Music Library Contract - Re-titling

[amino]

Hello all,This is actually my first post and firstly, sorry in advance for a lengthy post. Secondly, I'd like to thank everyone who has posted messages on this forum. There is some amazing insight here which has helped me out greatly in the past. With that said, I have a very big question to pose to those of you who have signed a "Non-exclusive Re-titling Music Library Deal". I just currently received a call from a music library (through a direct forward from TAXI, thanks) interested in licensing some of my music. They sent out the formal, "This is how it works document" explaining the non-exclusive re-titling structure. I am leery about signing though based on some advice that I have read through interviews here at TAXI and elsewhere on the elusive inter-web.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The first scary and eye-opening article that made me hesitant in signing can be read here:http://songwritergotchas.blogspot.com/2 ... ---Finally ... Here is a question in a TAXI interview from Michael Laskow to Steve Corn, Co-founder of Big Fish Media:Michael's Question:"And it seems that more and more libraries are willing to do non-exclusive deals now where they will each re-title a song for their own purposes, and for their own library. So in reality, is it not true that a musician could take the same song, put it in five different non-exclusive library situations, and each one of them may get a placement or two or three during the course of the year for that song?"Steve Corns Response:It's possible, but I always recommend against that because there's nothing that scares a music supervisor, a picture editor, or a music editor more than thinking that the song they got from somebody isn't owned by or represented by them, and they get the same song from two sources. They start to think, "OK, I wonder who really owns this song, so I'm not going to use either version. I'll go find another song." It's so easy to find a replacement for whatever it is they're looking for. Why take the chance, because it would be copyright infringement. And, while most of those situations are amicably resolved with just a nice little or very large payment... What you're trying to do as a music supervisor and someone who's representing music to be placed with them, is develop a trust. I've seen a lot of libraries acquire music by doing re-titling and derivative copyrights and it's not exclusive as far as the songwriter's ability to re-use it any way they want to, but it's often exclusive as far as other music library representation companies. I don't recommend having the same song in several libraries. You don't want to create a situation where somebody pushes your music less because they know other people will be as well.Anyways, this is the first contract that I may be signing and I would love to hear advice from those of you who have signed similar contracts. THANKS SO MUCH FOR READING THROUGH THIS ... ANY ADVICE IS WELCOME !!!Jonathanwww.thegenetics.com (to listen to some of my stuff)

[mazz]

I just signed a derivative contract with a library and the pieces that they took and re-titled I will now not submit them to other music libraries. I do have the ability, per the contract, to submit them under the original title to other opportunities that are not libraries.The re-titling deals are not perfect and I agree with the article (although I'm no attorney) that the underlying work is what is copyrightable and I'm sure the legality of all of this re-titling business will be tested in court at some time.If you're leery of this at all, have an attorney look it over before you put pen to paper and/or decide you're only going to accept exclusive deals. They're out there but seem to be harder to come by.Mazz

[Casey H]

HiThis topic is often discussed here on these boards. I read the article you posted, thanks... One thing I didn't agree with (implied) in the article is that if a person signed a non-exclusive deal with Party A per re-title, they can then sign an exclusive deal somewhere else under any title. Regardless of the rest of this debate, I don't think anyone in the industry believes that exclusive does not mean exclusive, independent of title (I hope not!). This whole re-titling thing has opened many doors for artists and libraries, while creating issues at the same time. As the demand for inexpensive music to license grew, new libraries got in the business but found many songwriters reluctant to sign an exclusive with new players in the market. These new libraries needed songs to pitch so yes, supply and demand wrought this concept. It also opened doors for songwriters and artists whose songs might not make the cream of the crop exclusive libraries to get a shot and film/TV placement. Is it legal? No one has brought it a high court yet, so we don't know. If someone doesn't take your publishing but registers your song in such a way that they collect the publisher's share on the re-title from the PRO's, it that kosher? Hard to say... Right now, it's almost standard practice for hundreds of players in this market.The hitch, as stated in the article, is whenever the same track is presented to a film/TV supervisor from more than one source, everyone loses. The film/TV supervisor won't deal with the hassles or possible legal actions. They will move on to the next... AND, they may decide not to take submissions from those libraries anymore-- too risky.Many (including our own film/TV guru Matto) advise against signing multiple non-exclusive library contracts for the same songs because of the above risk. This doesn't affect pitching for artist song placements, just film/TV. My take is, "how much risk are you willing to take?" Only one contract is no risk. Two is a small (but non-trivial) risk.. it goes up exponentially from there and I wouldn't touch it.It's not easy for us when we are offered these deals. If I am only going to sign one, how do I know the first one is the right one? If I don't take it, will there be another one?Thanks for sharing, Casey

[davewalton]

