Category: Music

Before we jump into a complex topic like copyright termination…Quick!

Off the top of your head…name 3 songs from the early 1990s that spark a good memory for you.

(leave a comment at the bottom of this post…I’m curious to see the musical taste of people who read this article).

For me there were a ton of songs and groups in the early 1990s that were inspiring but here are the ones that immediately came to mind (I had an eclectic upbringing).

My list would be:

– Come and Talk To Me – Jodeci

– Warm it Up – Kris Kross

– La Schmoove – Fu-Schnickens

How does this tie into the Copyright Termination Rights? Well, the artists and/or writers of these songs may have the legal right to regain ownership of their copyrights if they fit certain criteria (I have not analyzed these particular situations listed above).

The topic of Copyright Termination Rights is by far the best kept secret in the entertainment industry.

About 13 years ago I wrote a few blogs, and did this video, on this topic.

Since then I have been heavily involved in this area of law. I have sent Notices of Termination to the major publishing companies on behalf of songwriters and producers, and I have helped my publishing company clients negotiate settlements when they have received Notices of Termination from their songwriters and producers.

But what is the state of this so-called “termination right” that was supposed to level the playing fields by giving artists and writers the power to take back their rights, or at least give them some leverage to re-negotiate lopsided deals that they made 35-40 years ago (or, in the case of some pre-1978 compositions, the window can be 56-61 years ago)

Well, let’s start with a recap of what I am talking about so that everyone is on the same page, and then I’ll talk about what’s been going on recently.

First let me give you a quick example of copyright termination rights with an Infographic. This will give you a quick break down of what a timeline would look like.

Below the Infographic I have a detailed article on what copyright termination rights are and how they work.

__________________________________________________________________________

Infographic: Example of Copyright Termination Rights

Want to share this image on your site? Just copy and paste the embed code below:

<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <img src=”https://www.lawyersrock.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/LR-Copyright-Termination-Rights-Infographic.png” width=”540″ alt=”Copyright Termination Rights”><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <a href=”https://www.lawyersrock.com/copyright-termination-rights/”><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> </a></p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <p><strong>Copyright Termination Rights</strong>, courtesy of <a href=”https://www.lawyersrock.com/copyright-termination-rights/”>Lawyers Rock</a></p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <p>

What Is The Copyright Termination Right?

The Copyright Termination Right sounds like a bunch of legal jargon, but what if I told you that it was possible for you, songwriter or music producer, to take back ownership of your music from the publishing or other media company that “encouraged” you to take an undesirable deal years ago.

Most writers wonder how this is possible when they signed agreements that clearly transferred all of their rights in the compositions to the publisher.

The short answer is that the U.S. Copyright Act includes two statutory termination provisions known as Section 203 (post-1978) and Section 304(c) (pre-1978) “copyright termination rights,” that actually supersede any contract that was signed by an author songwriter or producer. If certain criteria are met, the author or the author’s estate can recapture ownership of his or her copyright in the songs.

What about a termination right for recording artists in sound recordings? Unfortunately, in recent years, courts have denied that such a right exists; however, the fight to reverse this precedent continues.

What Is The Basis For This Law?

Particularly, there are two main reasons why a creative person may possess this right:

First, in the early 20th Century, the U.S. Congress initially created law to protect young authors from having to settle for bad deals that were made for the life of the copyright because at the time, struggling authors had no leverage to negotiate his or her original contracts.

More recently, Congress, through the 1976 Copyright Act (which actually didn’t take effect until January 1, 1978) reiterated this concept by ensuring that an author would have a chance to re-evaluate the value of a copyright after 35 years (or after 56 years for pre-1978 works), and either re-negotiate a deal with the original contracting party, who would likely be open to more fair negotiations, or go elsewhere and make a new deal with another party for the remainder of the copyright life.

