McCormicks Law
  • Home
  • Services
    • Entertainment Law >
      • Music
      • Interactive Entertainment Law
      • Film + Television + Theatre
      • Media Law
      • Sport Law
    • Entertainment Visas >
      • Distinguished Talent Visas
      • TALENT VISAS
      • Business Industry Investment Visas
      • Character Issues & Talent Visas
    • Film + Television Business
    • Fashion Law
    • Tours & Events Legals
    • Royalty Audits and Recovery
    • Trademarks
    • Litigation
  • Industry Focus
    • Entertainment
    • Music Business
    • Creative Industries
    • Advertising + Media
    • Interactive Entertainment Industry
    • Design and Visual Arts
    • Fashion + Luxury Goods
    • Hospitality + Leisure
  • We are
    • About
    • Our Clients
    • The Team >
      • Matt
    • Jobs Page
    • International
  • Blogs
  • Contact
    • Transfer Consent
  • COVID 19
1300 150 001
mccormicks @ mccormicks.com.au

Taylor Swift and Universal Music Record Deal

22/11/2018

0 Comments

 

​Ok, a quick word on the Taylor Swift / Universal Records deal and her move away from Big Machine Records [– whom she’d been with since the she was 14 year old], and why it is big news.
 
Simply, Taylor had to move from Big Machine records to gain complete control of her work and it was the time to do it.  Her big Machine record deal wasn’t terminated, it expired, and she didn’t renew it. There was no ‘dispute’; It was a good business move by Swift. 
 
Big Machine owned the rights to all the master recordings for every single one of her 4 record breaking albums (that’s how it works in artist/record company deals, the company owns the master recording of the albums – not to be confused with ‘song ownership’, that’s different). 
 
So with offers from all the big labels, the final deal she signed with Universal Music unsurprisingly has a huge  ‘undisclosed figure’ but with her negotiation clout the new contract gives her control and ownership of her future albums. Only a small number of artists have been able to achieve this with a major label (E.g. Garth Brooks, Motley Crew, Bowie, Aerosmith, Metallica… et al).  
 
The way it traditionally works is that an artist would receive an advance in exchange for signing away the rights to the albums or tracks produced under the contract. There is numerous incarnations of that structure but at the end of the day in 99.9% of traditional deals that is what happens.
 
The biggest and the most unique, aspect of the new record deal is that she has negotiated a benefit for all Universal Artists. Universal is the largest shareholder in Spotify, if/when Universal sell ANY of its shares in Spotify, Swifts contract provides an obligation on Universal to distribute the profits to all of its artists. No one saw that coming and that was the master stroke.
​
Picture
Picture
Some context on the Spotify clause. Universal is the last remaining major label yet to sell its founding shares in the streaming platform. Sony has sold 50% of its shares ($770M) and Warner 100% ($500M).

Sony announced that it would be sharing its stock profits to its artists, and has shared 30%. Warner shared 25% ($125M) of the profits with its roster too, 

In response UMA announced that it would be also sharing if they ever sold but never confirmed any details.  Taylor Swift  confirmed it with a non-recoupable clause, and higher percentage that Sony, and this was was a critical term UMA needed to accepted to shake off all the other major labels, (as well as Apple and Spotify...and private telco companies whom were trying to lure Swift with unique direct partnership deals). 

Universals stock in Spotify is worth between $800M-$900m and while the profits on a sale will be shared on a pro-rata basis with the artists, Swift is not in the top 20 streamed artists (remember she pulled her music off the platform). So its a terms negotiated that will benefit other artist before herself. 
0 Comments

new laws to make contracts  less "un-fairer" 

22/9/2016

0 Comments

 
​As at  12 November 2016, a new laws will come into effect designed to protect small businesses from unfair terms in standard form contracts. Many entertainment and creative industries agreements will fall into the amendments. 
The new laws will apply to all standard form contracts. Standard form contracts are those where one party has prepared the contract and the other party has little or no opportunity to negotiate., that is, it is offered on a ‘take it or leave it’ basis, including:  
  • for the supply of goods or services
  • land sale agreements
  • at least one of the parties is a small business/sole trader 
  • an upfront price is payable to a certain level ($300,000 or $1 Million depending on the length of the relevant agreement)  
​For existing contracts even if it is varied after 12 November the laws will apply to the varied terms. 

Types of terms of contracts that will be effected 

The new law sets out examples of terms that may be unfair, including:
  • terms that only enable one party (but not another) to avoid or limit their obligations under the contract
  • terms that only enable one party (but not another) to terminate the contract
  • terms that only penalise one party (but not another) for breaching or terminating the contract
  • terms that only enable one party (but not another) to vary the terms of the contract

If a term is captured under the new laws, the term will be deemed a void, meaning it will be non-binding on either party. 

While most standard form contracts and contractual terms will be covered by the unfair contract terms law, there are a number of particular contracts that will not be effected;
  • Contracts entered into before 12 November 2016 (unless they are renewed or amended on or after this date)
  • Shipping contracts
  • Company Constitutions
  • Some  insurance contracts
  • Contracts in sectors exempted by the Minister – no sectors are currently exempt.

