Pump Audio Artists Getting Pumped
12 May 2009 at 09:36 pm
I received a letter from Pump Audio, which is owned by Getty Images, the other day announcing that they were changing their royalty structure. The letter read as follows:
- 1) Licensing fees will now be 35% to the artist, 65% to Pump Audio/Getty Images
- 2) This change will take place as of July 1, 2009. Any royalties payable through June 30, 2009 will not be affected by this change
- 3) Performance royalty splits will remain at 50% of the publisher’s share
- 4) Those that don’t accept the new split will have their music removed from the system no later than December 31, 2009.
- 5) The rights you granted to us in the original contract do not change
As you can see Pump Audio / Getty Images now deem their services worth 65% of licensing fees for their artists work, and if we as pump artists don’t like it our music will be removed from their catalog.
I understand that Pump Audio / Getty Images does provide infrastructure and sales support to it’s artists, but without us they wouldn’t have anything to sell. Traditional relationships of this kind have been 50/50, and this was the case with Pump Audio / Getty Images before the recent change.
The greed Pump Audio / Getty Images is displaying by strong arming their artist out of 15% is what all stock contributers may have to look forward to in the future unless artists refuse to conform to their demands.
If you have a story or opinion you would like to share about Pump Audio / Getty Images, please go to the “your thoughts” button at the top of the page, send me your message, and I will post it here.
Also if anyone is looking for an alternative venue www.rumblefish.com has been good to me so far.
Sam on 13 May 2009 at 4:28 pm #
I just wanted to give my two cents about Pump Audio (Getty Images) sending out their B.S. amendment to our previous 50/50 contracts…They say they need to keep their business successful with their 400+ employees to take care of..excuse me! Should we feel sympathetic with such a lame excuse to just screw the artist once again..I rejected their agreement..They said they need a statement in writing to have my music removed..Our contracts were with Pump and were bought as assets by Getty, I am thinking they really can’t legally change the terms of our contracts without our consent otherwise they probably would just do it..other music production websites have already started this trend for the race to the bottom lowering rates and licensing terms. It’s all very depressing to see how music seems so undervalued these days..I would hope that many of my fellow (former Pump) artists will stand up to Getty and refuse their contract amendment in principle.
Sorry to rant on about this, but it has really hit a nerve…
I just want to continue a little further with some information that might help any producers contemplating the Getty amendment with 35% to the artist or possibly other similar situations some of you may be facing…I came across some legal information that may be a clue as to why Getty needs us to sign and approve the contract proposals..I pulled this from a textbook “Business Law and the Legal Environment” edition 5, concerning the Uniform Commercial Code:
Parties make a contract attempting to control their futures. But one party’s certainty can be undercut by the ease with which the other party may obtain a modification. Section 2-209 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) acknowledges this tension by enabling the parties to limit changes. The parties may agree to …and insist that all modifications be in writing and signed. Between merchants, such a clause is valid. But if either party is not a merchant, such a clause is valid only if the non-merchant separately signs it. I am guessing that musicians would not be classified as merchants since in the case of Pump, we are providing music to a publisher- (merchant) without compensation in order for them to sell these intangible goods on our behalf. Even if our contracts were reviewed under the common law, the amendment would be invalid and probably unenforceable. The law in regards to music is tricky to say the least but I hope this info may give some sense of optimism and allow more artists to stand up to companies like Getty and not jump to sign anything just because they say you need to.
Best-
mcfin on 13 May 2009 at 10:11 pm #
No, Sam… you need to read the contract again. I just looked at it to see if you were right, and what it says is YOU need to put it in writing if you want to pull your music from the catalog. THEY can pull your music at any time for any reason. So I’m sorry to say that your theory and proposed course of action is flawed.
That’s why I always pass this stuff by my attorney friend–I’d never be able to navigate these waters on my own.
D on 14 May 2009 at 2:46 pm #
I have forwarded a link to this site to all the music supervisors, producers, and other industry people I know. I suggest everyone that sees this do the same.
Ken on 14 May 2009 at 5:08 pm #
Yeah, I did the same D. Hopefully we can get some support behind this issue.