Second, federal law, such as the Copyright Act, takes precedence over any state laws, including contract law, so if a direct conflict exists between the two then the federal law governs. This means that an author’s Copyright Termination Right cannot be waived, sold in advance, or otherwise forfeited by contract.

In short, taking advantage of a songwriter or composer is not only unconscionable, but literally unconstitutional.

Even though an author signs a contract that says something like, “all rights are assigned and transferred for the life of the copyright”, which is common language in publishing deals, such a provision is void and ineffective when it comes to an author’s right to terminate the contract assignment and regain control of his or her work pursuant to the Copyright Act.

What Is The Effect of Termination?

Upon the effective date of termination, all of the author’s previously transferred or licensed copyright rights covered by the terminated grant revert to the author or proper person(s) if the author is deceased.

Exercising the termination right does not extend or otherwise modify the original copyright term.

A copyright for an individual author under the 1976 Copyright Act lasts for the life of the author plus 70 additional years. If, on the other hand, the work is a work of corporate authorship, the copyright duration is 95 years from the date of publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.

A proper termination of the rights to one can be transferred again for the remainder of the life of the copyright.

When Can The Right Be Terminate?

For rights granted in works created after January 1, 1978, a songwriter/composer has the right to terminate the granted rights during a five-year period beginning 35 years after the agreement was signed. The legal term for this date is the “execution date of the grant.” This five-year period may be altered to begin on the release date of the music if the agreement also granted the publisher the right to publish music, which most agreements did. The songwriter/composer must send the publisher a proper Notice of Termination, which can be sent as early as 10 years before the 35-year period begins and as late as 2 years before the 40-year period ends.

For example, if music was released on January 15, 2000, a notice of termination can be served as early as January 15, 2025 (effective January 15, 2035), but no later than January 15, 2038 (effective January 15, 2040). You’ll probably need a calculator and a few examples to get the hang of this calculation. Luckily, the U.S. Copyright Office website has created official handy tables to help calculate the date.

For rights granted in works secured prior to January 1, 1978, the start date, time period, and calculation are different. Unfortunately, this term is not clearly defined in the Copyright Act. Many scholars have interpreted it to mean the copyright registration date.

The 5-year termination window begins 56 years following the date that copyright rights are “secured”. The window to give notice is the same.

For example, if music was released on January 15, 1970, a Notice of Termination can be served as early as January 15, 2016 (effective January 15, 2026), but no later than January 15, 2029 (effective January 15, 2031). The Copyright Office website also has a table for this calculation.

Who Can Challenge An Author’s Termination Notice?

The original author or the author’s heirs clearly have the right to termination copyrights; however, more complicated situations may not be as clear. One such case already decided on the basis of standing involved a termination claim brought by the children of Ray Charles against the Ray Charles Foundation.  Though the foundation had become the legal owner of the rights in Charles’ songs, the grant of rights was originally given to Atlantic Records, and later renegotiated to its’ successor-in-interest.

Since only the original grantee can challenge the termination claim, the court determined the foundation had no standing to challenge the claim because they were merely the “beneficial owner” of the copyright interest, rather than the party who was originally granted the transfer.

How Exactly Does This Right Work?

To qualify for the Copyright Termination Right, the transfer or license must have been executed by the author, not by a recipient of an author’s rights (i.e., heirs by will).  However, statutory heirs of the author(s) may still able to affect the termination rights if the author who executed the transfer is since deceased.

I won’t go into the details (that would turn this into a book) but if the original author transferred or licensed the rights, then the discussion of the following issues will give authors some guidance as to whether the rights in their work may be eligible for revision:

When Did The Author Transfer or License The Rights?

The first fact to determine is when the grant of rights in question was executed. A longer analysis applies to works that were created prior to January 1, 1978 because Copyright Law prior to this date was more complex.

Within this sub-topic you have to analyze whether the work is considered a pre-1978 work, a post-1978 work, or a so-called “gap” work where may have been contracted or written before 1978 but actually created or released after 1978.

Was The Copyright Created As A “Work-Made-For-Hire”?

