royalties

[Nat]

Can anyone tell me how royalties work? I know that the songwriter has money collected for him and disbursed to him each year for each time a song is played or the rigts to use it in a movie or commercial are sold. But how do performance rights work? Is it correct that everyone who performed on a track that is played on the radio etc gets so many cents per play as well? For instance, how does Al Jardine derive annual income from Beach Boys records if he doesn't have many songwriting credits? (I mean, for argument's sake, I don't know how many credits he has.)
This has puzzeld me for some time. Is it correct that there are only mechanical rights and one other type of right that produce income?

[Jon Stebbins]

the short answer...no pun intended...is yes Al gets paid for the songs he played on or sang on. Known as an artist royalty. When a song gets played on the radio or TV there is a royalty for the publisher and songwriter, and a seperate royalty for the "artist". So on something like Surfer Girl...Brian gets the songwriting royalty...and the publishing goes to whoever owns the sea of tunes catalog....and Brian, Carl, Dennis, Mike and David split the artist royalty...as they were the Beach Boys credited as artists on that song. So every time that song airs on the radio or TV or in a movie Brian gets paid twice...three times if he had kept his publishing...and the other guys get a little bit too because they were a percentage of "the artist".

[Nat]

Who bought Sea of Tunes after it passed into Murry's possession, Jon?

[CosmicDancer]

Do the various non-credited studio musicians also get a bit of the artist cut?  I have always wondered this as well.

[Jon Stebbins]

Someone else here will know who controls sea of tunes today...oh yeah Brian sued to get it back in '95 and won a settlement...don't know if he gets some or all or none of the publishing today...not my bag...but AGD or someone will know. And regarding the studio musicians...NO they just got paid for the sessions...none of them get artist royalties for the BB's stuff, as is the norm.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Murry sold the catalog to Irving/Almo, and I think it might be owned by BMG now. I'll check. Brian won a lump sum (which promptly vanished in lawyers fees and in the general direction of Mike Love shortly thereafter) but did not win back his publishing.

Jon, doesn't the producer also get a royalty ? Wasn't that one of the main planks of the 1967 suit against Capitol, that Brian had never been paid a producers royalty ? Or am I misremembering ?

Interesting - Alan, Mike, Carl & Dennis get paid for tracks like "LGAFAW". 

[Carrie Marks]

I think the difference between royalties from sales and airplay needs to be made.  When a song is played on the radio, only the writers and publishers get paid and that comes from a performance rights org like BMI or ASCAP.  Artists don't get paid for radio airplay...it would be nice if they did!  The exception is with the digital and paid radio services like XM - artists are now making a little off airplay for "digital distribution." 

Royalties from sales are paid to the writers and publishers from the record label.  They also have to pay the artists their percentage from the sales - including things like iTunes sales.  The record label would also be responsible for paying the producer a royalty as well since the producer, like the artist, get paid based on a percentage of the album sales - not airplay.  That would explain why the suit over producer's royaties was with Capitol, Andrew. 

TV airplay is somewhat different from radio and sales.  Again, the writer and publisher get paid for the airplay from BMI, but the people putting out the TV show, commercial, movie, etc also have to pay to license the master from the label.  The label then gives the artists a cut of the Master Use license fee.  Additionally, if the song that airs on TV is a AFM contracted session, they alse get paid through another organization called the Secondary Film Musicians Fund.

So there are ways for an artist to make some money if they didn't write the songs they played on.  However, it's going to be really, really hard to get rich unless you write your songs and own your publishing...unless you can tour consistently and make your money that way.   

[the captain]

Thanks to the knowledgeable people contributing to this thread. I'm woefully under-informed about these issues.

[Nat]

Thank you Carrie. That is an excellent description of how it all works. I read that David has been able to live off his artist royalties from the Beach Boys. So, accordingly,that would be based on volume of sales of the albums he played on plus repackaged compilations like Sounds of Summer that include songs he played on?

[Chris Brown]

What I've always wondered is why Brian couldn't physically get the publishing back, i.e. why the court felt that a settlement was a viable way to resolve the dispute.  Even without the publishing Brian knew he would always have royalties coming in, so I would think he would have rejected any settlement offer just out of principle.  I guess he probably had no way to prove that Murry forged his name on the documents to sell to Irving back in '69, but if he could have convinced the court that the transaction was not legal, then any sale or tranfer of the publishing after that point would be invalid.  It just doesn't seem right that Brian was not given back the publishing, since he techincally never gave it away in the first place. 

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Yeah, and since he *didn't* get the publishing back, why was Brian sued by Mike, whereas Mike should've went after the company instead?!

[Carrie Marks]

Thank you Carrie. That is an excellent description of how it all works. I read that David has been able to live off his artist royalties from the Beach Boys. So, accordingly,that would be based on volume of sales of the albums he played on plus repackaged compilations like Sounds of Summer that include songs he played on?

Yeah, if he was on the master then he continues to get paid on all the re-issues.  In David's case, he was on enough of the biggest selling hits that he makes out OK...not great, but he doesn't have to work outside of the music industry so that is a luxury of its own.  When you look at his royalty statements, it's really amazing to see the number of re-issues that feature songs he was on...most being foreign complilations...hundreds every year.  Then of course, when Capitol puts out a new best of, like Sounds of Summer, then David's checks could double or even triple the amount they usually are.