Word on the street is that the guy that started Pump, who is a musician himself, left the business about two months ago. I guess after that Getty went to standard corporate rules.
pumpGetty on 14 May 2009 at 5:25 pm #
Thank you everyone that has posted so far. In the past two days pumpGetty has had 3663 hits, so clearly this is an issue affecting a lot of people.
Lets keep the momentum going. Get your badge in the badges section to show your support.
More coming soon.
Greg on 15 May 2009 at 3:24 pm #
Heres a quote form the letter:
“As we plan for the future growth of our offering to the global music licensing client base, we have determined that to fully support the 400+ person Getty Images sales staff and invest in marketing and technology needs that we must make adjustments to the current revenue split system. By making these changes, we intend to accelerate the pace of our growth and achieve our goal of becoming the largest music licensor in the world.”
World domination. Yeah!:(
Rachel on 16 May 2009 at 3:27 pm #
Crowdsourced into the poor house.
Brent McCrossen on 19 May 2009 at 4:34 pm #
Hey gang, I have heard the news about pump and their plans to increase the commission rate with their artists. While I can’t speak to the company or its practices I can speak to our company, Audiosocket. In short our splits are a more favorable 50-50. While our company has placed music to the nations top TV shows, ad agencies, brands and video games we really differentiate ourselves by the quality of music. We have a proprietary technology that allows us to serve music to the market place but we’re much more of a boutique agency.
I must admit that we’re picky about what we welcome into our roster and our clients expect that of us. Quality is a core part of what we stand for and focus on. All that being said I’d like to invite any musician / label in this forum the opportunity to submit their music to me personally. Please send 3 MP3′s to music@audiosocketmusic.com and I’ll personally review. If your music is a good fit we’ll gladly send you the Audiosocket artist agreement and invite you to work with us.
Cheers,
Brent
pumpGetty on 19 May 2009 at 5:03 pm #
Hello Everyone,
Brent McCrossen has submitted his company in the comment above as an alternative to Pump Audio. If you would like to do this please contact him directly at music@audiosocketmusic.com. If you go through their website you will have to pay a $15.00 submission fee.
pumpGetty is not familiar with Audiosocket so be sure to do your research before submitting.
Hugh Mann on 19 May 2009 at 5:27 pm #
Pump Audio uses a practice called re-title publishing. I won’t explain it well so read the following article on what it is and why as an artist it is bad for you.
http://www.themusicsnob.com/2008/07/22/re-title-publishing/
Dan Holmes on 25 May 2009 at 11:04 am #
Last I checked Audio Socket also takes a share of publishing through re-titling.
Dan on 26 May 2009 at 6:25 pm #
Licensing companies should work hard to secure favorable, market value sync and master fees and not be cutting into an artists back end. By taking part in the publishing revenue they can practically give your music away under a low-priced blanket license, leaving the individual artists with very little to show while the company enjoys the ability collect on the entire catalog.
Mark on 28 May 2009 at 11:12 am #
Agreed, mcfin – you’ve got to look at what you’re getting a percentage of, not just what the percentage is…
That said, I saw AudioSocket’s plug a few posts up and thought I’d mention our company, too. We’re an independent publisher that focuses solely on securing sync licensing deals, mainly for TV, radio, film and advertising. The deal we offer is 50:50 on everything. You contribute the music, we contribute the sales/marketing/infrastructure, and we split everything equally.
If you’re interested please submit mp3s to mark@thirdwaymusic.co.uk (no more than 5 tracks initially, please). We’re not looking to build up a massive pile of unused content, so we aren’t going to take on everything we get sent – just the best material that we feel we can honestly recommend to our broadcast, film and advertising agency clients. Even great music sometimes isn’t great music for synching – so we have to be selective and pick the tracks that are going to appeal to the music supervisors, as ultimately it’s all down to what they want for their productions.
Anyway please just drop me an email if you want to submit tracks or ask any questions.
