base talk Are artists that sell their publishing literal sellouts? What do you think of it?

[ChooseyLover]

We keep hearing about many artists selling their publishing rights away for huge amounts of money (Shakira, Enrique Iglesias, Justin Timberlake, Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, Cher, Timbaland, etc.) while others go the extra mile to own their own music (Taylor Swift, Dua Lipa, JoJo...).

How do you feel about artists selling their publishing? Do you think that speaks of them negatively as artists?

Personally I can't understand why having the choice to own their life work they choose not to, and it's not like they need the money to survive.
 

Dua buying back her catalogue inspired me to open this conversation and I would love to hear your thoughts on it, since I'm sure many of you probably have even more knowledge on the topic as far as music rights goes.

 

[dumbsparce]

Yes, unless they're in dire need of money. How could you put a price tag on what is supposed to be a product of your soul and mind?

[futuresuperstar2023]

As an artist you should never sell your publishing rights. I'm sorry not sorry

[vale9001]

yeah It's like the market of the houses.

If i'm not wrong bob Dylan sold It too. They offered him 300M dollars and he took the money cause he knows he couldn't make so many money from his works in just the years he has to live (while the people buying the catalog can make money from It for the next 100 years, and in the long term they will repay the investimenti).

 

So yeah It's like you art becames a product to sell at the right moment for the market like It's an house... but let's be real who is gonna Say no to 300m dollars or even 200 or 100. These offers are always bigger than the Money you would make with owning your music. At least you're not Taylor and very few others with  all you discography still charting and selling. 

 

Edited July 16 by vale9001

[Wicked]

Why are you talking about publishing like they sold their masters lol

 

 

 

[Kill Me]

Unlike the master recordings which are not that important (you can make a new version(See: Taylor) or there is a option to buy back the masters when the contract is expired.)

Publishing rights are much more lucrative since you can block a person from covering your song let alone make a new version of it.

But I think they are selling it now because they think that the value of the publishing rights will go down with time(if Katy sold her publishing rights during TD, she could ask 150M, but post Woman's World where she is clearly completely irrelevant now the price of her catalog is going down FAST). Streaming has also made it so music is worth nothing nowadays(10 dollar per sale in the early 00s when compared to millions of streams to generate the same amount) and they are predicting its worth to go down in the future. TikTok and the likes are also making sure to make a star out of anybody without label support where anyone can get a #1. They might assume if this flooding goes on for decades, past music from decades ago will be worth nothing while in the 80s, 90s and 00s you could feed generations with royalty from a hit song.

 

These are good points that might make it seem attractive to sell your music at your peak where music is still worth something.

 

But personally I think, RUTH and other catalog songs going #1 in recent years will only make catalogs more valuable especially if you are someone who has defined a point of music like Katy or Timbaland.

Edited July 16 by Miss Americana

[ChooseyLover]

11 minutes ago, Wicked said:

Why are you talking about publishing like they sold their masters lol

 

That's what I meant, it's probably more nuanced than what I let out with the little knowledge I have.

But selling your publishing implies giving away rights, am I right?

"The likes of Hipgnosis Songs Fund and Primary Wave are heavily disrupting the way the industry operates. Publishing rights usually stay with publishers and songwriters and recorded rights belong to labels and performers — but in the past few months alone, these two upstart companies have snapped up such rights related to artists including Fleetwood Mac, Neil Young, Shakira, John Lennon, and Dire Straits. By acquiring music rights, these companies can reap the money from royalties, licensing, brand deals, and other revenue streams that would have gone to the artist."

I noticed lots of artists started selling their publishing like crazy during COVID.

Edited July 16 by ChooseyLover

[Katamari]

I mean some of those artist are in their 70s and have been in the industry decades and paid their dues

 

cashing in and living their later years in retirement while having enough money to last their children, grandchildren, etc for many lifetimes seems like a good thing. Nothing wrong with that 

 

no comment on the younger acts doing it tho

[family.guy123]

Stop pushing your values on others and then judging them for not meeting your expectations. 
 

and by the by, if someone is able to sell their music for hundreds of millions, they've long since "sold out", whatever it is you think that means 

Edited July 16 by family.guy123

[ohjulia]

Meh. I would probably sell them too, yeah it's my life's work but if it means I could potentially not have the pressure that I need to continue working and I can secure a future for my children or family, then I would. 

[Wicked]

You're supposed to reap the benefits of your art.

 

What benefits are artists getting in today's world where music is not a respected art form & it's basically given away for pennies on the dollar and nobody cares? Especially artists past their peaks? If I can't do extensive touring, I'm past my commercial peak, I get $50 checks every quarter for my music selling publishing for a nice lump sum sounds pretty appealing.