For some perspective, David ends up with, give or take a few pennies,  about a dime per song sold when all is said an done.  So, like I said in my last post...it's not easy to get rich unless you write your own songs.  But thankfully for David, the Beach Boys push enough units of their early material each year that those dimes add up.

[the captain]

In David's case, he was on enough of the biggest selling hits that he makes out OK...not great, but he doesn't have to work outside of the music industry so that is a luxury of its own. 

While I'm not saying artists shouldn't be paid more than they are, that certainly is a luxury. It's amazing how many of today's best bands--generally on indie labels with limited airplay or distribution--have day jobs. Most of my favorite bands of the past decade spend their time at ad agencies, writing copy, making donuts, delivering pizza or answering phones for a living--doing the same things anyone else does, only worse, since they so often have to take leaves of absence to play shows! To be able to be paid enough to play and not do anything else is truly a blessing. I'm glad David is able to do it--he certainly deserves it.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Yeah, and since he *didn't* get the publishing back, why was Brian sued by Mike, whereas Mike should've went after the company instead?!

In short, Mike went for the easy target. The crazy thing is, after Brian got his multi-million $$ settlement ($10 million, I think, please correct me), Mike was willing to settle for the songwriting rights back and $750,000, but Brian's advisors said no, fight him in court. Which is why Brian came away with essentially nothing. Like I've been saying for some 10-12 years, Brian is surrounded by people who continually make criminally bad decisions regarding his career.

[Carrie Marks]

Andrew, was Mike going after the easy target or the former co-owner of the company that failed to protect his copyright?  I'm not sure the law...however, from my experiences with publishing  it seems to me that Murry and Brian, as the joint owners of Sea of Tunes, had a legal right to file the songs in their catalog accurately. 

Now, I think it's a pretty safe speculation that it was Murry, not Brian, who "forgot" to add Mike's name as a co-writer.  However, Brian WAS the co-owner of the company that failed to protect Mike's interests whether he had any first hand knowledge of what was going on or not.   Which leads me to believe Mike's claim for back writer's credit would have to be against Sea of Tunes...but with that company no longer in existence, what could he do about it?  Once Brian opened the door to excercise his rights as the former partner in SoT, I  believe that would then open the door for Mike to go after Brian legally...not as his cousin, or former band mate or writing partner...but as Murry's partner in the company that stole Love's songs.

Just a thought....

[Lola Jane]

It's unfortunate when one person has a legitimate axe to grind from past misdemeanours and the only person they can take it out on is someone who may have been relatively innocent, although somewhat ignorant of their professional responsibilities.  I'm not sure on what grounds Brian won his suit in the SOT publishing saga?  I guess if you are claiming  compensation you thereby acknowledge your right to involvement, meaning if anyone else has credit issues with the company... you take the rap.
Or have I read this wrong?

[Andrew G. Doe]

I'm not sure on what grounds Brian won his suit in the SOT publishing saga? 

As I recall, it was alleged, and accepted, that Brian's signature on the documents selling SOT to irving/Almo was a forgery.

Carrie, to me the whole crux of Mike's claim for backdated credit is the time factor, and Mike's personality, and that's why I think that the majority of his claims are, to be kind, spurious. Consider - he claims that he co-authored some 35 (twice as many) songs on albums from 1962-1966. OK, so after the first album he notices his name isn't on, say "409". Didn't he have a word with Murry or Brian ? Let's say he did and was told they'd fix it next time round... and they didn't. And so on, and so on. Once, I can accept. Twice... maybe. But on about ten albums over four years ? And then he took 30-odd years to realise it, and does realise it right after Brian's won a big payout ? Can you say "smells funny" ? Brian & Murry may have - did - fail Mike, but he also sure didn't help himself by apparently rolling over and letting it happen time and time again.

[Sheriff John Stone]

I don't know who was right or wrong in the Mike/Brian songwriting credit lawsuit (I don't care either), and I'm not taking sides (I'm sick of discussing $$$$$ and the Beach Boys), but one thing still surprises me about Mike's public behavior concerning the matter.

Mike was probably living with what he considered credit injustices since the early/mid 1960's. But from 1966 to say, 1989, whenever Mike would introduce Brian on stage, or talk about him in an interview, Mike would ALWAYS praise Brian's songwriting abilities, and rarely mention his own contributions to the songwriting process. In and around 1976-81, Mike would introduce Brian on stage as "the musical genius", or "the best songwriter in rock & roll", or "the sage of the age".  He would rarely say "we" when discussing the songwriting. Also, in interviews, Mike would ALWAYS recognize Brian's songwriting, arranging, and producing, rarely mentioning himself in relation to the composing. Mike would even tell funny stories about Brian's studio vocal recording sessions.