A work-made-for-hire is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment for the employer so copyright termination does not apply.

It is also a commissioned work, falling under one of the specially designated categories of such works, where the parties agreed in writing to treat it as a work-made-for-hire (“WFH”).

Certain works are clearly defined in the WFH definition, but there are also several types of work that are excluded entirely, particularly music.

This creates some ambiguity and when the work is not mentioned, a deeper analysis may be required, or possibly a lawsuit to clarify.

Upcoming lawsuits will feature arguments from both sides concerning whether sound recordings can qualify as a WFH.  Labels will take the position that albums fall under a qualifying category such as a “collective work” or “compilation.”

Most music agreements contain both WFH language and assignment language as an attempt to hedge bets on what a court will say one day.

Also, many agreements with WFH language also contain clear language that the artist is not an employee of the record label. By the way, did you know that California’s labor code states that any agreement with work-made-for-hire language in it automatically means that the contracting party is a statutory employee?

I’ll save that topic for another blog.

Who Can Terminate The Copyright?

Generally, if the author is still alive then this answer is easy, the author can terminate the copyright. If the author is not alive then it can get complicated, but the short answer is the author’s heirs have the right to terminate assignments, (again, provided the deceased author made the assignment).

Are There Any Exceptions?

It is worth noting that the Copyright Termination Right does not apply to derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before termination of the grant. A derivative work is a creation that is based on an original work, such as an updated version of original music.

The derivative user may continue to use that work, but no new derivative works can be created after termination.

This topic will be a hot button for many years to come. There are currently a number of active cases that will shape the future of this right so stay tuned!

And if you happen to run into Teddy Riley, Sarah McLachlan, Carole King or another prolific songwriter or producer, please share this article with them!

Until next time!

Richard Jefferson, Esq.

Updated and reposted: September 19, 2023

Video Presentation

I love it when technical law meets mainstream news because it makes an otherwise dry legal topic (like DMCA, Fair Use) much more relatable to the public.

After all who wouldn’t be more interested in hearing the legal details if the story involved Prince and dancing YouTube babies?

Let me explain further.

This perfect storm recently happened when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in a case called Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. et al. that a famous YouTube video featuring a baby bobbing his head to Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy”, should not have been snatched down by Universal (I’m sure you’ve all seen that pathetic YouTube snowed out screen with the unhappy face that appears when a video is removed).

There is nothing more technical than the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and there is nothing more mainstream than cute baby videos and, of course, anything involving Prince!

This is a major case in which the court basically ruled that, before a content owner requests/demands an Online Service Provider (ISP or OSP for short) like YouTube to take down a video or other content, the content owner must have first considered whether the unauthorized use is “fair use”.

This is the first case to address the Fair Use issue and is going to have wide reaching ramifications.

Especially for those companies that assign some intern to do nothing all day long but look for infringing videos on YouTube and issue takedown notices. (No offense intended to interns…I use to be one of those grunts).

For those of you that like the legal background, let’s start there.

Note: I have an updated video presentation on Fair Use at the bottom of this post

 

What is DMCA?

In general, the DMCA protects OSPs against copyright infringement liability if they comply with certain content takedown rules. So when an OSP, like YouTube, allows users to upload content for other users to view, there is a risk that a user will upload unauthorized copyrighted materials.

If this happens, an OSP is put at risk of committing copyright infringement and has a good chance of getting sued since it is usually the deep pocket in the incident. This is what happened before the DMCA implemented safeguards for OSPs.

The DMCA created a process that allows an OSP to avoid liability if it expeditiously removes copyrighted material when notified by the copyright owner of the content. The notification is known as a “takedown notice” and instructions on how to issue one is usually located in the Terms of Use section of the OSP’s website.

In the Lenz case, Stephanie Lenz uploaded to YouTube a 29-second home video of her children dancing to the song “Let’s Go Crazy” by Prince. She titled the video “Let’s Go Crazy’ #1,” and in the video she asks her 1 year old son if he liked the song. The son cutely bobs his head up and down. Adorable, right?