 

Also... Publishing rights are better off being handled third party than leaving it to children who won't know what to do with it and probably piss it away anyways. Ideally, I would want as much of my masters and publishing as possible but sell off my publishing at some point. Owning my masters would be more important to me. And they still make money off things like sampling by owning their masters.

[JorgeM]

29 minutes ago, Miss Americana said:

Unlike the master recordings which are not that important (you can make a new version(See: Taylor) or there is a option to buy back the masters when the contract is expired.)

Publishing rights are much more lucrative since you can block a person from covering your song let alone make a new version of it.

But I think they are selling it now because they think that the value of the publishing rights will go down with time(if Katy sold her publishing rights during TD, she could ask 150M, but post Woman's World where she is clearly completely irrelevant now the price of her catalog is going down FAST). Streaming has also made it so music is worth nothing nowadays(10 dollar per sale in the early 00s when compared to millions of streams to generate the same amount) and they are predicting its worth to go down in the future. TikTok and the likes are also making sure to make a star out of anybody without label support where anyone can get a #1. They might assume if this flooding goes on for decades, past music from decades ago will be worth nothing while in the 80s, 90s and 00s you could feed generations with royalty from a hit song.

 

These are good points that might make it seem attractive to sell your music at your peak where music is still worth something.

 

But personally I think, RUTH and other catalog songs going #1 in recent years will only make catalogs more valuable especially if you are someone who has defined a point of music like Katy or Timbaland.

Streaming has made the music right 100% more valuable than before. Not opposite. Right now songs generate profit for years, in the past it wasn't like that and after 5 years music wasn't selling at all. That'll why funds are buying publishing right now and paying that high 

[tost1]

*came to say no*

*saw that Dua didn't*

 

YES THEY ARE

[unino]

yes and katy js so smart for selling hers before she went ahead and ruin everything 

 

[Bussea]

it's their's and they can do what they want

Edited July 16 by BussC,XOXO

[laqqinq]

While most of them who sold their share are making/releasing new music or will continue to do so (Perry, Bieber, etc.), it's also about the timing or circumstance and choice to sell it. 

 

Justin Bieber, for example. The syndrome he was diagnosed with, unfortunately, took a toll on his mental/physical/clinical health and he had to cancel like 80% of the rest of his tour. He recovered from it (from what I read), and he still can tour and sell out well-sized venues. But like many other celebrities who just left the rigorous "pop star" cycle of promotion, image curation/maintenance, performing, etc. he too did, I guess. Like many huge artists, after having 1 or 2 massive or successful eras and being in the spotlight since their adolescence or for many years, take a form of a backseat from the public eye and its byproducts. 

 

Ofcourse, most (if not all) artists with big numbers of sales and who made great money, did/do invest accordingly to grow a corpus, let it compound, let money make money, etc. And that must be raking in great money to sustain that lifestyle. But it's also about the valuation of their catalogs at the time. And if they want or need the money, and know/think that selling it is a good idea which will in turn, be helpful for the years to come, their kids, etc. then it's their choice.

 

And aside from that, there's also artists who are in the need of that money, or even if they aren't, could use that huge amount that would be received from the sale. Many artists who don't/won't/never tour(ed), or who are not able to book other work (like endorsements, partnerships, etc.) or just want to leave/renunciate from all forms of showbiz and live off of that money, would/could/might go ahead and sell it.

[laqqinq]

Just now, laqqinq said:

While most of them who sold their share are making/releasing new music or will continue to do so (Perry, Bieber, etc.), it's also about the timing or circumstance and choice to sell it. 

 

Justin Bieber, for example. The syndrome he was diagnosed with, unfortunately, took a toll on his mental/physical/clinical health and he had to cancel like 80% of the rest of his tour. He recovered from it (from what I read), and he still can tour and sell out well-sized venues. But like many other celebrities who just left the rigorous "pop star" cycle of promotion, image curation/maintenance, performing, etc. he too did, I guess. Like many huge artists, after having 1 or 2 massive or successful eras and being in the spotlight since their adolescence or for many years, take a form of a backseat from the public eye and its byproducts. 

 

Ofcourse, most (if not all) artists with big numbers of sales and who made great money, did/do invest accordingly to grow a corpus, let it compound, let money make money, etc. And that must be raking in great money to sustain that lifestyle. But it's also about the valuation of their catalogs at the time. And if they want or need the money, and know/think that selling it is a good idea which will in turn, be helpful for the years to come, their kids, etc. then it's their choice.