It is only in recent years that Mike started to include himself by saying "Brian and I did this", or "Brian wrote this but I came up with that". Mike would even recite certain specific parts of songs that he wrote. Mike also started to give himself more credit on stage during concerts. It was only in recent years that Bruce Johnston and the late Terry Melcher included Mike in songwriting conversations, which was enlightening.  For years it was just ASSUMED that Brian wrote just about everything and Mike threw in a couple of words or phrases.

Again, I'm not trying to throw fire on the flames or start another Mike Love debate. And I don't think Mike started to credit himself for lawsuit purposes. I just find it very interesting how only later in his life/career did Mike start to give himself credit. I mean, he went decades without addressing it...

[Steve Mayo]

I'm not sure on what grounds Brian won his suit in the SOT publishing saga? 

As I recall, it was alleged, and accepted, that Brian's signature on the documents selling SOT to irving/Almo was a forgery.

Carrie, to me the whole crux of Mike's claim for backdated credit is the time factor, and Mike's personality, and that's why I think that the majority of his claims are, to be kind, spurious. Consider - he claims that he co-authored some 35 (twice as many) songs on albums from 1962-1966. OK, so after the first album he notices his name isn't on, say "409". Didn't he have a word with Murry or Brian ? Let's say he did and was told they'd fix it next time round... and they didn't. And so on, and so on. Once, I can accept. Twice... maybe. But on about ten albums over four years ? And then he took 30-odd years to realise it, and does realise it right after Brian's won a big payout ? Can you say "smells funny" ? Brian & Murry may have - did - fail Mike, but he also sure didn't help himself by apparently rolling over and letting it happen time and time again.

exactly how i feel about it, waited 30 some years to do something and it just happens to be when brian is awarded $10 million. if it bothered him so much why didn't he do something at the time (ok..i will give him the murry factor at first) but why didn't he do something when sot was sold or in the '70's or the '80's. only when brian got money was it a problem.

[Carrie Marks]

I'm not taking a pro-Mike stance here but it seems like personal feelings towards him are interfering with how the situation is being viewed. I just don't see why Mike waiting 30 years to sue for his back writer's credit is any different than Brian waiting 30 years to make his claim against the guys who bought his publishing company.  The same exact arguement that's being made against Mike should also apply to Brian.

Does anyone really think Brian was sitting around his house one day in the late 80's or early 90's and realized at that exact moment that he didn't sign the sales papers for SoT and that his father must have forged them? Or is more likely the plan of some suit who saw an opportunity to make some money? 

And if that scheme opened the door and set a precedant for Mike's lawyers to file suit then that's unfortunate for Brian. But because the 2 cases are so inter-related, I feel Mike has to be given some leeway on the time issue.  It makes sense that Brian's case would have some influence over Mike's legal options.

[MBE]

Brian and Mike both always talked about Love's work in the group. Brian said in a 1976 interview that Mike was his main colaberator. It's in AAB. Now maybe The situation with Mike was resolved in 1967 so that's why he claimed the songs from when he did. Before that,  Mike was told he would be paid for the songs if not get credit. I can't remember where I read that, but that is the jist of what Love said in Goldmine etc. at the time. I think from what he said  he did not know until 1990 or so that he was not being paid.  That's not to say that Mike wasn't mad about being left off the credits. Afterall when one writer says you contributed next to nothing to the Beach Boys (guess who), your'e going to be angry. I think all of Mike's others suits are bull (as are the rest of Brian's) but I support Love on this and Brian did too. I have heard him say Mike was in the right at least on this.

[Cam Mott]

Wasn't the crux of Brian's suit agaisnt Irving a conflict of interest of the attorneys involved in the sale rather than forgery etc.?

I believe Mike's suit was against "Irving Music et al" with Brian being one of 8 or so of the "et al" defendants, including Irving subsidiaries, attorneys, etc..

Mike has said he wasn't aware of his rights in this regard until he testified for Brian in Brian's suit against Irving.

I think Brian get's off easy in this regard and I'm always a little surprised how it gets turned back on Mike to boot. Brian has admitted he knew he and his dad were screwing Mike over in regards to publishing.  

[Andrew G. Doe]

I just don't see why Mike waiting 30 years to sue for his back writer's credit is any different than Brian waiting 30 years to make his claim against the guys who bought his publishing company.  The same exact arguement that's being made against Mike should also apply to Brian.

Good point... except that we're talking two totally different personalities here. Brian was probably told by his wife/fiancee and managers it was a good idea to sue for his publishing. Mike, by the early 90s, was known to be litigious.

[Carrie Marks]

Brian was probably told by his wife/fiancee and managers it was a good idea to sue for his publishing. Mike, by the early 90s, was known to be litigious.

So because Brian's lawyers (or who ever) came up with a scheme to get their hands on Brian's old publishing catalog it somehow makes it OK for him to go after Jerry and Herb for an additional $10,0000 above and beyond what he was already paid for the songs but it's not OK for Mike to say "Hey, some of that pile of money you just won is mine."   Seems a little unfair, to me.

I'm curious what the other lawsuits that Mike was involved with that made him "known for being litigious." The only other suit I'm familiar with is when Mike (and Carl, Al and Audree), sued over the so-called autobiography...were there other cases?  I was always under the impression the suit against Brian over writer's credit was the beginning of Mike's  penchant for the court room.