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

[Bounty95 558]

JW just wants his music to be presented properly. Not a session dump like Rogue One. 

[Tom Guernsey 2,282]

8 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

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.

It would be interesting to see some figures. I can't honestly imagine that enough people are streaming (or buying) the individual episode scores of (say) The Mandalorian over and over so many times that they are making significant returns for having put out the full score for each episode in the first series. I mean, ditto, Star Trek Prodigy. I know Star Trek is popular, but there now seems to be about 4 hours worth to buy/stream. Surely that can't be viable... the original album was only 50 minutes.

[Jay 37,346]

1 hour ago, Tom Guernsey said:

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!

 

I honestly think JW would approve of MM expanding any of his scores, outside of his early work we already know he's vetoed (Sugarland Express, etc).

 

1 hour ago, Disco Stu said:

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.

 

Or the cost has to be negotiated to be different than their current asking price; Surely, that's what happened with Giacchino's Trek trilogy and Rogue One.

 

Also, I remembered a fifth post-2005 score that's been expanded: Giacchino's Medal of Honor: Airborne from 2007, which had 8 minutes added for the LLL box.  Funny how all 5 that have happened are all Giacchino scores...

[Disco Stu 15,495]

3 minutes ago, Tom Guernsey said:

It would be interesting to see some figures. I can't honestly imagine that enough people are streaming (or buying) the individual episode scores of (say) The Mandalorian over and over so many times that they are making significant returns for having put out the full score for each episode in the first series. I mean, ditto, Star Trek Prodigy. I know Star Trek is popular, but there now seems to be about 4 hours worth to buy/stream. Surely that can't be viable... the original album was only 50 minutes.

 

Wait, I thought that the fee doesn't have to be paid again for a first release OST?  That that release is considered part of the initial fee of the actual recording?

[Jay 37,346]

Yea the long Star Trek Prodigy release is the OST album, they are just continually adding more tracks as each episode drops instead of doing  separate releases like Mandalorian or WandaVision

[Marian Schedenig 8,191]

2 hours ago, Tom Guernsey said:

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.

 

I would imagine that the original contract includes everything that you negotiate to release originally, but then if you decide to release more stuff later one, reuse applies to everything that was not part of the original contract. Even if my guess is right, I imagine the actual contracts still largely depend on whatever default templates are commonly in use, unless they negotiate the exact extra stuff they're planning to release separately for each new contract.

[Tom Guernsey 2,282]

Well none of this sounds crazy at all lol. Interesting on Prodigy. I didn’t realise there’d be so much of it. Still enjoyable stuff. Aha well I have enough music in my iTunes library to last over a year so I can wait for AFM to reconsider its position and open up the post 2005 soundtrack scape. 

[michael_grig 471]

11 hours ago, Jay said:

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.

But there would be MUCH more people who would buy an Avatar Expanded release, for example, right? Wouldn't that be worth it? I don't know what the cost of such releases would be?

 

And besides, Avatar was originally released under Fox Music, which has been part of Disney since 2020. If the specialty labels can't afford it, why don't the "major" labels, in this case Disney's????, release it, such as Avatar then?

[Jay 37,346]

1 hour ago, Michael G. said:

But there would be MUCH more people who would buy an Avatar Expanded release, for example, right?

 

More than 5,000 copies? No way. The Potter scores are way more popular and they haven't even sold that. 

[michael_grig 471]

Really? Wow, that's a huge miscalculation on my part! Where can you find the data on total sales?

[Jay 37,346]

Go to lalalandrecords.com and start clicking on random titles. Every one tells you how many copies it is limited to. All of those will sell that many or less. 

[michael_grig 471]

OK, but it says limited edition of 5000, that means it would have sold over 5000 if it had been printed with a higher print run?

Could they just drop the run reduction and just print it each time after the order and then ship it? Surely they would make much more money that way?

[Disco Stu 15,495]

37 minutes ago, Michael G. said:

OK, but it says limited edition of 5000, that means it would have sold over 5000 if it had been printed with a higher print run?

 

They don't print all 5000 at once.  They print them in batches of we don't know exactly what number.  Ideally as they get low on one batch, they are able to order and receive the next batch before selling through the previous.  But delays at the manufacturing facilities, which do not have the capacity they had in decades past, in recent years have increased the frequency of these "out of stock" periods.

