Exclusive vs. Non-Exclusive

[guscave]

From what I've seen so far, the non-exclusives that don't re-title usually cater to non-broadcasting clients, so most of their revenue is from upfront licensing fees.

I did speak to a library owner that currently re-titles, but might stop doing it. I don't know if he will then only offer exclusive deals or if he'll monitor his publishing shares differently.

[DesireInspires]

I haven't suffered any negative consequences from signing to non-exclusive or exclusive libraries. I think it is more important to get the deals first. I just feel that having my music in the marketplace is always better than worrying about things.

I go by the "done first, perfect last" mantra. It may not work for others but it helps me to sleep at night.

[fusilierb]

The bigger networks are starting to not deal with non-exclusive material. I've had at least two libraries go from non-exclusive to exclusive on me over the past two years because of this. And they explicitly stated this as the reason. Had to sign completely new agreements with them.

I wasn't surprised when this happened as I'd heard of this becoming an issue at least a year before these libraries had to change their approach. So I was also prepared for it. It makes sense to me. One song, one writer, one publisher. Keeps the lawyers away.

[DesireInspires]

The bigger networks are starting to not deal with non-exclusive material. I've had at least two libraries go from non-exclusive to exclusive on me over the past two years because of this. And they explicitly stated this as the reason. Had to sign completely new agreements with them.

There is one huge issue I have with exclusive libraries these days: Blanket licenses.

My opinion: I think that if a library wants exclusive rights to a song, that library should charge a sync fee every time the track is used and forward 50% of that sync fee to the songwriter. What sense does it make for a composer to sign an exclusive deal and not make any upfront money?

Exclusive libraries that provide blanket licenses to end users provide no extra benefit to composers. They take advantage of composers. I know exclusives like to tout the fact that they have small catalogs of custom music. If this is true, then that means that these libraries should be able to command a sync fee for each use. The end users ( music supervisors, production companies, etc.) would come to these exclusive libraries to find hidden gems and music that is not in other libraries. Exclusive libraries should not be in the business of providing a large volume of music.

Non-exclusive libraries should only do blanket license deals. Those libraries have larger catalogs and usually supply to shows that use a lot of music per episode. It makes sense for the end users to get a blanket license from those libraries. The composers would be trading the upfront payments for the increased chances of having tracks licensed and earning backend royalties.

Exclusives charging sync fees for every use + Non-exclusives providing more music for a blanket fee = The best of both worlds.

The real problem that exclusive libraries have with non-exclusive libraries has nothing to do with copyrights, lawyers, or a glut of music. It has to do with something else...

[Casey H]

DI... Have you actually experienced an exclusive library placing your tracks via a blanket deal with no upfront fee at all? I have only had these placements via non-exclusive, but then again that's 99% of my deals.

I would agree that this is not the best scenario and it's one reason to learn as much as you can about any library, exclusive or otherwise, before signing. Of course, it's impossible to know everything and things can change. Another thing to consider is a given library might place your tracks via blanket with no fee but is still pitching the same tracks for other, more lucrative opps. Some of those more lucrative opps may only be open to exclusive tracks now.

Casey

[brentmagstadt]

The real problem that exclusive libraries have with non-exclusive libraries has nothing to do with copyrights, lawyers, or a glut of music. It has to do with something else...

Which is...?

[DesireInspires]

The real problem that exclusive libraries have with non-exclusive libraries has nothing to do with copyrights, lawyers, or a glut of music. It has to do with something else...

Which is...?

I do not feel comfortable saying more in public. I know that people will just argue with me. If you would like to talk about this further, send me a PM. Talk to you soon.

[guscave]

I got an email today from yet another library moving from non-exclusive to exclusive "only". What's interesting about this one is that they are removing any songs they already have from their catalog that can't be converted to the new exclusive format. That's a pretty bold move considering the amount of music they might loose from composers who already have their songs with multiple libraries.

[DesireInspires]

I got an email today from yet another library moving from non-exclusive to exclusive "only". What's interesting about this one is that they are removing any songs they already have from their catalog that can't be converted to the new exclusive format. That's a pretty bold move considering the amount of music they might loose from composers who already have their songs with multiple libraries.

Libraries are subject to market changes. I used to think that they were all-powerful entities that raked in money by the boatload. But the economy in today's world is strange.

Libraries are a part of today's "disruptive" economy. Any entity can be challenged.

[CHuckmott]

Thanks for a great thread, very informative. And narrows things down quite a bit. Brings up issues I wasn't aware of and really helps me narrow down options when trying to decide which libraries to pitch to. Thanks again!