[Music] Martyn Ware (Heaven 17) v Rockstar (Grand Theft Auto)

[Beanstalk]

Taking the £8.6bn gross for GTAV in his tweet at face value, if they paid $7500 to 3 song writers for 400 songs, that works out to $9milion, or just over 0.1% of the money they make from the game.

Presumably they intend to blow the other 99.9% on hookers and cocaine and incredibly detailed car exhaust animations.

GTA VI is, according to reports, set to be 10x more expensive to have been made than GTA V, which at the time was the most expensive video game ever made.

Personally, I don't understand why the original artist would expect a share of the profits when their song is going to feature on one of the multiple radio stations in game, with likely 200+ other licensed songs. And to add to that, the offered £22.5k isn't bad at all - the top voice actors for the game are likely to pocket something in the region of $200,000+ for their voice and there'll be an astounding number of hours recorded. Red Dead Redemption 2 had over 500,000 lines of dialogue and used 700 voice actors. GTA VI will be considerably more detailed.

All in all, fair play to the guy for not just taking the money if he isn't happy with the terms but ultimately, it's not a bad price for what would have been an incredibly minor part of the game.

 

[Wozza]

Personally, I don't understand why the original artist would expect a share of the profits...

He doesn't.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

I think he is right to take a stand. The idea that software companies with business models that generate millions should content providers a pittance on the basis that they will get wide visibility is pure arrogance.

I recommend his podcast 'Electronically Yours' particularly the recent interview with Spizz. Just a bit of name-dropping but I met Martyn briefly about 25 years ago at a birthday party in North London which our kids were attending and he was really nice.

 

[gasgull]

They played a local little festival week before last . . Wick Street.
Tight band. Martyn was superb. Great vocals from Glen and very easy on the eye backing singers.
Bonus last track. Finished with. Being Boiled.

 

[Beanstalk]

He doesn't.

He tweeted that his big issue is that the fee buys him out "of any future royalties from the game - forever..."

"Royalties are typically agreed upon as a percentage of gross or net revenues derived from the use of an asset" - in this case he absolutely is expecting a share of the ongoing profits from GTA VI - of which there will be billions, and if GTA V is anything to go on, it will continue to make millions for the next decade after the original sales boom.

To be fair, he may have other reasons, and that's absolutely fine, he owns his music and accordingly can say yes or no to any offer but using an old song on one of the many radio shows in the game is hardly worth more than what has been offered, especially as it can easily be replaced.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

GTA VI is, according to reports, set to be 10x more expensive to have been made than GTA V, which at the time was the most expensive video game ever made.

Personally, I don't understand why the original artist would expect a share of the profits when their song is going to feature on one of the multiple radio stations in game, with likely 200+ other licensed songs. And to add to that, the offered £22.5k isn't bad at all - the top voice actors for the game are likely to pocket something in the region of $200,000+ for their voice and there'll be an astounding number of hours recorded. Red Dead Redemption 2 had over 500,000 lines of dialogue and used 700 voice actors. GTA VI will be considerably more detailed.

All in all, fair play to the guy for not just taking the money if he isn't happy with the terms but ultimately, it's not a bad price for what would have been an incredibly minor part of the game.

I suspect it won't be notably better or more fun for all the extra money poured into it and work spent on it.

Anyway, there's no getting around that Rockstar will make an absolute f***ing fortune out of this and could easily afford to pay more money to the various creatives who contribute to the final product in one way or another, or pay in a way that reflects the sales in some way. The whole reason for having these songs in the game is because they contribute to the world and the player's experience, if there was no real value to it they'd just dump some free stuff from the Internet in and save themselves a few quid.

I don't claim to know how this would normally work in say, films or tv. I can understand a one off fee to use a song for something like an advert, but I'd have thought there were plenty of cases where a song being used in a soundtrack would have some sort of ongoing payment associated with it. I've always thought that's why the Dave reruns or DVD releases of BBC programmes often have different music to the original BBC broadcast, as the BBC have different license rights.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

Is be interested to know if said artist was also against Spotify? Spotifys share price has grown hugely over the last 18 months, on the back of multiple price increases for customers. However, the amount paid to artists hasn't increased, it's all just turned into profit for Spotify and the shares have exploded as a result.