[Jay 37,346]

23 minutes ago, Michael G. said:

OK, but it says limited edition of 5000, that means it would have sold over 5000 if it had been printed with a higher print run?

 

That means the title is in print until they have sold all 5,000 copies, and then "sold out" once they've sold all 5,000.   Sometimes titles don't sell very well, so they never even print that many, so it goes "out of print" before they pressed the amount they were allowed to.

 

In Harry Potter's case, I'd guess they've probably sold 4,000 so far, they have another 500 coming in Mid March, and then the final 500 after that.  Just guessing, labels never actually reveal sales figures or anything

 

23 minutes ago, Michael G. said:

Could they just drop the run reduction and just print it each time after the order and then ship it? Surely they would make much more money that way?

 

I cannot follow what you are saying here

[michael_grig 471]

23 minutes ago, Jay said:

I cannot follow what you are saying here

Well, I mean, why do they have to limit it? If they print on demand they can sell more than 5000 and would therefore make more money.

[Jay 37,346]

Oh, they have to limit it because the contracts they are able to get from the film studio, music label, and AFM force them to

[michael_grig 471]

And why is that? They would then also earn more money, or is it that when the labels have obtained the rights, all the income goes only to them?

[Jay 37,346]

Here's Mike's explanation again with the relevant portion bolded by me:

 

"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"

[Jurassic Shark 12,054]

I wonder how many times you've had to quote that during the last weeks.

[Disco Stu 15,495]

9 minutes ago, Jay said:

 

"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,

 

Presumably that was part of a previous AFM agreement also though, since specialty label releases have always been limited outside of rare exceptions?

[michael_grig 471]

Alright, pardon me.
Nevertheless, this regulation seems somehow illogical to me, but I am not an expert in contract law....

 

[Jay 37,346]

Any music label can choose to limit any CD they make a number of units if they feel like it.  This can be a tactic to attempt to sell more copies than if they hadn't done so. 

 

For example, releasing a new album with no limits might make some people go "cool, I'll grab that eventually", and then perhaps never actually do so, especially if reception to it by those who bought it early is lukewarm.  On the other hand, if the label announces the same album as "limited to 1,000 copies", that might encourage people to snap it up on release day so they don't miss out.

[Bayesian 1,363]

On 2/3/2022 at 4:33 AM, crypto said:

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.

You wouldn’t happen to have a link for this, would you? I’m always curious about how these kinds of contracts or agreements are written.

[Jay 37,346]

here you go

 

On 25/09/2020 at 8:48 AM, crypto said:

If anyone wants to do their own research around AFM agreements:

• Basic Theatrical Motion Picture Agreement
• 2005 Memorandum of Understanding to the Basic TV Film & Basic Theatrical Motion Picture Agreements
• 2010 Memorandum of Understanding to the Basic TV Film & Basic Theatrical Motion Picture Agreements
• 2015 Memorandum of Understanding to the Basic TV Film & Basic Theatrical Motion Picture Agreements

I believe all 4 links are relevant; the initial agreement plus 3 memorandums which add various clauses regarding digital rights and so forth.

[Richard Penna 3,684]

Page 7, point 7 in the 2015 Memorandum has a strangely brief bit on soundtrack releases post August 2005.

 

And substantially more in 2010 Memorandum from page 17.

[Jay 37,346]

August 14.... when was Memoirs recorded!?

[Disco Stu 15,495]

4 minutes ago, Jay said:

August 14.... when was Memoirs recorded!?

 

The only specific time period I can find referenced is "late summer."  Wouldn't it be both sad and hilarious if the recording sessions were, like, that very week?

 

BTW that late summer reference is from here, per Dan Goldwasser: https://www.soundtrack.net/content/article/?id=167

[Richard Penna 3,684]

The first link gives a 404

 

The 2005 Memorandum also has some stuff, but I'm finding it difficult to understand what it's going on about. Must be heavily related to the text of the original one.

[Jay 37,346]

Summer is officially late June through late September, so late summer probably means some time after Labor day most likely.

 

August 14th is like, past the peak of summer movie season I suppose, but i's pretty smack dab in the middle of summer weather

[Richard Penna 3,684]

Wonder if this from here has any chance of being correct?

 

Quote

recorded at:

Royce Hall in Los Angeles, California, United States (from 2005-08-04 until 2005-08-11) and Sony Pictures Studios (film and television studio complex, formerly Columbia Studios) in Culver City, California,

 

Dan Goldwasser mentions Royce Hall, so I guess it's got solid basis.

