees DO NOT have to be paid for OST albums, as they are under an expected use of the music being recorded.

 

This is a great, informative post - I just wanted to clarify this part which doesn't quite make sense to me.

 

You've stated that expanded albums are a 'reuse' of the recorded music (hence 'reuse' fees), but you've also stated here that OST albums don't attract those fees.

 

I'm slightly confused by this - do you mean that the fee structure change meant that today, no fees are paid on the initial, original soundtrack release for a new film as it's considered part of the 'expected' use? I.e. before this rule change (like Varese's 30-minuter period) the original album was subject to the fees.

 

Because elsewhere in this thread it's been stated that a standalone music release is a 'reuse' of the music, hence attracting the fees.

 

Does that mean that the only circumstance in which reuse fees are paid is archival expansions from post-2005?

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

I think they get paid fornthe film adn the ost release. Any usages after that must pay the fees. 

 

So yes, if they release the complete score as the ost, us, the customers win. 

[crumbs 14,306]

18 minutes ago, Richard Penna said:

do you mean that the fee structure change meant that today, no fees are paid on the initial, original soundtrack release for a new film as it's considered part of the 'expected' use?

 

That question came up recently and I think the short answer was: it's unclear.

 

The 2015 agreement is available to read online but it's filled with legalese and jargon. There's mention of some type of goodwill dispensation for OSTs to help market films and promote musicians, but it trails off into a complex breakdown of discounts, fee structures and other conditions.

 

My gut feeling is fees don't apply to an initial soundtrack release (hence so many LA scores are released in expanded form from the start), but maybe they do apply and the costs are just factored into the marketing budget. IMO, if the latter were the case, we'd see almost no OSTs released at all (considering a soundtrack release would effectively double the music budget, which is frankly absurd and a studio would rightly balk at).

 

It does seem whatever rule necessitated 30 minute albums in the past are long gone, however.

[Jay 37,346]

20 hours ago, Edmilson said:

I'd love an expanded edition for James Horner's Avatar, but it was recorded in California in 2008/09, so I don't see it happening soon. 

 

So yeah, it's not just Williams.

 

17 hours ago, BrotherSound said:

 

I remember reading Intrada tried to negotiate with AFM on the reuse fees for Avatar, but was unable to reach a workable agreement.

 

 

Yup:

 

"it was on our slate as a super expanded edition and then we discovered that the film is too recent to qualify for the historic new use rate from the AFM, so it is on hold until the rate changes. We weren't able to get the union to make an exception on this title."

 

https://filmscoremonthly.com/board/posts.cfm?forumID=1&pageID=18&threadID=107261&archive=0

[crumbs 14,306]

13 minutes ago, Jay said:

"it was on our slate as a super expanded edition and then we discovered that the film is too recent to qualify for the historic new use rate from the AFM, so it is on hold until the rate changes. We weren't able to get the union to make an exception on this title."

 

That particular situation is doubly absurd when you consider the score's comprehensive session leak.

 

Fans have enjoyed the complete score for free when the AFM could've extended an olive branch, provided a reduced-rate waiver (so Intrada could at least break even on costs) and earned their members some income.

 

Instead, everyone loses – and anyone who cares enough about the score will download it for free.

 

These people can't see the forest for the trees.

[Jay 37,346]

Yep

[Tom Guernsey 2,282]

1 hour ago, Richard Penna said:

 

This is a great, informative post - I just wanted to clarify this part which doesn't quite make sense to me.

 

You've stated that expanded albums are a 'reuse' of the recorded music (hence 'reuse' fees), but you've also stated here that OST albums don't attract those fees.

 

I'm slightly confused by this - do you mean that the fee structure change meant that today, no fees are paid on the initial, original soundtrack release for a new film as it's considered part of the 'expected' use? I.e. before this rule change (like Varese's 30-minuter period) the original album was subject to the fees.

 

Because elsewhere in this thread it's been stated that a standalone music release is a 'reuse' of the music, hence attracting the fees.

 

Does that mean that the only circumstance in which reuse fees are paid is archival expansions from post-2005?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was confused by this! I thought that they were paid for the recording for use in the film and any other use (i.e. a soundtrack) was "reuse". That was (as far as I understand it) the reason that caused all those Varese 30 minute albums since it was over 30 minutes where the fees kicked in as you say. This is making my head explode a bit to be honest. Maybe reuse fees aren't as much now? Or they pay fees for score in the show plus a soundtrack? However, if you want to release more music beyond the original soundtrack (the post 2005 problem), that's when reuse kicks in? Something doesn't quite add up.

[Jay 37,346]

3 hours ago, Richard Penna said:

You've stated that expanded albums are a 'reuse' of the recorded music (hence 'reuse' fees), but you've also stated here that OST albums don't attract those fees.

 

I'm slightly confused by this - do you mean that the fee structure change meant that today, no fees are paid on the initial, original soundtrack release for a new film as it's considered part of the 'expected' use? I.e. before this rule change (like Varese's 30-minuter period) the original album was subject to the fees.

 

Because elsewhere in this thread it's been stated that a standalone music release is a 'reuse' of the music, hence attracting the fees.

 

Does that mean that the only circumstance in which reuse fees are paid is archival expansions from post-2005?