Finally, and for what it’s worth, I’ll be upfront and say that we do re-title tracks. It’s just a simple way of tracking the separate uses when the music is being exploited by more than one licensor, so that the royalties get tracked to the right use. I don’t think it’s unfair and have never heard any complaints about it until I saw the post above.
pumpGetty on 28 May 2009 at 3:09 pm #
Hello Everyone,
Mark has submitted his company in the comment above as an alternative to Pump Audio. If you would like to do this please contact him directly at mark@thirdwaymusic.co.uk.
pumpGetty is not familiar with Third Way Music so be sure to do your research before submitting.
joan on 03 Jun 2009 at 6:08 am #
my 2 cents for beatpick.com. it’s worked well for me. 50/50 sync fee. back end royalties 100% to musician. clean front end and good placements.
Renee on 11 Jun 2009 at 12:19 pm #
I got the letter too. What a shame….As if it wasn’t hard enough as it is to make music these days. I haven’t decided what to do yet, but what felt like a pretty decent system for independent musicians to license their music, just took a turn for the worse, and will now be tacked on to a long list of shocking manifestations in todays music culture…..No more Record/CD stores, Wal-Mart is the number one music retailer, Live gigs don’t pay artists anymore, everyone has a band and a recording studio and a label, and the musicians make their music FOR FREE!
Paul on 11 Jun 2009 at 8:20 pm #
I just pulled my music from Pump.
any quality artist knows for a fact that we work our balls off perfecting our playing,recording,mixing, mastering and it costs us an arm and a leg in music gear and technology, not to mention the man hours we put in!
I am appauled by how little they value the relationship of the artist/publisher yet value their office staff far more.
I they (Pump) are in danger of ending up with loads of average semi pro songwriters on their books which of course means a catalogue of average songs not mastered as well, because all the good artists know for a fact that they can find somewhere else for good songs
There are loads of well known, successful music publishers willing to offer 50/50 deals, so my advice is go elsewhere.
Hmmm on 12 Jun 2009 at 8:14 pm #
Paul mentioned “loads of well-known, successful music publishers will to offer 50/50 deals” and I was just wondering if you would care to list them, to share the wealth. Are these libraries you’re talking about, or stock music or licensing outfits? Or just actually publishers who will enter into a deal to adminster the songs and share the fees?
Also, I’d be curious to hear from anyone who was offered the exclusive deal; just curious what your plans are. To me it seems a bad deal…
Johan on 08 Jul 2009 at 3:21 pm #
This is what happend on the linkedin forums when I posted the Pump Audio letter.
I would say, If we all just don’t sign, they have to pull the music and… they will have nothing left. who made money from them anyway? Here is my reply to their email:
Dear managers at Pump Audio. Here are a few reactions on the Linkedin forums where we posted your proposal. I hope you reconsider…
This is what people say about the new model:
Shame! to kill the 50/50 split. And I hope all composers (and publishers?) will have their music taken off so that the value of pump is gone.
if the industry values the music at less than 50%, than you say that “the way it is sold” to music users, is more important than the actual product you sell. (Johan)
Now let’s say a track was sold for $1000.
Pump would get $500, you (composer) would get $500.
Now Pump drops the price to $769 (in their new 35/65 deal) Yes, thats $500 forPump and only 269 for the composer…
It’s as simple as that. They will devaluate the music, because their next deal will be 30/70. Than 25/75 and so on…
————————————
I never signed the addendum to the agreement so I’m thinking I do not have to write to have my material removed. Does that sound correct?
I want to make sure I successfully remove my material.
Best, Corey
———————————-
It also mentions that Pump “retains” 50% of the publisher “performance” share?
I noticed a professional recording artists site like http://www.digitalmix.com only collects 50% of the licensed fee and the artist/publisher retains 100% of the performance and other source fees where warranted.
Lastly, I had a client that canceled their representation with Pump and it took years to get their songs off, only to find out that Pump was still collecting on their performance rights.
———————————
I’d remove all content now. There would be no PUMP without the compositions!!! Berry Gordy and Don King would be Proud!!
———————————-
Audiosocket maintains it’s 50-50 split.