Well, Universal, who was responsible for enforcing Prince’s copyrights, didn’t think it was adorable.

Universal determined that the video of the little Prince fan was an infringing use based on its standard company criteria. It sent a takedown notice to YouTube, and the video was removed from view. Lenz then sued Universal, alleging that it had misrepresented the infringement.

Lenz argued that Universal’s criteria was literally not fair, meaning it did not consider the Fair Use Doctrine. You remember the Fair Use Doctrine, right? If not, here’s a refresher so that you can really understand the importance of this case.

 

What is Fair Use?

Copyright law grants the author of a work an exclusive right of usage, which bars other persons from using the work without permission from the owner of the copyright.  Fair use is an exception to that right.

The courts previously lead the legal community to believe that fair use could only be used as a defense to a copyright infringement claim, but the Ninth Circuit flipped the script on this notion (We’ll talk about that more in a minute).

When determining whether or not a usage is fair use, courts will consider certain factors, listed below.  None of these factors are determinative on their own, and how much weight the court assigns to each will vary by their relevance in each case.

Even if one factor weighs completely in favor of one side, all four factors must balanced against each other before a decision can be reached.

The factors are:

1. PURPOSE AND CHARACTER OF USE

Often the most influential factor, this component focuses on the very heart of copyright law: As defined in Article I of the US Constitution, does the work “promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts” through the addition of some new expression or meaning?

Put another way, is the work purely derivative, or is the use transformative?

A derivative use favors the party claiming infringement, since the right to create derivative works is held exclusively by the copyright owner.  A derivative work is a secondary work that incorporates elements of an original, previously created work, and stands alone as new and original relative to the first work.

Even if the work is deemed derivative, finding that the use is sufficiently transformative weighs in favor of the use being fair.

A transformative use favors the alleged infringer.  It is a use that adds some value to the original work, as opposed to just repackaging it.  The work can be transformed by using it for a new purpose, adding some new aesthetic or understanding, or changing the underlying meaning.

Some categories commonly favored as transformative uses are scholarship, education, research, parody, symbolism, certain non-profit or non-commercial uses, production of new technologies, criticism and commentary, and journalistic uses.  Even these “accepted” categories are rife with limitations and are subject to unpredictable outcomes.  Appropriation art, audio remixes, and audio sampling are areas that are still heavily debated.

One of the most famous examples of a derivative work is the visual piece “L.H.O.O.Q.”, in which artist Marcel Duchamp embellished a postcard reproduction of the Mona Lisa with a moustache, goatee, and a cryptic title complimenting the subject’s posterior.

Those few additions, however small, were considered highly transformative because the idea behind the artwork changed from a feat of technical skill to the ridicule of the French bourgeoisie.

Commercial use weighs against the fair use defense, but it also depends on what type of profit is being made. For instance, an artist that uses her own work in a portfolio to secure new clients is unlikely to have her commercial interests held against her, even if the owners of the works are her previous employers.

Likewise, not every non-profit use is given an automatic pass if the court determines that other factors are more controlling.

Conduct of the Defendant – Dealing in bad faith, knowingly exploiting the work, or falsely claiming authorship is relevant to the character of the defendant’s use.  However, using the work after a license has been denied does not weigh against the fair use defense.

 

2. NATURE OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK

This factor balances the benefit from facts and information being disseminated to the public with the rights of the copyright owner to control their work.

Factual vs. Creative – Think of this as a sliding scale.  The more factual the work being copied, the more likelihood there is for finding fair use.  For example, a filmmaker would have more leeway to use historical footage of the attack on Pearl Harbor in an upcoming film than they would to use a clip from the Hollywood movie, Pearl Harbor.