 

1 hour ago, Tom Guernsey said:

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was confused by this! I thought that they were paid for the recording for use in the film and any other use (i.e. a soundtrack) was "reuse". That was (as far as I understand it) the reason that caused all those Varese 30 minute albums since it was over 30 minutes where the fees kicked in as you say. This is making my head explode a bit to be honest. Maybe reuse fees aren't as much now? Or they pay fees for score in the show plus a soundtrack? However, if you want to release more music beyond the original soundtrack (the post 2005 problem), that's when reuse kicks in? Something doesn't quite add up.

 

 

The whole thing is extremely confusing!

 

But yes, it does seem that OST albums require no re-use fees, but later expansions do, from everything we understand.

I actually didn't realize until I just re-posted Mike's explanation that scores recorded before July 3rd 2005 require NO fees at all; I had thought it was one rate, and post-2005 was another rate, but now I see it's a case of no fees vs expensive fees.

And yes, the way this all worked certainly changed at some point, because for a long time in the 90s Varese released 30 minute score albums because of the fee structure that existed at the time, and even Strar Trek 09's OST was only 45 minutes because of fee reasons.

 

The good thing is that things are constantly evolving, and we get super long OST albums now for LA-recorded scores if the composer wants to release it that way, which is great.  If only they'd stop being so finnicky about what the specialty labels get up to, everything would be great for everyone

[Tom Guernsey 2,282]

6 minutes ago, Jay said:

 

 

 

The whole thing is extremely confusing!

 

But yes, it does seem that OST albums require no re-use fees, but later expansions do, from everything we understand.

I actually didn't realize until I just re-posted Mike's explanation that scores recorded before July 3rd 2005 require NO fees at all; I had thought it was one rate, and post-2005 was another rate, but now I see it's a case of no fees vs expensive fees.

And yes, the way this all worked certainly changed at some point, because for a long time in the 90s Varese released 30 minute score albums because of the fee structure that existed at the time, and even Strar Trek 09's OST was only 45 minutes because of fee reasons.

 

The good thing is that things are constantly evolving, and we get super long OST albums now for LA-recorded scores if the composer wants to release it that way, which is great.  If only they'd stop being so finnicky about what the specialty labels get up to, everything would be great for everyone

Thanks Jay, that's helpful to at least clarify my lack of understanding, haha. It's madness that the current situation allows for super long new soundtrack releases but somehow precludes them (at least when it comes to affordability) if the score is older, but post 2005. That makes the least sense. Interesting that pre 2005 there are no fees, I thought the agreement was that the fees would be low where anticipated sales were under a certain amount (3,000?) but maybe that's no longer the case. That actually feels like a perfectly decent compromise. They benefit from mega hit releases (get a slice of that Titanic or Star Wars or HZ action) but accept that, for the majority of soundtrack releases, sales will be modest. I'm sure they will, eventually, agree to a rolling 10 year limit as 2005 becomes an ever more distant point in the past.

 

The weird thing about the basis of this thread (which has sparked some interesting discussion and information sharing) is that of all the composers a speciality label would feel confident in making some money back on an expensive post 2005 release, I kinda think JW would be at the top of the list. On that basis, the post 2005 fees must be truly hideous if they aren't willing to risk that. I really can't imagine JW is personally preventing anyone from releasing any of his post 2005 scores.

 

And good to see finicky (UK spelling?!)... excellent word. ;-)

[Jay 37,346]

14 minutes ago, Tom Guernsey said:

Interesting that pre 2005 there are no fees, I thought the agreement was that the fees would be low where anticipated sales were under a certain amount (3,000?) but maybe that's no longer the case.

 

4 hours ago, Jay said:

Since it's relevant, here's Mike Matessino's post about it again:

 

"For AFM recordings made before July 3, 2005, NO reuse needs to be paid to the musicians at all, provided a) that it’s for a physical format release with a 5000 unit maximum, and b) that the musicians list is published, preferably in the packaging. 

 

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, Tom Guernsey said:

of all the composers a speciality label would feel confident in making some money back on an expensive post 2005 release, I kinda think JW would be at the top of the list. On that basis, the post 2005 fees must be truly hideous if they aren't willing to risk that. I really can't imagine JW is personally preventing anyone from releasing any of his post 2005 scores.

 

Did you read Mike's post?  It might cost $360,000 in fees alone for a post-2005 AFM score.  No label can come close to paying that much money to make an album happen!

 

Even selling 5,000 copies of an album at $30 each, that's only $150,000 in revenue, and they keep such a small piece of that after all the expenses that come with making these albums happen - their profit margins are miniscule.

[Tom Guernsey 2,282]

12 minutes ago, Jay said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you read Mike's post?  It might cost $360,000 in fees alone for a post-2005 AFM score.  No label can come close to paying that much money to make an album happen!

 

Even selling 5,000 copies of an album at $30 each, that's only $150,000 in revenue, and they keep such a small piece of that after all the expenses that come with making these albums happen - their profit margins are miniscule.

Ah yeah, sorry, I did read it but clearly blanked out the large numbers from my mind... but the upshot is, it's not JW preventing these releases happening!

[Disco Stu 15,495]

So I guess that cost has to be eaten up by the studio itself instead of a little specialty label.  Therefore it has to be a huge property that the studio expects to make well more than that fee in revenue from streaming.