"Chart" or "list" of composer "to-do's" re-copyright etc..?

[brentmagstadt]

Where it gets sticky is when composers place the same track in multiple re-title libraries. There is risk there and everyone has to weigh the risk/benefit for themselves. But the major risk is WAY less related to stealing and copyright issues (those are very rare) but more related to the future of re-titling, fingerprinting use in the future, etc.

Yea, this is what I think too. I'm not diss'ing on re-titling libraries because I do think they have value and people are getting paid via them, but for myself, I try to stay away from them (at some cost, no doubt). For me, it's about trying to keep organized in my head about where my music is (and if re-titled one or more times that becomes subsequently more complex), and - to Casey's statement... what is the future of re-titling, especially re fingerprinting (which I personally don't believe is very far away).

Anyways, I do have a limited amount of re-titled material out there. Nothing of late, however.

Good read 88Keys. Thanks.

[solidwalnut]

For my buck, the moral of the story is: don't sign with most re-titlers, non-exclusive deals if you want your work protected and you want to get paid what you're due.

I strongly disagree with this and I think it's a bit dangerous to make statements like that. Many high quality libraries are non-exclusive with re-title and make good money for composers every day. One well known Taxi client out of LA is a great example of this.

Where it gets sticky is when composers place the same track in multiple re-title libraries. There is risk there and everyone has to weigh the risk/benefit for themselves. But the major risk is WAY less related to stealing and copyright issues (those are very rare) but more related to the future of re-titling, fingerprinting use in the future, etc.

Casey

Casey, thanks for saying this. Since I don't have enough experience with libraries and only basic copyright law, I appreciate this input. I see disageement and strong statements on both sides of the issue, and I'm sure that practices of some of the libraries are operating believe they're on the up and up. If it's just a matter of making money, well, that's up to the individual. But the possibility remains that a writer's original song will end up as the basis for someone else's work as well. I guess that's the chance that a writer will have to live with. In the end, there should be less worry and just make music and some money from it. I guess I'd just find it important that writer's know exactly what they're getting into.

I see your point about where it gets sticky when composers place the same track in multiple re-title libraries. I think my point is that until a composer has a ton of tracks, the tempation to do what you say will be too big to try to avoid this.

To each their own!

Steve

[andygabrys]

......... But the possibility remains that a writer's original song will end up as the basis for someone else's work as well. I guess that's the chance that a writer will have to live with. ..........

the basis of so many current disputes in advertising music. How close is too close?

[Kolstad]

This is a great insightful thread!

Thanks for posting, 88!