—————————-
As a licensor myself, I know that the license fees have dropped significantly during the last years, even for well-known songs, but I agree that it’s not fair to change the terms out of the blue for exisiting clients, and the same terms should still be in affect and only apply to new clients who accept these conditions.
———————————
Let’ me get this straight.
1) Pump sells top Getty in 2007 for some $42 million.
2) The combined company now has to support, and I quote “……the 400+ person Getty Images sales staff and invest in marketing and technology needs that we must make adjustments to the current revenue split system.”
3) So instead of being more efficient and cost cutting they want to take it off the backs of the creators of music they leverage to support the above two points?
What am I missing here?
As a song writer and current performer, I am tired of the “indentured servitude” mentality business model that has plagued the music industry
—————————-
I think it’s predatory, unfair and unjust. Composers are being squeezed out of more and more, all the time. Pump Audio has turned into a stock music house that has devalued the price of library music (not to mention custom music).
—————————
I’m afraid I can only think of phrases which would be regarded as inappropriate, so I’ll leave it at SCREW THEM!!
————————
I was considering joing Pump Audio, but in view of their recent offer i would not sign up. Anything beyond 50% is unacceptable in my view.
————————
Any recommendations on where to direct the people leaving Pump Audio?
————————
and more and more comments….
L. Cedeño on 17 Sep 2009 at 6:04 pm #
and… it actually is illegal. For those people who entered into an agreement with Pump Audio, and whose music was placed in the catalog, there is protection from revision to the original contract regardless of the fact that said contract contains language which indicates it can “remove any music at any time.”
The key here is the letter they sent out. The letter almost verbatim stands as an admission to the fact that they are committing extortion. All be it a subtle form of extortion it is none the less illegal. In the letter they state that they will remove the music of anyone who does not agree to the new ration split. They can legally impose a new ratio scheme on new clients but what they cannot do is alter an existing legal instrument without the consent of the musician with whom the are engaged in contract. Threatening to remove content because of a musicians unwillingness to accept new terms or amendments is punitive and is a breach of the agreement. The circumstances of removal of content are relevant. Because they already accepted your music and are clearly indicating that the removal of the music is based solely on the new licensing ratio, they are breaking the law, regardless of an inherent right to remove music as they see fit. The cause of the removal is what stands as germane to this issue. Punitive action taken in order for a conglomerate to force a contractee into a particular financial arrangement is unethical, illegal and prosecutable.
There is ground for legal action but the only way that will work is if all of us, who are signed or were signed with Pump Audio, enter into a class action suit against Pump Audio / Getty Images. The class action can be certified on the grounds of specific corporate and contractual misconduct constituted by the punitive actions threatened by Pump Audio.
L. Cedeño on 18 Sep 2009 at 2:58 pm #
I thought I might try to simplify this legal argument a little bit.
The communications that I’ve received from Pump/Getty, along with the communications that thousands of others have received, clearly indicates that anyone who does not agree to the new ratio scheme Pump/Getty is “proposing” will have their music removed from the Pump/Getty catalog. As stated, this is not a proposal but rather an act of extortion.
That Pump/Getty would take punitive action in order to enforce a “proposed” financial amendment to an existing legal instrument is an attempt to utilize a legal provision for an illegal action.
Regardless of the language in their original contract per their legal ability to determine in their sole discretion which tracks are made available to clients; the circumstances under which they have threatened to exercise this action change the nature of it from discretionary to punitive.
A punitive action taken as an attempt to force a contractee into a particular financial arrangement is not an acceptable form of contract negotiation or enforcement.
Even if you have yet to earn any income from your music as provided to clients of Pump/Getty, you can file suit in an effort to seek “potential” earnings lost as a result of the punitive removal of your music from their catalog.
I urge you to utilize this argument in your communications with Pump/Getty and to file suit if you are able.
Joey Stebanuk on 12 Nov 2009 at 5:59 pm #
I told Getty/Pump to shove it !!!! I will not sign their new agreement ! The artists can do something about this without any legalities involved ! Pump artists and any artists thinking about joining pump should become a collective and just say “NO” !!!!! There are other licensing agencies out there who can do just as much for you as pump ….and still at the 50/50 cut !!!