Unpublished work – The copying of an unpublished work weighs heavily against a fair use finding because the author of the work has the right to control the first sale of the work.  Few exceptions exist, but one such case involved a biographer who copied small portions from the unpublished letters of a famous author who was the subject of his book.

 

3. AMOUNT AND SUBSTANTIALITY

Another sliding scale analysis, this factor balances features both a quantitative and a qualitative aspect.

Quantity & Quality – Generally, the more of a work that is copied, the less likely it is to be a fair use.  Some courts consider “thumbnail” versions of a work to be a lesser amount.

However, even a minute use may not be fair if it targets the “heart” of the work.  To illustrate, while it may be fair use to copy a 3-second clip from Gone With The Wind, it’s less likely to be so if that clip is of Clark Gable saying, “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.”

Parody – Interestingly, the opposite may be true in a parody case, where a use may not be considered parody if the original material is not easily identifiable in the new material (i..e, satire may not be considered fair use parody). Parodies usually want to target the “heart,” or most memorable portions, of the original work to be clear about what they are imitating.

 

4. EFFECT UPON WORK’S VALUE

Often a more difficult factor to analyze is whether the copying negatively affects the income of the owner, or undermines a potential market for the original work.  If a work could have been purchased or licensed for use, there is less likely to be fair use for copying.

Purpose – Is the unauthorized use for commercial or non-commercial purposes?  It’s more difficult to show a negative affect when the copying is done for research or educational purposes.

Parody – Again, the analysis for parodies differs because a parody aims at ridiculing the original.  The test here is not whether the parody negatively affects the original, but whether the parody is so successful that it completely supplants the demand for the original.

 

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

The above four factors are certainly the meat of a fair use analysis, but the court is free to consider other factors, which may include:

Public Interest – Some courts consider this to be an unofficial “fifth factor.”  When the use relates to issues of public concern, the fair use doctrine is given a wider scope.

De Minimis Use – Fair use will not cover uses that are so insubstantial that they would be considered de minimis, or so minute as to be of no consequence.

Individual Viewpoints – While judges should be neutral and objective parties, the subjective nature of a fair use analysis leaves room for the individual views of judges or juries to affect the decision.

Parody vs. Satire – Works of parody are commonly granted a fair use defense, whereas works of satire are almost always unsuccessful.  A work of parody target’s the original work as the object of the parody.  Satire uses the original work to make a general social commentary.

Acknowledgements/Disclaimers – Acknowledging the original author, or adding a disclaimer that the work is not associated with the original author, may contribute towards showing the user was acting in good faith, but it won’t protect from a copyright infringement claim.

 

Back To The Case…

I covered Fair Use to bring everyone up to speed. So the core disagreement between the parties was whether fair use is “authorized by the law” within the meaning of the Section 512(c) good faith statement.

Universal contended that fair use was not a use authorized by the law, but was rather an affirmative defense that would excuse otherwise impermissible conduct. Under that reasoning, a good faith statement could be made without considering fair use. This is what case law told us for years.

The Ninth Circuit, however, did not agree. First, the court noted that the Copyright Act itself relied on fair use to define what is, or is not, an infringement at all, thereby defining uses that are not infringing. By defining a use as a non-infringing use, it defines an authorized use.

Having determined that fair use is an expressly authorized use in the Copyright Act, the court went on to say that labeling fair use as an “affirmative defense” would be a misnomer. The court also cited several prior Ninth Circuit decisions that also found fair use to be distinct from traditional affirmative defenses.

The court compared the statutory language for compulsory licenses with the fair use language, and noted that both sections phrase their requirements as setting forth what “is not an infringement of copyright.” The court did not see a reason to treat compulsory licenses and fair uses differently in this regard.

Universal presented evidence of the criteria that it used in deciding to issue the takedown notice. The court concluded that Universal’s criteria used in deciding to send a takedown notice did not include criteria sufficient to form a good faith belief about fair use.

In other words, a copyright owner must run a potential infringement use through fair use analysis before issuing a takedown notice.

