Music Industry

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
glee, royalties

Companies:
sony



Glee Cast Members Claim They're Being Stiffed On Royalties From Glee CD

from the sing-a-song-of-copyright dept

AdamR alerts us to the news that a bunch of castmembers from the hit TV show Glee are apparently quite upset that they're not seeing royalties from the super successful CD from the TV show.
After their latest record, "Glee: The Music -- Journey to Regionals" landed at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 chart in June, star Mark Salling said he'd seen "not a dime" of royalty payments from label Sony Music.

Co-star Corey Montieth told Toby Knapp's DC 99.5 radio show: "I got 400 bucks from it going No. 1. But you know what, that's OK, because if I'm patient, and if this thing does really well, maybe I'll see another 400 bucks."

... "The 'Glee' cast is furious because they feel they were misled by Sony," a source said. "They have all complained to Ryan that they want a bigger share of the royalties."
Well, that's how RIAA accounting works. Though, amusingly, the article notes that this is leading castmembers to make sure not to sign directly with Sony for recording deals, choosing to work with competitors instead (of course, with the major labels, they all cut deals like this). Either way, with the cast suddenly learning about music royalties, it makes you wonder if the show will stop ignoring them.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2010 @ 11:22am

    This reminds me of a UserFriendly strip:

    http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20070115

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Marcus Carab (profile), 7 Sep 2010 @ 11:28am

    Maybe that'll teach them for claiming Madonna's music is "public domain"

    Okay fine that was the writers not the cast. Still really bugs me though. The show could actually be quietly educating people about the ridiculous restrictiveness of copyright instead of perpetrating the false impression that copyright doesn't apply if you're just having fun. Or it could at least ignore the issue entirely. But calling Madonna "public domain" the same week you are cutting her a massive cheque is just wrong...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2010 @ 11:42am

      Re:

      Wait? Madonna's music isn't in the public domain? After I heard that on Glee I thought it was true and downloaded her entire discography!

      Why would Hollywood lie to me!?! Why!?!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Modplan (profile), 7 Sep 2010 @ 11:54am

        Re: Re:

        Don't worry, at least we have the Beatles and Mickey Mouse.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Marcus Carab (profile), 7 Sep 2010 @ 11:55am

        Re: Re:

        After I heard that on Glee I thought it was true

        Yes, yes, I know it's ridiculous, but frankly your sarcasm is unwarranted. The fact is that most people don't know how restrictive copyright law is -- and it actually DOES seem sensible that a group of high-school kids with an amateur glee club would be allowed to perform popular songs without licensing them. It's not at all hard to imagine a lot of people believing a ridiculous statement like "Madonna is public domain."

        But in reality, any glee club that did what they do on the show would have to have millions of dollars in the licensing and lawsuit budgets. Few people realize this. It would actually be really nice for the show to remind everyone that it is a fantasy and that in real life you would be sued into the ground for doing what they do.

        That's one of the biggest problems with copyright law. People very much do think that it's not so bad, because they can't believe that our shared culture is a locked up, restricted resource. They sing Madonna in the shower, so they assume they can sing it anywhere.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Marcus Carab (profile), 7 Sep 2010 @ 11:58am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I had a feeling Techdirt already had something on this:

          http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100608/0254339727.shtml

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          CoCo Was Screwed, 7 Sep 2010 @ 2:33pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Actually no. In a worst case, they would need a Compulsory License but only if they plan on recording and distributing the performance.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2010 @ 3:45pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            That is not the worst case, the worst case is being sued for infringement and being dealt a million bucks sentence and also being sued by ASCAP and other collection agencies and being handed another sentence in the ten's of thousands of dollars.

            On top of that the school could declare bankruptcy, I'm not certain what public schools would do though.

            That would be the worst that can happen.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Marcus Carab (profile), 7 Sep 2010 @ 3:49pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You are potentially right. But the show also features a lot of mashups, which complicate things by being derivative works. It also deals with YouTube videos, and public performances in a variety of places that wouldn't have performance licenses.

            The point is, at the very least, the club in the show would definitely need a lawyer in real life. But the show doesn't just ignore that aspect (which would be fine -- lots of writers leave out the boring realities of something in order to make a good show) but actively contradicts it by saying dumb things like "Madonna is public domain, you can't stop us" when in fact a lot of people definitely could stop them or at least make it prohibitively expensive.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Karl (profile), 7 Sep 2010 @ 4:15pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            No. If they did any public performance of those works, they would have to pay the PRO's (ASCAP, BMI, possibly SEASAC) for a license, or they could be sued.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Marcus Carab (profile), 7 Sep 2010 @ 5:20pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Typically venues pay those organizations, so CoCo is still somewhat right.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Karl (profile), 8 Sep 2010 @ 5:34am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                True. For what happens in most episodes, the school would have to pay. I guess it depends on who you mean when you say "they."