Many many entertainment and creative industries contacts will however be effected
Picture
Festival Artist Agreement 
​Writer’s Agreements
Freelancer Agreements
​​Writer’s Agreements
​General Service Agreements
​Booking Contracts
​Crew Agreements
​Some recording contracts
Third Party Merchandise Agreements
​Film Contracts
Talent Agreements
​Terms of business agreement 
On Line Service Agreements
Consultancy Agreements
​Terms of business agreement 
​​Reality TV Agreements
Production Supply Agreement
​Composer agreement
Employment Contracts
​Reality TV Agreements 
0 Comments

Music Royalties explained and how they work

23/6/2015

0 Comments

 

How stuff works - Music royalties 

Probably one of the most simple summaries on music royalties has been by published on www.howstiffworks.com and written by non lawyer Lee Ann Obringer. Most of the references is US based but still relevant and a great overview all round. This is the introduction and there is a link to the full article below. 

"Watch MTV or open a copy of Rolling Stone or Spin and you'll be checking out some musical members of the entertainment elite. The clothes, the jewelry, the cars, the clubs, the houses... One might wonder where, exactly, all that money is coming from. How much does the artist make from CD sales?

Bars, clubs and coffee houses across the country are overflowing with fresh, talented musicians who want to join the ranks of these performers. But really, what are the chances of making it to stardom and retiring on music royalties?

Making money in the music industry is tricky. Recording contracts are notoriously complicated, and every big recording artist has a small army of legal representatives to translate and negotiate these deals. In this article, we'll look into the world of music royalties and see how money is actually made in this industry.

Who Gets What?
The first thing we need to do is distinguish between recording-artist royalties and songwriter/publisher royalties.

In The Internet Debacle - An Alternative View, Janis Ian, a singer/songwriter, states:

"If we're not songwriters, and not hugely successful commercially (as in platinum-plus), we [recording artists] don't make a dime off our recordings.She's referring to the fact that recording artists and songwriters do not earn royalties in the same way. Recording artists earn royalties from the sale of their recordings on CDs, cassette tapes, and, in the good old days, vinyl. Recording artists don't earn royalties on public performances (when their music is played on the radio, on TV, or in bars and restaurants). This is a long-standing practice that's based on copyright law and the fact that when radio stations play the songs, more CDs and tapes are sold. Songwriters and publishers, however, do earn royalties in these instances -- as well as a small portion of the recording sales."

The only current instance in which artists earn royalties for "public performances" is when the song is played in a digital arena (like in a Webcast or on satellite radio), is non-interactive (meaning the listener doesn't pick and choose songs to hear), and the listener is a subscriber to the service. This came about with the Digital Performance Rights in Sound Recordings Act of 1995. This act gave performers of music their first performance royalties.

We'll go into more detail about the types of licenses and royalties later in this article. But first, let's look at song copyrights
...".


This is just the intro to Obringers article, the other 75% and the full article you can get here along with many more.


0 Comments

Band / Artist Booking Agreement

24/7/2014

0 Comments

 


Band / Artist Booking Agreement

Picture
Here is a simple artist / band booking contact. You are welcome to use it and we aren't claiming any copyright over it. However please be aware that you still need to understand the terms of the document. This is a very simple version of the agreement for smaller gigs.
0 Comments
    Picture

    Categories

    All
    Band Agreements
    Copyright
    COVID 19
    Defamation
    Digital
    Domain Names
    Entertainment Visas
    Film TV Media
    Licences
    Moral Rights
    Music Agreements
    Publishing
    Record Deals
    Royalties
    Streaming
    Trademarks
    Video Blog

    Archives

    December 2021
    May 2021
    July 2020
    March 2020
    November 2019
    January 2019
    November 2018
    April 2017
    March 2017
    December 2016
    September 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    July 2014
    April 2014
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    November 2012
    October 2012
    August 2012

    Picture

    RSS Feed

  • Home
  • Services
    • Entertainment Law >
      • Music
      • Interactive Entertainment Law
      • Film + Television + Theatre
      • Media Law
      • Sport Law
    • Entertainment Visas >
      • Distinguished Talent Visas
      • TALENT VISAS
      • Business Industry Investment Visas
      • Character Issues & Talent Visas
    • Film + Television Business
    • Fashion Law
    • Tours & Events Legals
    • Royalty Audits and Recovery
    • Trademarks
    • Litigation
  • Industry Focus
    • Entertainment
    • Music Business
    • Creative Industries
    • Advertising + Media
    • Interactive Entertainment Industry
    • Design and Visual Arts
    • Fashion + Luxury Goods
    • Hospitality + Leisure
  • We are
    • About
    • Our Clients
    • The Team >
      • Matt
    • Jobs Page
    • International
  • Blogs
  • Contact
    • Transfer Consent
  • COVID 19