Martin,

Thanks for the email. The addition to clause 5.7(e) about domain/professional names seems like legal tokenism from my perspective. In our negotiations I have made it clear that I intend to maintain ownership over the full rights, registered or otherwise to my domain, personal and artist names, logos and potential trademark registration. There is simply no way I can give you that degree of control. As I said, I am happy to allow your input into the content of the site which I assume is the point of part of the clause. This deal however, offers no monetary advance for the 'speculative' chance at releasing records (which I understand and its not an issue) so then a justifiably equal concession on your behalf would be to drop this clause from the agreement all together or have it completely reversed so the Artist agrees to grant Floating Point a licence to use these rights.

It would be foolish of either of us to deny the terms of this contract as being tight and undeniably written in the commerical interests of Floating Point, however this is one deal point I really felt you were happy to change as per my wishes and I didn't expect the appeasement thats been added. Also keeping in mind the terms of exclusivity and total copyright assignment in these agreements, I don't think this point is such a great concession for Floating Point.

Re: 10.2: 5 free live performances in each country to promote releases. Thanks for the additions, recoupable as they are :)

15.1 (k) is an interesting addition. Can I ask why it was added? I'm not sure if the transfer of video copyrights mentioned elsewhere extends to things like the clip [suppressed] produced for me or film work I may have done in the past? In these cases the video producer must retain ownership to fully exploit their work (particularly with film). Some clarification on that would be good.

Cheers and sorry for the dry tone in this email.
R