[Jay 37,346]

Huh. What an odd webpage that is

[Disco Stu 15,495]

4 minutes ago, Richard Penna said:

Wonder if this from here has any chance of being correct?

 

 

Dan Goldwasser mentions Royce Hall, so I guess it's got solid basis.

 

If those dates are right, and if it really is the week before the cut off..... I just hope the people who need to know that the re-use fees don't apply, know it!

[Richard Penna 3,684]

4 minutes ago, Jay said:

Huh. What an odd webpage that is

 

It's a metadata-based DB a bit like Discogs, but it also has an app called Picard which can recognise files based on audio fingerprinting, so it must store all sorts of extra info.

 

I guess whoever made the Memoirs entry happened to know specifically about the recording circumstances.

[Holko 9,519]

2 hours ago, Jay said:

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,

HP1-3 are London though, not AFM, right?

[Jay 37,346]

Of course

 

I didn't mean to suggest that every specialty label release is limited exclusively because of AFM shenanigans, in fact a few posts later I mentioned the marketing angle of why they might limit something.

 

Even then though, I am 99% sure the film studios granting these licenses to these specialty labels limit the amount of units too, though I wouldn't know how to find a source for that

[Manakin Skywalker 4,891]

.

[E-Wan 65]

3 hours ago, Jay said:

"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,...

 

So how come some titles can exceed this 5000 unit maximum?

 

https://lalalandrecords.com/star-trek-the-motion-picture-2-cd-set/

 

https://lalalandrecords.com/star-trek-ii-the-wrath-of-khan-limited-edition-2-cd-set/

 

[Jay 37,346]

Great question - some kind of special negotiation perhaps?

[enderdrag64 624]

Okay I just did a deep dive reading the AFM rules on soundtrack releases and reuse fees. I do not understand at all the issue that specialty labels have with expanding scores after August 2005. Here is the AFM rules pdf:

https://www.afm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2020-Basic-Theatrical-Motion-Picture-Agreement.pdf
The section on soundtrack rules is from pgs 11-34.

 

My understanding of this section is as follows: Soundtracks can be released under one of the provisions of section 8, which dictates when reuse fees are owed and how they are to be paid. The exact breakdown looks like this:

 

• 8A is free but only applies if used for promotional purposes
• 8C is pay 50% upfront and 50% after 50k sales, with an extra 20% fee if rules aren't followed and 100k sales are reached (there is a 15% discount if certain rules are followed, releases under 7.5 mins owe 100% instead)
• 8D is pay 25% upfront, another 25% after 25k sales, and another 50% after 50k sales, again with an extra 20% fee if rules aren't followed and 100k sales are reached (there is a 15% discount if certain rules are followed)
• 8E.1 is pay 50% after 15k sales, and another 50% after 50k sales, again with an extra 20% fee if rules aren't followed and 100k sales are reached (there is a 15% discount if certain rules are followed)
• 8E.2 is pay 10% upfront, with an additional 10% for every 10k sales up to 110k sales after which no fees are owed (there is a 15% discount if certain rules are followed)
  •  8E also has special rules for digital releases, a full album sale = 1 sale, an individual track sale = 1/12 sale
• 8F is pay 50% after 200k sales, and another 50% after 380k sales, with an extra 20% fee if rules aren't followed and 450k sales are reached, only applies to singles
• 8G is pay 5% upfront for scores before August 14, 2005, but this fee can be waived 

So promotional albums like FYCs are free, as are any score expansions for scores recorded before August 14, 2005. I don't see any exemption here for reuse fees for OST releases, or for multiple volume OSTs or anything of the like. I also don't see anything saying all scores recorded after August 14, 2005 owe 100% of the fees. 

 

Quite to the contrary, couldn't a specialty label release an expansion under 8E.2 and pay just 8.5% if they sell under 10k units?

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

interesting.

[Holko 9,519]

1 hour ago, enderdrag64 said:

Quite to the contrary, couldn't a specialty label release an expansion under 8E.2 and pay just 10% if they sell under 10k units?

10% would probably still be a lot. But doesn't 8E.1 have no upfront fee, and with 5000 or even 10000 or even 14999 limited copies they wouldn't reach the first pay barrier of 15000 copies?