 

[Beanstalk]

I suspect it won't be notably better or more fun for all the extra money poured into it and work spent on it.

Anyway, there's no getting around that Rockstar will make an absolute f***ing fortune out of this and could easily afford to pay more money to the various creatives who contribute to the final product in one way or another, or pay in a way that reflects the sales in some way. The whole reason for having these songs in the game is because they contribute to the world and the player's experience, if there was no real value to it they'd just dump some free stuff from the Internet in and save themselves a few quid.

I don't claim to know how this would normally work in say, films or tv. I can understand a one off fee to use a song for something like an advert, but I'd have thought there were plenty of cases where a song being used in a soundtrack would have some sort of ongoing payment associated with it. I've always thought that's why the Dave reruns or DVD releases of BBC programmes often have different music to the original BBC broadcast, as the BBC have different license rights.

You're absolutely right that Rockstar will make an enormous amount of profit from this game, but they've also built up an expectation that their games are worth playing and spending money on over years of delivering the highest quality games on the market. There is a lot of work that goes into creating culture for mass consumption and in this case, I'd much rather see a company like Rockstar build and deliver these AAA games that push the boundaries of the medium generate huge profits, than someone like Marvel/DC who repackage the same old superhero movie rubbish on a yearly basis (they made 6x Rockstar's revenue last year).

I can only speak for the book world but it's very standard practice to pay a one-off licensing fee for almost all additions that aren't written by the original author. I've seen fees for poems used as part of a text, and I think more aptly to this point, all images that are owned by someone else will receive a fee rather than royalties - even if they are central to the book (think coffee table books etc.). When you're creating a fully packaged product with multiple contributors, a flat-fee protects not only the publisher but the owner of the additional content. Their pay is guaranteed, the terms of use are final, and the publisher knows that in 10 years time (if the game is still being played like GTA V) it will still be a feature of the game.

I think the thing with this case is it will not part of the original soundtrack of GTA VI - that will be an original score of which I'm sure there'll be some kind of royalty agreement with the composer (though likely not based on sales of the game but sales of direct media). We're talking about the song being used as world building or set dressing, one of thousands of bits of similar media. For me, it'll be used in the same way that Sprunk is used in the game - should the designer of that logo be paid a royalty each time a character uses a Sprunk vending machine or sees an advert on a fake TV channel? With such a volume of contributors to the world, it would make no sense from a business perspective to have thousands of royalty agreements that would need to be managed in an ongoing function. The costs of administering it would be enormous!

It's not like Rockstar are attempting to pay anyone in exposure here, the artist would still receive a considerable fee for doing no additional work. Everyone is being paid for their work and the artist absolutely has the right to say no to the offer (which they have).

 

[Wozza]

He tweeted that his big issue is that the fee buys him out "of any future royalties from the game - forever..."

.....

but using an old song on one of the many radio shows in the game is hardly worth more than what has been offered, especially as it can easily be replaced.

Yeah, fair enough. He did mention royalties - but I took this as an explanation is that $7500 was a flat, one-off fee, and can't rise. (Even if it was used in a trailer?)

I think your final line here sums up exactly why he's insulted. Imagine someone talking your most famous song - a huge hit in the UK - in that way.

It's not that important... It can easily be replaced...

Yeah, off you pop!

 

[Beanstalk]

Yeah, fair enough. He did mention royalties - but I took this as an explanation is that $7500 was a flat, one-off fee, and can't rise. (Even if it was used in a trailer?)

I think your final line here sums up exactly why he's insulted. Imagine someone talking your most famous song - a huge hit in the UK - in that way.

It's not that important... It can easily be replaced...

Yeah, off you pop!

Completely get his reticence to use his song and think it is completely fair to not want it to be a very small cog in an enormous machine.

The reality is, it is an enormous project and the song is a grain of sand in the big picture. The choice the artist gets is to say yes or no to the offer of inclusion. Rockstar will have hundreds of picks for each spot on the radio and they'll happily move on to the next choice. I don't think this is quite the stand that the artist thinks it is.

 

[Wozza]

Completely get his reticence to use his song and think it is completely fair to not want it to be a very small cog in an enormous machine.