 

And aside from that, there's also artists who are in the need of that money, or even if they aren't, could use that huge amount that would be received from the sale. Many artists who don't/won't/never tour(ed), or who are not able to book other work (like endorsements, partnerships, etc.) or just want to leave/renunciate from all forms of showbiz and live off of that money, would/could/might go ahead and sell it.

Also many artists, in spite of having a catalog of hits/successfully performing music, don't really make much (or enough) from royalties and other things, and probably are not too interested in touring. So they just sell it.

 

If it's a case like Taylor's, where your whole catalog is doing as good as it imaginably can, is aging very well, goes viral every now and then, you can draw crowds by performing hits - old and new - and you can cash in VERY WELL on pure sales, and your streams are so insane that 4-5 year old albums are spending hundreds of weeks in the BB 200 top 40 - then I don't think they would want to sell it. Even if they wanted, they would think more longterm and to make that sale more later.

[mike_int]

2 hours ago, dumbsparce said:

Yes, unless they're in dire need of money. How could you put a price tag on what is supposed to be a product of your soul and mind?

Just like painters sells their paintings, sculptor sells their sculptures, designers sells their gowns ...

[laqqinq]

Idk why but I feel like Selena Gomez could/might sell her publishing of (maybe) all her albums/EPs after her 4th album or if she decides to not continue with making music as a priority facet of her career. She might (and most likely will) continue doing droplets, features, etc. and focus fully on her acting/producing in movies & tv, and ofc Rare Beauty.

 

Ariana is also another name that comes to mind. Maybe in the next few years/after a few more albums. Maybe if she diverts fully towards acting.

 

Demi and Miley too. Idk. Maybe.

[piotrert]

related question, if you sell your publishing rights, do you lose any power over the use of this music? like for example, if new owner was licensing your music to advertise something against your values/principles? if that could be the case, that would be enough of a reason not to sell my catalog to anyone. 

[Into The Void]

I don't think of it cause I honestly don't care. Let them do what they want it's their music. 

[dumbsparce]

18 minutes ago, mike_int said:

Just like painters sells their paintings, sculptor sells their sculptures, designers sells their gowns ...

But singers already do that through music stores, streaming services, online retailers etc. + most of their income doesn't even come directly from music anyway

Edited July 16 by dumbsparce

[Letemtalk]

You need to add Jack Antonoff to the list of sellouts.

Taylor didn't sell her publishing rights, but Hipgnosis own a part of it anyway. The same is true for Lorde, St. Vincent and others he worked with.

 

31 minutes ago, mike_int said:

Just like painters sells their paintings, sculptor sells their sculptures, designers sells their gowns ...

A painter that sells a painting still owns copyright and unless there was a specific agreement not to paint another similar painting, they can continue to sell more paintings in the same style. For an musician, their publishing catalogue can be a source of retirement income and some of them can tour for many years and give their catalogue a boost.

 

The best argument for selling, is for older artists that don't wish to burden their children with the responsibility of protecting their legacy. There might also be accounting considerations. Depending on the rules for things like capital gains tax, it might be better to invest the income in other areas.

[mike_int]

13 minutes ago, dumbsparce said:

But singers already do that through music stores, streaming services, online retailers etc. + most of their income doesn't even come directly from music anyway

But if they own the right to it, they can do anything they want with it, I dont see why would anyone consider them sell-outs. At the end of the day, it is a product. If they sell the rights they have guarantee money for it. To earn money from them later would take additional cost in a form of managers, agents etc. who would need to find a way how to sell them.

[ChooseyLover]

25 minutes ago, laqqinq said:

Idk why but I feel like Selena Gomez could/might sell her publishing of (maybe) all her albums/EPs after her 4th album or if she decides to not continue with making music as a priority facet of her career. She might (and most likely will) continue doing droplets, features, etc. and focus fully on her acting/producing in movies & tv, and ofc Rare Beauty.

 

Ariana is also another name that comes to mind. Maybe in the next few years/after a few more albums. Maybe if she diverts fully towards acting.

 

Demi and Miley too. Idk. Maybe.

I've noticed many artists tend to sell their publishing when their careers have started to slow down. It's probably not a coincidence.

 

23 minutes ago, Into The Void said:

I don't think of it cause I honestly don't care. Let them do what they want it's their music. 

I mean, as consumers it doesn't really concern us or impact us, I guess. But it's a pretty big deal for the artist. They stop having control of a big part of their brand pretty much and they are giving a lot of trust to these entities.
 

I wonder if they can even do merch of their old stuff for anniversary editions or whatever.

 

There are so many things an artist can sell that I struggle to understand why their publishing is at the top of their list (especially the younger ones). Feels even more of a retiring decision than having a Vegas residency.