                That would make a good episode, actually.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Marcus Carab (profile), 8 Sep 2010 @ 7:18am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Yeah the schools would all need licenses, as would whatever auditoriums they have their contests in (presumably those do) -- then there's also the various public places they break into impromptu song. I believe at one point they record a video of them singing some pop song or another for a mattress commercial on TV which is of course an even bigger deal.

                  Your final point is the important one: it would be great for them to do an episode, without getting too intense or complex, that points out some of the legal bullshit these kids-having-fun-singing would have to face in the real world.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Common Sense, 7 Sep 2010 @ 12:06pm

    Apparently they didn't get the welcome package explaining how royalties work in the music business... One can only hope that they make a big enough fuss about this to draw some real attention to the criminals that are the RIAA....

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Hosermage (profile), 7 Sep 2010 @ 12:14pm

    no money for a bunch of ripoff artists...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Thomas (profile), 7 Sep 2010 @ 12:21pm

    Alrighty Then ..

    This obviously proves that we need even stronger and more restrictive copyright laws to protect the income of these artists, which is being decimated by file sharing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anon, 7 Sep 2010 @ 12:27pm

    Too bad they believed the songs,

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2010 @ 12:54pm

    Rather than whine about royalties, perhpas these cast members might consider giving their agents and lawyers the heave-ho since it appears the latter were asleep at the switch. Maybe next time they will hire someone who can actually read, understand, draft, and negotiate such agreements.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      average_joe (profile), 7 Sep 2010 @ 5:54pm

      Re:

      Agreed. They should have known ahead of time what kind of royalties they could expect. It's not a secret. They should have asked questions before signing.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 9 Sep 2010 @ 5:05am

        Re: Re:

        So, it's OK to rip off the people actually creating the product they're selling, so long as it's hidden away enough in the language for them not to have questioned it? The label can do whatever they wish as long as the artists' representation isn't competent enough to protect them?

        I'd never have guessed you were pursuing a career in law...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 7 Sep 2010 @ 12:55pm

    You don't understand! They didn't get royalties from the CD because all the songs were originally by other artists! So those artists are the ones who get the bulk of the royalties.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2010 @ 2:09pm

    "They didn't get royalties from the CD because all the songs were originally by other artists! So those artists are the ones who get the bulk of the royalties."

    Yep. What exactly were they expecting to get? And weren't these kids nobodies before glee? I'm sure they are locked into crazy contracts...so sing and dance....sing and dance. lmao

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Marcus Carab (profile), 7 Sep 2010 @ 3:51pm

      Re:

      Just like how orchestras don't get paid, right? And how studio musicians are all volunteers?

      I'm not sure where I stand on this issue as a whole (I mostly agree with the AC who says they should get better agents) but the crux is definitely not the fact that they didn't write the songs themselves.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Karl (profile), 7 Sep 2010 @ 2:15pm

    Surprise!

    Anyone who has studied major label contracts in any depth will not be surprised by this at all.

    The performers only get performance royalties - and then only after the recording, producing, and mastering costs have been taken out. Probably half of the promotional costs as well. If the cast went on tour (did they?), then tour support would also be taken out of royalties.

    This is standard operating procedure for all recording contracts, regardless of label. So it doesn't really make a difference that they're on Sony, the other "big three" work exactly the same way.

    The songwriters, on the other hand, get mechanical royalties (sans deductions), and all the royalties from airplay. This is the only way most musicians have ever made money off of recordings.

    A lot of those songwriters (e.g. Maddonna or ABBA) licensed their music to use for free on the show. Kind of puts a new spin on their "generosity," doesn't it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    BruceLD, 7 Sep 2010 @ 6:52pm

    Subject

    I'm unsure how this is a surprise. The corporations have been ripping off artists for years, and then they place the blame the rest of us.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Sep 2010 @ 11:52pm

    Well Lea Michelle is the only one who can be regarded as a top-class singer. She has the right to complain, the others on the show are no better than a good casual singer in the family that sings at get togethers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Vincent Clement, 8 Sep 2010 @ 6:29am

      Re:

      It is irrelevant who is a top-class singer and who is casual singer. Record companies are two-faced greedy bastards. When they file an infringement suit or file a take-down notice, they claim to do it in the name of the 'artist'. When said artist asks for their fair share, the record company says 'ha ha, too bad you signed this contract'. And they wonder why their business model is crumbling.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Tamara, 8 Sep 2010 @ 10:59pm

    Most can'

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Tamara, 8 Sep 2010 @ 11:03pm

    Most can't sing

    As Anonymous Coward said a few posts up. Lea Michelle is the only one who is good enough to secure a record deal without the show. She is a brilliant singer and would succeed no worries without the show behind her. The others whilst good singers aren't good enough to be a success without the show behind them. They won't sell many CDs.

    So Lea has every right to complain. The others don't. They're getting far more money than they would otherwise. If they don't like it they can quit and then they won't even get $400.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.