To be or not to be Exclusive...

[guscave]

With so many music license companies/libraries offering non-exclusive deals, I wonder if anyone here feels a bit hesitant to sign an exclusive deal now-a day.

I currently have songs signed to about 5 different libraries (all non-exclusive), and though it hasn’t happened yet, I’m wondering if an exclusive deal came along would I be so willing to sign over a big chunk of my catalog to them. No matter how big they are, no library can guarantee placement, and having them sit on a shelf without the ability to pitch to other companies seems too risky for me.

What do you think?

[Casey H]

With so many music license companies/libraries offering non-exclusive deals, I wonder if anyone here feels a bit hesitant to sign an exclusive deal now-a day.

I currently have songs signed to about 5 different libraries (all non-exclusive), and though it hasn’t happened yet, I’m wondering if an exclusive deal came along would I be so willing to sign over a big chunk of my catalog to them. No matter how big they are, no library can guarantee placement, and having them sit on a shelf without the ability to pitch to other companies seems too risky for me.

What do you think?

Gus
It's interesting that you bring that up right now. A number of good libraries are starting to shy away from the non-exclusive re-title model. The end users are getting fed up with the redundancy & confusion and some, such as major networks, are only accepting tracks from exclusive sources.

I'm guilty of this too but I'm starting to change things... Too many people have put the same tracks in multiple non-exclusive libraries who pitch the same market. This has created a bit of a mess with bidding wars, music sups getting a track from multiple places and getting nervous about the legal rights, and just too many libraries hounding them.

So, I think within a short time, we'll have to choose libraries we feel comfortable with and sign exclusives. The good news is if you get into an exclusive library who has a relationship with some major networks, you have a better shot.

The PRO's are looking at digital watermarking/fingerprinting to track airplay. That would make the title irrelevant- a given musical piece will be uniquely identifable.

Best
Casey

[hummingbird]

Our good friend Matto gave this advice a few years ago: you should consider anything signed non-exclusively as signed exclusively for that market. You should not retitle a track and place it with more than one library.

With the new (and welcome) trend that Casey talks about, I'm glad I pretty much listened to that advice.

It doesn't matter whether a deal is non-exclusive or exclusive, what matters is the rep of the company and their connections / their ability to place music. I'd happily sign an exclusive deal, with a reversion clause, if everything else is kosher.

OTOH I just signed a track exclusive in perpetuity, as the company has a good rep, it establishes a relationship, and I can always write another track.

[guscave]

With so many music license companies/libraries offering non-exclusive deals, I wonder if anyone here feels a bit hesitant to sign an exclusive deal now-a day.

I currently have songs signed to about 5 different libraries (all non-exclusive), and though it hasn’t happened yet, I’m wondering if an exclusive deal came along would I be so willing to sign over a big chunk of my catalog to them. No matter how big they are, no library can guarantee placement, and having them sit on a shelf without the ability to pitch to other companies seems too risky for me.

What do you think?

Gus
It's interesting that you bring that up right now. A number of good libraries are starting to shy away from the non-exclusive re-title model. The end users are getting fed up with the redundancy & confusion and some, such as major networks, are only accepting tracks from exclusive sources.

I'm guilty of this too but I'm starting to change things... Too many people have put the same tracks in multiple non-exclusive libraries who pitch the same market. This has created a bit of a mess with bidding wars, music sups getting a track from multiple places and getting nervous about the legal rights, and just too many libraries hounding them.

So, I think within a short time, we'll have to choose libraries we feel comfortable with and sign exclusives. The good news is if you get into an exclusive library who has a relationship with some major networks, you have a better shot.

The PRO's are looking at digital watermarking/fingerprinting to track airplay. That would make the title irrelevant- a given musical piece will be uniquely identifable.

Best
Casey

Hi Casey,
Good points. Last week I was discussing that same issue of too many end users getting the same music, however there are two sides to this funky coin...

Non-exclusive libraries tend to offer better prices to the end user because they don’t usually share upfront money (not that great for us writers I know, but you still get the backend royalties). Also they tend to have bigger catalogs with more choices because writers are willing to submit more music to them. Whereas writer with larger catalogs of music (over 200) don’t seem too anxious to put all their eggs in one basket…

In all, I think there will always be room for both types of libraries. The music sups who want the boutique-like shopping experience will go with the libraries with the exclusive deals, while others will continue to work with the non-exclusive, re-titling companies.

Of course your right; the most important thing here is “relationship”. End users who establish a good working relationship with 1 or 2 non-exclusive libraries won’t have to worry too much about getting repeated music. And from what I’m hearing, it’s seems that the ones who jump around from one library to another are the ones complaining about hearing the same songs over & over.