[enderdrag64 624]

I also did some math real quick based on the pdf I linked, which includes the actual price of 100% reuse fees. 

Based on this, a score like The Force Awakens with 123 musicians would have reuse fees costing $34k.

 

An expansion like Hook will make LLL like $200k ($40 * 5000 units), even with the money that goes into licensing and paying JW and MM and Jim Titus and Jay and all the other collaborators, I can't imagine that $34k is too expensive - hell, raising the price by $7 would cover it completely!

 

But, that's also the 100% reuse fee, as I illustrated above in most cases you shouldn't have to pay 100% fees. Under 8E.2 the reuse fees for TFA should be just under $3k. What am I missing here?

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

There must me something more to it or the labels would have sorted it out already, i think.

[Holko 9,519]

Yeah we need some lawyer who actually understands it to chime in. Or Mike himself?

[crumbs 14,306]

21 minutes ago, Luke Skywalker said:

There must me something more to it or the labels would have sorted it out already, i think.

 

It does seem hard to believe unless the AFM themselves don't understand their own agreement.

 

10 hours ago, enderdrag64 said:

I also did some math real quick based on the pdf I linked, which includes the actual price of 100% reuse fees. 

 

Unless I'm reading this wrong, that specifies usage of previously recorded music in a theatrical motion picture, which would surely fall under a different category to a commercial soundtrack release.

 

And it also seems to refer to music recorded under previous agreements, not the current one (where the problematic fees supposedly apply).

[Alan 689]

This 2005 100% reuse fee really seems like an exercise in cutting ones nose off to spite their face, or shooting yourself in the foot. If no-one can afford or is willing to pay an orchestra 100% of their original fee for re-use of the music, then no-one benefits. Not the players, the composer, studio and certainly not the fans. It's a broken system.

[Richard Penna 3,684]

Imagine if a score were recorded bang on the cutoff date and the AFM told a label that they could have 80% of the sessions without paying a fee but the final day would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, despite there being no difference in the recording circumstances.

 

Or possibly worse, neither side can agree on which date a score was recorded due to inaccurate or missing paperwork, and tens of thousands of dollars hinge on it.

[enderdrag64 624]

8 hours ago, crumbs said:

And it also seems to refer to music recorded under previous agreements, not the current one (where the problematic fees supposedly apply).

Yes I noticed that too shortly after I posted, but the most current single session fee listed in that agreement (for 2021) is only about $40 more per musician than the 2010 one, so it wouldn't substantially change the results. The example I gave would be $38k instead of $34k.

 

8 hours ago, crumbs said:

Unless I'm reading this wrong, that specifies usage of previously recorded music in a theatrical motion picture, which would surely fall under a different category to a commercial soundtrack release.

I mean you can read it yourself, section 8 is about the specific rules for reuse of motion picture music for any purpose.

• 8A says it's not allowed to reuse motion picture music for anything but the motion picture it was recorded for, but then lists a bunch of exceptions, including those that are free and those that require fees.
• 8B is what I screenshotted, which is the only place in the document I saw any mention of exact numbers for how much a reuse fee is. The rest of the document just refers to them as "% of the scale wages calculated using the basic session rate (plus AFM Employers’ Pension Fund contributions) that would have been paid pursuant to the then-effective Sound Recording Labor Agreement" which I've interpreted to mean whatever the current single session fee was for the year it was recorded
• 8C-8G I outlined above, they're all just optional fee arrangements under which a soundtrack could be released.

Now it is possible that instead of being a single session fee, the reuse fees are the total fees for all sessions, so say TFA had 20 sessions, instead of $38k it would be $760k.

 

$760k is obviously unaffordable by any label, but under sections 8C-8G it should still be possible to pay only a tiny fraction of that.

With 8E.2 it would be $64k under 10k units, which while expensive is not impossible to pay.

Also @Holko mentioned before that under 8E.1 it should be free under 15k units, regardless of whatever the fees would otherwise total.

 

Earlier in this thread, @Jaygave an example from MM of the fees being something like $360k. I have no idea where that number came from

[Jay 37,346]

2 minutes ago, enderdrag64 said:

I have no idea where that number came from

 

?

 

On 02/03/2022 at 7:04 AM, Jay said:

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)

[enderdrag64 624]

What I meant is that I have no idea where that number came from in terms of being the amount labels would have to pay.

 

Why don't sections 8C-8G apply?