Retitled tracks...can they cause trouble?

[sonotoni]

Hi Folks,

I read an article about non-exclusive library deals by Ron Mendelsohn ("Signing With a Non-Exclusive Retitling Library")
- Obviously there are potential infringement issues, identical fingerprint for many titles, less potential for international income, etc.

Generally spoken:
If you had the choice between signing a track with an exclusive music library deal or a non-exclusive, which one would go for and why?
And,
if you sign a non-exclusive contract with the option of cancelling it anytime, is it possible to sign the same track later on with an exclusive library?

Thanks
Toni

[kclements]

This can be a pretty hot topic, with people weighing in on both sides of the argument. If you do a search here, you will find several topics discussing it in length.

This is my take on the whole thing. I treat every track as exclusive - regardless if I sign it with an exclusive or non-exclusive library. That way, I don't have to keep track of multiple renamed tracks and where they went. I keep a spreadsheet for all my tracks and know track xx was renamed yy and is with library ABC. If someone wants to use that track, I offer to write one similar. This happened just this week.

So to answer your question: I don't care too much if the library is exclusive or not. I look at the deal they are offering, how long is the contract, have they had placements and with whom, what do my friends and colleagues think of them... and go from there.

I know there may be circumstances where you can market the track in multiple libraries - and maybe good arguments for it. But I decided from the start to go this route and so far, it has worked well.

hth
kc

[sonotoni]

Thanks, KC

[andygabrys]

I am doing the same thing as Kayle, I think its a solid approach and as far as instrumental music, its fairly easy to write more rather than get wound up in trying to place the same song in multiple libraries.

Good luck!

[sonotoni]

Thanks, Andy