Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedwood
...Here in the UK...
|
Seriously, what you think you're talking about has nothing to do with it. My younger sister lives in London and sits on the board of directors of a UK record label. And although she knows zero about music or recording, she knows an awful lot more about the business than most people on this forum.
If you want to produce someone in the UK or the US or Ghana or wherever, and you want to do it for free in the hopes of possibly getting something in the future, then just do it. Produce it for free, and shake hands with a gentleman's agreement that if the artist ever makes any money they'll send you a fruit basket or a million pounds or whatever seems appropriate to them at the time. And then you are free to rely on their on their good English manners to take care of you appropriately when and if the time comes, according to their own discretion.
You freely give them a gift of producing their record now, and they can freely give you a gift when and if they ever get rich from it. No harm, no foul, no commitments.
But in English Common law, a contract is a binding agreement, whether verbal or written (except in real estate, where it must be written). A first-time artist who owes a 2% of gross producer royalty to a third party is practically untouchable. For one thing, the artist himself may never see 2% of gross on the first releases, or may have it entirely spent on advances, promotion, touring, and video costs. For another, the label or distributor who signs him does not want to be on the hook to you for all the nebulous gray-area sales that artist made on his way to getting signed in the first place, but they may be, whether or not you care about pursuing it. It's not some anonymous bedroom producer they're scared of, it's his brother-in-law lawyer or whoever that overhears "you know, I produced that record..." when the song comes on the radio.
And you can post on forums and genuinely mean it when you say that you're a good and decent fellow and a true Englishman would never sue for more than he's entitled to, but a legitimate business has an obligation to the law and their shareholders to assume that legal obligations are real obligations.
Seriously, if you want to get paid for something, charge up-front. If you want to it for free in hopes of some future consideration when and if it makes any money, then do it for free, and then hope for some future consideration when and if it makes any money. The worst business situations in the world (and the world includes the UK) are situations where people signed or committed to agreements that they didn't really "mean," or where there are a hundred unspoken ifs, ands, or buts that are not explicitly agreed to.
Honest business is not like credit-card agreements, where the legalese is just there to screw the poorer party. In honest business agreements, the purpose of the written contract is to spell out what was agreed to in principle by the two parties over a handshake, and to make sure there are no misunderstandings. The role of a lawyer is not to set up traps and legal "gotchas," it is to prevent them. The lawyer knows what kinds of details can sometimes turn into a million dollar difference for their client. The lawyer knows what kinds of ambiguities and loopholes the other party's lawyer will exploit when and if there is ever real money on the line.
And remember, it's not your client, but his label's lawyers who will decide what you are entitled to, and whether the agreement is acceptable. *If* you produce a great record and it gets traction and a major label or distributor decides to release it, *and* your client legally owes you nothing, then at least you get a producer credit on a commercial release (and whatever your honorable English client decides to send you in thanks). But if, on the other hand, you and the client have some vague royalty agreement, then best case is the label's lawyers will tell them to pay to re-record it so that you can be cut out.
More likely, they will determine that record can't safely (legally) be simply "re-recorded," since production is not just engineering, and you may well still have a legal claim on a remake of the record that you produced. Moreover, an artist with a ready-made record, ready for release, is a totally different prospect from an artist who needs to have a whole new record produced. It's a whole different ballgame. This is what I mean about "poisoning" a career. Englishmen may be men of honor, but I can tell you from experience that English lawyers do not rate honor very highly when advising their clients on whether to risk real money.
It's not just about you and your client. It's about everyone else that might affect your client's future, but who has zero relationship with you.
Lastly, it's way past time to take this discussion into another thread, since it has nothing to do with the topic.