You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
[–]Talc0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
well then the information in the article doesn't tell the full story.
The writer of the song always gets paid, irrelevant of who they are. To play that song in front of a crowd of 5 or more people requires a license, which includes a portion to be paid to the songwriter. You might "get away with it" in your own home but places like cinemas, bars, clubs etc do not, there is a rigorous enforcement mechanism in place.
However, The Music Royalty Co. tells Yahoo Movies U.K. that Gadd will be paid under a "one-off" fee.
"Artists are usually paid a one-off 'synchronization fee' when their songs are used on movie soundtracks," said Ray Bush, who is managing director of The Music Royalty Co.
"It can range from £500 (about $615 U.S.) for smaller acts up to £250,000-£500,000 ($307,000 to $615,000 U.S.), depending on the artist and the importance to the narrative of the film," Bush explained. "There are many middlemen involved, including the record label, Glitter's agent and sometimes a 'synchronization' agent, with artists sometimes only receiving a measly amount from the deal."
You said he will make a bundle of money for every showing. I pointed out that was far from clear and cited the article. Rather than responding without reading, you might have just looked at the article. It is far from clear he is going to get a bundle of money and, if it is accurate, how ever much it is it is a one time fee.
it's fairly obvious he's going to make a bundle from it, you have to work hard to believe otherwise. A band you never heard of makes the minimum when their song is synced to some low budget film you never heard of. Sync rights are profitable. Then there's the album of the movie, which would be an annual payment rather than a one off, plus radio plays, etc etc. There's about a fiver in it for him every time some jug band performs a cover of it in a little club somewhere.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Talc ago (edited ago)
well then the information in the article doesn't tell the full story.
The writer of the song always gets paid, irrelevant of who they are. To play that song in front of a crowd of 5 or more people requires a license, which includes a portion to be paid to the songwriter. You might "get away with it" in your own home but places like cinemas, bars, clubs etc do not, there is a rigorous enforcement mechanism in place.
[–] Thisismyvoatusername ago
You said he will make a bundle of money for every showing. I pointed out that was far from clear and cited the article. Rather than responding without reading, you might have just looked at the article. It is far from clear he is going to get a bundle of money and, if it is accurate, how ever much it is it is a one time fee.
[–] Talc ago
it's fairly obvious he's going to make a bundle from it, you have to work hard to believe otherwise. A band you never heard of makes the minimum when their song is synced to some low budget film you never heard of. Sync rights are profitable. Then there's the album of the movie, which would be an annual payment rather than a one off, plus radio plays, etc etc. There's about a fiver in it for him every time some jug band performs a cover of it in a little club somewhere.