LT3015 MUSIC PUBLISHING AND SYNDICATION
ASSESSMENT 1 REASSESSMENT 2008 “ Increasingly music publishers are looking to synchronisation deals to compensate for lost revenues resulting from piracy and the downturn in physical format sales”. With reference to the above statement, and by comparing recent high profile ‘sync deals’, please write a report detailing: the pros and cons of such sync arrangements – for the artist/writer career, the publisher and the brand in question the typical contractual terms and rights negotiable between the parties, as well as some discussion on how the increase in sync activity is affecting A&R/creative considerations within major and independent music publishers
Word Count: 2,500 REPORT STRUCTURE 1. Executive Summary: This section should condense the entire report into a summary of 250 words. It constitutes a ‘report within a report’ and should provide a thematic overview of the information contained in the body of the paper, and the ultimate recommendations in brief. It is suggested that you complete the executive summary after you have finished the main report. 2. Introduction This should familiarise the reader with the subject matter and go on to mention the issues to be covered. 3. Context Discussion to include explanation of traditional and new income streams for publishers; the role of music publisher; implications of sync
1
activity for music publishers; major and independent publishers; business models; A&R etc. Please also discuss all other matters that you consider important. 4. Legal Issues Using sub-headings, students should aim to explain in clear language what legal matters may arise through sync licensing activity, and what terms should be included within contract to protect the parties; what types of licences are needed and from whom? Examples should be provided. 5. Recommendations In light of the research, students should summarise their findings and make recommendations on the business, legal and creative implications of sync deals. 6. References and Bibliography It is expected that textbooks, journals, websites, case law, statute, newspaper reports etc will be consulted. Students should be aware that the over-liberal use of quotations as a substitute for word count will be penalised. Do not include print-outs of articles in appendices. Word-count contained in appendices will not from part of the assessment. Students should use the Harvard system of referencing.
Assessment Criteria
PERCENTAGE DISTINCTI ON 90-100% (exceptional) 80-89% (superior) CRITERIA As below, with highly sophisticated level of theorisation and innovative conceptualisation or methodology As below, with greater insight/originality and wider/deeper engagement with the literature
2
75-79% (confident)
70-74% (solid)
65-69% (very good) 60-64% (competent) 55-59% (promising) 50-54% (passable) 45-49%
Authoritative grasp of conceptual context Insight or originality in way topic is conceptualised or developed Comprehensive integration of relevant literature/debates Advanced scholarly style (of publishable quality) Strong grasp of conceptual context Insight in way topic is conceptualised or developed Good integration of relevant literature/debates Scholarly style (publishable with minor revisions) Good conceptual understanding Critical analysis using an appropriate range of sources Clarity and precision in presenting arguments
PASS
As above, with less depth and criticality As below, plus stronger on analysis Basic grasp of essential concepts/theory/sources Some analysis/interpretation Reasonably clear and orderly presentation Largely descriptive Limited interpretation Limited range of sources Lack of coherence and clarity
/ PASS FAIL
40-44% (near borderline) As above, with greater lack of interpretation 30-39% (poor) 0-29% (inadequate) Descriptive, unfocused work, lacking in interpretative or conceptual dimension and use of sources Incomplete or very poorly attempted work
3