 

Your Takeaway

All of this to say that copyright owners better have some record of doing a reasonable fair use analysis before issuing a DMCA takedown notice. I interpret this as being a legal opinion from counsel.

You must have a subjective good faith belief that the alleged infringing use is not a “fair use” or you could find that cute baby back up bouncing to your music!

I hope I was able to shed some light on this topic. Feel free to leave a comment with your thoughts!

 

 

Before I jump into today’s article I want to give you a super quick summary of the most important points about a Music Split Sheet.

If you want to know about additional musician waiver and release forms here is an article that details the whole package you should have.

The infographic below will give you a high-level overview of what you need to know while below that is the more detailed information.

And for every Music Professional, I always recommend you take a look at our affordable Music Agreement Packages.

It will teach you how to protect, brand and monetize your Music work, business or label.

Enjoy!

Infograph: Keys to Music Split Sheets In A Nutshell 

Want to share this image on your site? Just copy and paste the embed code below:

<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <img src=”https://www.lawyersrock.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/LR-Infograph-Split-Sheet-Agreements-1.png” width=”540″ alt=”10 Keys to Music Split Sheet Agreements”><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <a href=”https://www.lawyersrock.com/split-sheets-for-music/”><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> </a></p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <p><strong>10 Keys to Music Split Sheet Agreements</strong>, courtesy of <a href=”https://www.lawyersrock.com/split-sheets-for-music/”>LawyersRock</a></p><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <p>

Just like every other business that values the influence of social media, music producers and songwriters from different genres are collaborating with one another more than ever before to tap into each other’s social following.

Unless you are a super producer or songwriter like Pharrell Williams or Adam Levine, collaboration deals will likely follow the customary terms of the song’s genre.

This could be an unpleasant surprise if you are a hip hop producer who is crossing over to rock, country, or any other music genre because the producer will likely receive a smaller ownership percentage in the musical composition copyright, so it is important to know beforehand what to expect.

In today’s article/video I am going to teach you what you need to know about songwriter split sheets for music.

These are the most common questions I get on split sheets and the answers should remove some of the mystery surrounding this very important part of music agreements.

Please note that this post is specifically only about split sheet agreements.

For every Music Professional, I always recommend you take a look at our affordable Music Agreement Packages.

To get an overview of how split sheets work you can check out this video.

If you prefer full more detailed information the post version is below that.

The following are the most important questions for producers and writers to consider and some of my observations over the years, regarding customary industry standards in different genres.

What Exactly Is Publishing?

First, let’s start with a brief description of how copyright ownership relates to the frequently used term, “publishing”. This topic alone could be a blog by itself because it is frequently misunderstood.

Publishing is a non-legal term that is used to refer to part of a collaborator’s copyright ownership in a song.

The copyright in a song actually consists of two parts, a writer’s share (50%) and a publisher’s share (50%), but some people casually use the word to represent both shares.

Unless otherwise agreed to by the collaborators, a copyright owner is free to do whatever he or she wants with his or her portion of the song, such as assign it to a publishing company.

The primary benefit of owning part of a song is that it generates royalties and other income from single and album sales, radio play, music streaming, and licensing, which is why claiming your ownership of a song is so important.

Bottom line:

If you don’t understand the details of how publishing works, then make sure you have someone on your team who does or you could be missing out on money!

What Are Split Sheets And Why Are They Important?

A “split sheet” is an agreement that identifies each producer and songwriter, and states the contributor’s ownership percentage. The split sheet should include other important information as well, such as the contributors’ performing rights organization (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, GMR), the specific contribution of each person (i.e., beats, melody, core lyrics, hook), and each person’s publisher information.

Also, it should indicate whether different versions of the song were created.

These details may not seem important in the early stages of creating a song, but a split sheet serves as evidence of copyright ownership and will assure a third party, such as a potential publisher or your PRO, that there are no disputes over splits.

Is a Split Sheet the Same Thing as Registering a Copyright Interest With the U.S. Copyright Office?