The reality is, it is an enormous project and the song is a grain of sand in the big picture. The choice the artist gets is to say yes or no to the offer of inclusion. Rockstar will have hundreds of picks for each spot on the radio and they'll happily move on to the next choice. I don't think this is quite the stand that the artist thinks it is.

He wants his work valued appropriately. That's all.

 

[Beanstalk]

He wants his work valued appropriately. That's all.

And the value he has for it doesn’t align with the value Rockstar have for it. As we have seen with the Albion, the market dictates the price and if you don’t want to sell, you don’t have to.

That’s where you say no thanks as he has. Fair play.

I just can’t see how it’s justified to then say they should have offered me a royalty payment. They’re licensing a song for use on an in game radio station not using it as a basis for gameplay or sales.

 

[Mellotron]

He wants his work valued appropriately. That's all.

And it is understandable that the value he places on it will be much, much, much higher than the value Rockstar place on it.

Not you @Wozza, but I think some are missing the sheer scale of the GTA games. There will be 400+ songs and countless other bits that will require licensing.

 

[Littlemo]

which makes it even odder that he doesn't want to be heard.

Artists are frequently underpaid or indeed often not paid at all under the guise of “getting exposure” or “being promoted” by agents, marketers and companies such as this. It’s a real problem in those communities because now those who want to use the work are often trying to avoid paying for it properly.

I think his stance isn’t about the money but one, getting rid of this practice in the arts because people should be getting paid for the work they produce and secondly, they should get a fair price. What was offered is hardly that, this is a well know hit and he already still does very well in it, if you wanted to buy something well known and established in most other fields, you’d be paying bigger money, I don’t see why this is any different.

 

[Stato]

But maybe he secretly feels the music has nothing to say to the younger generation and that's the real reason he's opting out.

That's unfair. He didn't opt out in the eighties when he had nothing to say to that generation.

I understand his anger. He's saying that his intellectual copyright is being stamped all over by the big boys. Its an age old story. Tom Parker used to insist that Elvis be given a co-writing credit to any song that he thought about covering because he was in a position to make the same arguments about exposure. Most agreed. Dolly Parton told him to stick it and therefore never made a penny out of that little song of hers that EP wanted to record. (I think Whitney Houston may have had a minor hit with it later). Dolly's attitude seems to be: I don't care whether I'll profit. Don't think that you can take something I made and leech money off it, just because you're big enough to throw your weight around. I guess Martyn Ware feels the same. His art. His choice. Or as the superior Elvis put it: "Even in a perfect world where everyone is equal, I'll still own the film rights and be working on the sequel."

 

[Greg Bobkin]

I bet he was tempted.

It was all he desired.

 

[Mellotron]

He's saying that his intellectual copyright is being stamped all over by the big boys.

Is he though? GVA6 will be an absolute BEHEMOTH of a game - I'm well aware of Heaven 17 and Temptation but he IS relatively small fry compared, so I wonder what a fair fee would be? £100,000 perhaps?

I also assume not all artists are being offered the same fee - i.e. if there's a new unreleased Beyonce track in GTA6 (totally feasible they could do something like this), that'll be attracting a far higher fee.

 

[Stato]

Is he though? GVA6 will be an absolute BEHEMOTH of a game - I'm well aware of Heaven 17 and Temptation but he IS relatively small fry compared, so I wonder what a fair fee would be? £100,000 perhaps?

I also assume not all artists are being offered the same fee - i.e. if there's a new unreleased Beyonce track in GTA6 (totally feasible they could do something like this), that'll be attracting a far higher fee.

I think we're agreeing. I was saying that Ware is small fry, but doesn't want to be bullied because of that. His point is that the £7,500 is a pittance for the rights FOREVER and that they are making billions. £7,500 is about half the lowest end charge for licensing an existing song for a film. When was the last film that made 8 billion? Oh yeah, Never.

 

[kevo]

It was all he desired.

He wants to go higher and higher.

 

[Washie]

And it is understandable that the value he places on it will be much, much, much higher than the value Rockstar place on it.

Not you @Wozza, but I think some are missing the sheer scale of the GTA games. There will be 400+ songs and countless other bits that will require licensing.

There were 411 licensed songs in GTA5, then over 100 added in the enhanced edition, plus about 200 more for gta online makes about 700 tracks