Beware the Buyout!

I’m sure you’ve all heard rumblings of an uptick in something called “direct licensing” or “buyouts” where a composer is paid a one-time (upfront) fee by a television streaming service or production company for all rights to their work.

 “Direct licensing” might seem like a more appealing term than “buyout” but the latter is more telling of the cold hard truth: a buyout, unlike the more typical “work-for-hire contract” where songwriters and composers still receive future (back-end) performance royalties, takes it all…even our writer’s share. This used to be unheard of. The writer’s share of income has always been sacred. 

If you’re anything like me your eyes are glazing over from all the economic obstacles in the way of JUST WANTING TO MAKE ART…(for a living, of course). As if it weren’t enough that digital delivery has hijacked the lion’s share of our income now we have this to fend off. It’s truly a game of whack a mole. 

We’re living on crumbs and now they want to take the crumbs! 

Michelle Lewis, Executive Director of SONA (Songwriters of North America), says “100% buyouts are an existential threat to composers if they start to become the norm. We can’t let that happen.” 

But it’s already happening…especially to younger composers. According to former ASCAP Executive Brendan Okrent, “Direct licensing is not really a new thing, but with streaming services gaining so much power, it rears its head with a bit more zeal lately especially with new writers who are afraid to pass up work or complain about the terms for fear of being blacklisted.” 

Typically, composers are paid two-fold. In a “work-for-hire” an up-front flat fee covers expenses for recording and producing music: this includes hiring musicians and singers, renting studios and equipment, mixing, engineering, mastering. Often this entire fee is exhausted by the time the score is finished. The back-end writer’s royalties however, are where he or she can earn a living because they’re generated every time a show (and score) is aired and repeated on the screen, in a public place, on a stage, at a bar. So even though a production company may own the copyright to the work (and already receive half of the performance royalties), the composer still shares in the future “performance” income. In a direct license there is no more back-end.

On Dec 11th Billboard ran a piece calling out Netflix and other streaming services for their efforts to upend how composers are compensated for their work. 

Composers started speaking out about their experience and some even defended Netflix. One Songwriter/Composer/SONA member, who wished to remain anonymous says, “Netflix is actually changing for the better. In my recent experiences with them, they will offer the option of a buyout, however they are clear that you do not have to agree to it. They do attempt to make it a large enough number where someone will be swayed to take it.” 

Another music industry source reported that in his recent dealings, “Netflix made an initial overture of a buyout and then essentiality capitulated. They will do that for A-listers.” Ok, but what about the B-listers? Is that code for the young and less experienced? Weren’t we all B-listers once?

Variety ran a subsequent piece that confirmed the exploitative strategy but seemed to point the finger more directly at Discovery Network — which owns Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, HGTV and Food Network — pay-channels that use a lot more production music and have taken the approach that if composers don’t accept their buyout deal — 100% of the publishing and domestic writer’s share — not only do they not get the job, but any of their prior cues will be replaced retroactively with music the network owns. This would cut composer and songwriter income by 90% as of December 31st. Happy New Year.

Jess Furman, Sr. Creative Director for Sound Revolver / VP of Synch for Big Noise Music and SONA board member feels that we should '“come up with a rating system … like products that are labeled “organic” or “cage-free” etc — only productions/networks that don’t try to bully their creatives into giving up all their rights would get a stamp of approval.” 

Don’t get me wrong, Netflix or Discovery, pushy or not, even if you’re merely asking for it, it’s still an obvious corporate money grab. 

SONA has been rallying to take action alongside several other high powered music composers who started a campaign called Your Music Your Future which is getting the word out to young composers not to take buyout deals. The campaign informs the media composing community of their rights and the possible ramifications of giving up the traditional “writer’s share” of royalties. More than 4,000 music-makers have signed up to support the initiative. I signed it. 

I feel like we’re living in a what-can-I-get-away-with culture. Ethics are disintegrating. Greed is rampant. Bullying is trending. So much for Being Best. 😳

If this tactic is followed by yet more media outlets, making a living as a composer will eventually become impossible. And as a viewer, your favorite series may start to sound generic, your experience cheapened.

If you’re a concerned creator (and have a Twitter account) Please Tweet this: 

@Discovery Networks found a way to cut your income by 90%. R/T if u think composers should be paid fairly. (read here) https://bit.ly/2qZ423k #DiscoveryGreed  @Gold_Rush @DeadliestCatch @StreetOutlaws #yourmusicyourfuture @urmusicurfuture 

Sign Your Music Your Future.

We need to stick together. Protect each other.

And the #MUSICARMY marches on.