No. These are different.

A split sheet and a federal copyright registration together will give you solid proof of your copyright interest in a song.

One of the biggest mistakes that I see collaborating songwriters and producers make is failing to complete a simple split sheet because if the song becomes successful, which is the intent of all collaborations, then there is a risk that one of the contributors, or more likely his or her publisher, will claim that he or she should own a larger percentage of the song than originally assumed.

Also, under U.S. Copyright Law, if no agreement exists between the contributors, the default assumption is that all of the contributors jointly own an undivided equal share of a song.

This division may be acceptable in situations where the actual work was equal among the contributors, but that is not always true.

I Don’t Really Want to “Rock the Boat” During a Songwriting Session By Breaking Out a Contract. Isn’t There Another Way?

No. Without a signed split sheet all contributing producers and songwriters are vulnerable to receiving less of an ownership percentage than they assumed.

I recommend that the collaborators meet at a time and place outside of a creative session to discuss business and sign a split sheet.

A split sheet is also important because your administrator or accountant can use it to collect your royalties from record companies and your performing rights organization.

A record company and PRO may withhold all royalties generated by the song if the splits are not clear or a dispute exists because they don’t want to be liable.

How Are Splits Typically Determined?

In concept, splits should be allocated according to a collaborator’s contribution to a song.

Unfortunately, this is not a bright line concept because a contributor may believe that his or her contribution is more valuable to the final result than the other contributors may view it to be.

For example, if a song is divided up based on quantifiable measures, such as the lines of lyrics or music written, then a contributor who only wrote the hook to a song would only be entitled to about ten percent of the overall song.

The contributor who wrote the hook might not believe this method to be fair if the hook is frequently looped in the song and clearly raises the quality of the entire song, which is typical in hip hop.

There are countless examples like this so the bottom line is that all of the contributors need to come to an agreement.

What Split Should I Receive?

The true answer to this question is the same answer that applies to all terms in music contracts, “it depends on the situation”. With that said, I have seen the following rules of thumb:

In urban music (hip-hop/contemporary rhythm & blues), a producer is typically going to receive 50% of the song, less any portion allocated to existing samples, because the music significantly contributes to the success of a song, and the songwriters will split the remaining part.

To warrant such a large share, an urban producer is expected to not only deliver a finished master, as opposed to just beats, but to also manage the project and sometimes mentor the artist.

In the rock and pop genres (and old school R&B for catalog owners), a producer typically receives an equal share of all of the contributors based on the notion that the music and lyrics are equally important to the end result.

Rock and pop producers are also expected to help make the song successful by using their connections with industry professionals.

In country, a producer does not always share in copyright ownership unless the producer also contributes lyrics.

I have done deals where a producer receives a fee that is intended to compensate the producer for his or her efforts and buy out any rights, but I have noticed that Nashville publishers are not interested in dealing with producer contributors. It’s more songwriter focused.

Lastly, in the jazz and classical genres, producers rarely receive any copyright ownership in a song.

As you can see, if you are an urban producer you may not be interested in collaborating with certain other genres unless there is a promotional or other an ancillary benefit.

Are Industry “Standard” Splits Set In Stone?

There are no absolute deal terms in the music industry but unless you have some kind of leverage, you will probably not be able to receive deal terms much more favorable than the industry standards that I talk about above.

The term “leverage” is basically a strategic or tactical advantage over a contracting party, or you have something that the other person wants really bad so they want to work with you.

This could be a connection that you have with a company or person, an attractive upcoming project that could be used to cross-market, an impressive social media following, or something else that is desirable.

If you have leverage then the most effective way to use it is to have an experienced professional, such as a manager or attorney, maximize your deal terms. If strategically done, you will not offend the other party and end up with a great deal.

I hope you found this article on split sheets for music helpful.

As always please like, share or comment.

I have released high level music agreement templates at very reasonable prices including split sheets.