In regards to water-marking, that it’s not a perfect solution. I spoke to someone who worked for BMI and she explained this problem; Many songwriters will register their song with BMI showing them as both writer & publisher. Later when the song is signed to a publisher, that publisher then registers the song again, this time showing themselves as the publisher. When the song get’s played and tracked, the PRO’s don’t know who to assign the publishing dollars to unless proper cue sheets have been filed by the end user.

[Casey H]

[...]Whereas writer with larger catalogs of music (over 200) don’t seem too anxious to put all their eggs in one basket... [...]

Hi Gus
I think it's the other way around. Those with large catalogs can spread tracks around in a number of exclusive libraries and not keep the eggs in one basket. The more prolific the composer, the easier to let tracks go and simply say "I'll write more like that one"... It's folks with small catalogs (like me) that are more protective of their 'babies' and afraid to sign exclusives.

The problem you mentioned regarding duplicate registrations and watermarking is really no different than the way things always were/are in traditional publishing. When you sign a traditional publishing contract, you are not supposed to register the song with a PRO yourself, the publisher does that. You have signed away the copyright and don't really have the right to register it.

Casey

[guscave]

[...]Whereas writer with larger catalogs of music (over 200) don’t seem too anxious to put all their eggs in one basket... [...]

Hi Gus
I think it's the other way around. Those with large catalogs can spread tracks around in a number of exclusive libraries and not keep the eggs in one basket. The more prolific the composer, the easier to let tracks go and simply say "I'll write more like that one"... It's folks with small catalogs (like me) that are more protective of their 'babies' and afraid to sign exclusives.

The problem you mentioned regarding duplicate registrations and watermarking is really no different than the way things always were/are in traditional publishing. When you sign a traditional publishing contract, you are not supposed to register the song with a PRO yourself, the publisher does that. You have signed away the copyright and don't really have the right to register it.

Casey

I see your point Casey. I guess I need to become one of those prolific writer...

As for the duplicate registration, the problem begins not when the writer gets his song signed, but before it's signed to a publisher/library. What's happening is that writers are registering the song with the PRO's as writer & publisher. When the song is signed with a publisher it's registered again by the publisher. This may be 1 or 2 years after the songwriter originally registered it. The only way the PRO know who gets the publishing share of any royalties made is by looking at the cue sheet to see who they've listed as publisher.

As you know there's no reason to register a song with the PRO if it's just sitting on your shelf not earning anything, still a lot of writers figure it's better to get it done.

[Casey H]

[...]Whereas writer with larger catalogs of music (over 200) don’t seem too anxious to put all their eggs in one basket... [...]

Hi Gus
I think it's the other way around. Those with large catalogs can spread tracks around in a number of exclusive libraries and not keep the eggs in one basket. The more prolific the composer, the easier to let tracks go and simply say "I'll write more like that one"... It's folks with small catalogs (like me) that are more protective of their 'babies' and afraid to sign exclusives.

The problem you mentioned regarding duplicate registrations and watermarking is really no different than the way things always were/are in traditional publishing. When you sign a traditional publishing contract, you are not supposed to register the song with a PRO yourself, the publisher does that. You have signed away the copyright and don't really have the right to register it.

Casey

I see your point Casey. I guess I need to become one of those prolific writer...

As for the duplicate registration, the problem begins not when the writer gets his song signed, but before it's signed to a publisher/library. What's happening is that writers are registering the song with the PRO's as writer & publisher. When the song is signed with a publisher it's registered again by the publisher. This may be 1 or 2 years after the songwriter originally registered it. The only way the PRO know who gets the publishing share of any royalties made is by looking at the cue sheet to see who they've listed as publisher.

As you know there's no reason to register a song with the PRO if it's just sitting on your shelf not earning anything, still a lot of writers figure it's better to get it done.

I'm very non-prolofic myself, so I empathize! People who are really doing well in film/TV music will tell you it's all about being prolific--- volume. Many tracks and a number of different libraries and the attitude that no one track is all that special. This isn't me though... Luckily I'm not in it for the money, LOL!

[farfisa]

I get a ton of placements from non-exclusive libraries, even though the tunes are in multiple libraries. But the big placements on networks and commercials generally come from exclusive deals.

[billg1]

So far all of my ASCAP $$ and money from upfront usage has come via non-exclusive deals so if I had held out for just exclusive deals I wouldn't have made any dough. Although I've recently signed some songs to a couple of good exclusive library/publishers so maybe that will turn around. I guess if they all go "exclusive" things will be more simple . . . and many of the jack-leg libraries will fall be the wayside.