Each song can have only one writer and one publisher. The only way to keep track accounting-wise of who gets the publisher's share of performance royalties (presumably the person who placed the track) is to retitle the song. Let's say that you place your song called "Frick" in a tv show and I place that same song in another tv show but I've retitled it as "Frack". You'd be attached as the songwriter and publisher for "Frick". For "Frack" you'd still be the songwriter but I'd the publisher and as the publisher of "Frack" I'd get paid the publisher's royalty to compensate me for my efforts for placing the song.This is VERY common, there's many, many libraries that license songs on a non-exclusive basis where the song is retitled (again, to keep accounting track of the publisher's share of royalties).Non-exclusive agreements with retitled tracks.. not a red flag. You still get to do what you want with the song at the same time that a music library is representing the song. Now as for the rest of the agreement, I'm sure someone said to run it by an entertainment attorney so at least he/she can explain various concepts so that you're familiar with what's normal and what's really a red flag. Well worth the money.By the way, in the Taxi interview you mentioned Steve Corn isn't saying anything against non-exclusive deals in and of themselves, he's suggesting that just because you can license a single track with six dozen non-exlusive music libraries, that it might not be a good idea, particularly if those competing libraries pitch to basically the same clients. I don't know about a music supervisor being shocked at seeing the same song coming from different sources... they know what non-exclusive deals are just like anyone else. I can see that you might risk having them choose the track from the place that pitched the lowest licensing fee or something like that.

[amino]

Thanks for the replies Dave and Casey. So, it seems as though the advice is .... "Don't put your songs in more than one or possibly two music libraries".You made a great point though Casey. If that is the advice, you need to choose wisely on which companies are shopping your songs.Any advice on judging which companies are reputable, or key questions to ask?1. Ask for references of other artists that were placed?....Thanks.Jonathanwww.thegenetics.com

[Casey H]

Well, it was timely that this discussion came up again.Today, I am living the reality of what can happen. Party A (me) and Party B are pitching non-exclusively. We both also work in partnership with Party C, another non-exclusive service.Party C received the same track from Party A and Party B with different titles. They love it and want to forward it to the TV music supervisor. However, they noticed they had the same track there with different titles. Fortunately the conflict was noted at Party C, before both versions could have gone to the TV person. If the end-user thought there were problems, they could nix the whole thing.Luckily this will get resolved with no harm to the artist. Party A and B have agreed that one of us will remove our submission to Party C.My morning does of reality.Casey

[hummingbird]

Quote:Thanks for the replies Dave and Casey. So, it seems as though the advice is .... "Don't put your songs in more than one or possibly two music libraries".You made a great point though Casey. If that is the advice, you need to choose wisely on which companies are shopping your songs.Any advice on judging which companies are reputable, or key questions to ask?1. Ask for references of other artists that were placed?....Thanks.Jonathanwww.thegenetics.comI think you misread the advice. They are saying that 99% of the time you don't want to sign an individual song to a non-exclusive deal with more than one music library, retitled or not.

[Casey H]

Hi allI think amino did pretty much sum up what I said correctly. In my mind, it comes down to how much risk that you will (a) lose a deal and/or (b) hurt your reputation you are willing to take in exchange for the POSSIBILITY (not necessarily true all the time) that you have more chances of getting placed if you are with multiple libraries. Risk goes up exponentially as you sign with more libraries... e.g. if you are not mathematical than means,2 = risk factor of 4, 3 = factor of 9, 4 yields 16, etc...Bear in mind that many libraries use the same sources to see what opportunities there are.How to chose a library? The obvious is their track record. Also look to see where they are located. I'd say LA is #1 and NYC is #2. The better libraries in LA are able to work through personal relationships with film/TV folks-- more than just emailing/mailing songs. Casey

[matto]

Quote:Any advice on judging which companies are reputable, or key questions to ask?Ask them for a list of RECENT credits (like in the past year or so). Also ask them what the size of their catalog is. Then compare the two figures.Also look at the credits and make sure they really ARE recent (no shows that were cancelled years ago) and see if there are shows/movies/games that you have heard of/seen. For the ones you haven't heard of, google them and see if they are indeed legit commercial ventures... To recap the non-exclusive thing: There's NOTHING wrong with a re-title per se, but I would advise against having the same song (with different titles) in different libraries. Even if the contract you sign doesn't preclude you from doing so. IMHO it's ultimately a bad idea for everybody involved, unless the two companies are pitching to completely different markets (i.e. one to tv/film and the other to video games, or one in the US only and the other overseas).However it's perfectly fine to sell your songs under their original title on iTunes or CD Baby, pitch yourself/your band to artist pitches using those songs, or pitch the songs themselves to other artists to have them record them.This is why re-titles/derivative copyrights were invented in the first place.There was a thread a while ago that talked about the subject in a lot more detail, maybe if you do a search you can dig it up...matto

[amino]

Thanks matto and everyone. Great advice. I'm speaking with the music library rep today. Thanks again.jon