 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Dec 30, 2005 - 1:24 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
musickco
(Member)
|
The matter of re-use fees is complicated, changes according to territory and has also changed in its detail over time.
These days it is very often the film company itself which pays the re-use fees, then they can pass on this cost to the company wanting to release an album.
In the past re-use fees demanded by various musicians’ unions have amounted to a “double payment” on the amount of music being issued on album – usually set in twenty minute increments (the total amount of music permitted to be recorded at one session – although some sessions specify fifteen minutes of music) – so a forty minute album would cost a third less in re-se fees than a sixty minute album.
However these days, certainly in the UK, reuse fees are usually arranged in advance and amount to only a percentage of the original session costs (its several years since I worked on a movie so I can’t remember the amount, or indeed what it might be now).
Of course in many territories, mostly in central Europe, there are no re-use fees to pay – and recording scores in Prague or Budapest is a prudent option for certain film or television companies.
But if the musicians who recorded a score are entitled to re-use fees of any amount then this is due to them no matter what territory an album might be released in.
This also applies to re-use fees due on older or vintage scores – unless an arrangement can be arrived at with the musicians’ union concerned. The rates are paid at the rates applicable to the original recording sessions. So something recorded in 1975 will need to have re-use rates paid on the 1975 scale.
One aspect of film score re-use rates to be considered is when such music is utilised on an advertisement – on TV or radio – and the this may require a further payment even if album re-use has been paid but another “usage” has not been specified.
One “old” way around this matter was for separate “soundtrack” albums to be recorded specifically for commercial release. It was cheaper and more efficient to record again, perhaps at the close of the film sessions, and perhaps with a reduced orchestra, and also allowing the composer to make certain modifications to the scoring making certain sections more palatable for a commercial release (for instance some excellent score cues lack codas in their original from). The composer would also be privy to a re-arrangement fee.
The licence to issue a soundtrack recording will vary enormously in financial terms. But can you imagine what the bidding war might be on a major film expected to be a box–office bonanza? Of course these days the album deal is usually sown up for major movies before even the film has been scored. But what if you had to bid for the soundtrack to King Kong?
On older material you may be lucky to get away with a small upfront fee based on projected sales. But a company like BMG might ask for minimum sales of fifty thousand units!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i have a question to our record producers (lukas, ford...) or anyone who knows.
must a label pay the ree-use fees to a union orchestra when the cd is released by a label outside the usa (europe, asia)
when the cd is only released in japan or france, and they not sale it to us ?
another question im allways wondering about, how much will it cost to release a score cd ? not the production of it, the license...
take a release from buysoundtrax, laserblast witch has only 1000 units to sale. they sale it for 16.95$ so the maximum money they can make with this cd is 16950$.
how much from this money goes for license, ree-use fees...
That was a NON-AFM recorded score...
No reuse fees.
Ford A. Thaxton
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
