"Re-title"

[yammer107]

Hello,Is 're-title' a nasty word one would want to avoid in a library relationship? ( the practice of re titling my songs so they can re register them with a performing rights in their name with me listed as the writer ) Or is this common practice? Chris

[k o star]

hey Chris,I've been wondering abt this lately too...Not quite sure abt how this works yet, would really like to know too...K

[slideboardouts]

I wouldn't say that it is a "nasty word" at all. It seems to be fairly common and personally I don't view it as a big deal. There could be a number of reasons why a library would re-title. One is that it is a nonexclusive deal, so obviously a publisher would want to re-title the cue so that they could collect royalties on the placements that they secured for the cue. It just helps to avoid a big mess with the PROs... think about how many registered titles, publishers, and composers there are. It kind of makes since to avoid any possible confusion by re-titling the cue. Why risk losing money on a placement if you don't have to?Another reason could be that the publisher thinks that a different title would make the cue more marketable. Believe it or not, there is an art to titling cues to make them get an editors attention. One of the libraries that me and another TAXI member signed a few tracks exclusively with retitled some and didn't re-title others... one of the cues we wrote that was originally titled "Malfunction" ended up re-titling it "Wardrobe Malfunction." This is probably because he was pitching these tracks to a reality show involving fashion, modeling, etc.I've signed instrumentals with 5 libraries and 3 re-title, 2 do not. The 2 libraries that do NOT re-title are not only exclusive but also obtain the copyright when the cues are signed. Of the ones that do re-title, 1 is totally exclusive, 1 is exclusive in regards to music libraries (you are free to do other stuff with your music, but you cannot sign the cues to another library), and 1 is totally non-exclusive. Hope that helps.-Steve

[markjsmith]

Thanks Steve, I was wondering about this myself!-Mark

[yammer107]

Yeah thanks Steve.... So much to learn and so hard to absorb it all in one chunk, I'm better off asking questions as they arise. This particular outfit appears to re title everything right out of the gate is what concerned me - rather than on a case by case scenario. It could just be how I translated their language. But I assume the PROS kept things straight via case numbers assigned to the songs, rather than titles. If you search BMI music via song title - you will find dozens under the same title. Try one of your own songs.... the results are frieghtening! Chris

[k o star]

Yea man... Thanks Steve!!Totally needed to know this at this point in time... Thanks Chris too, for asking the question...Kel

[artmuns]

Over at http://musiclibraryreport.com/blog/retitling-music/ there are a lot of comments about this issue.You can also find a lot of information about the various music libraries and other people's experiences with them.Take careArt

[guscave]

Hi All,Re-titling is very common. Two libraries I work with re-title all my music because of my non-exclusive deal with them. Re-titling allows me to pitch the song to another project, and assuming the library has submitted the correct writer information to BMI, I still get paid on the performance royalties.

[billg]

Sept 11, 2009, 2:58am, yammer107 wrote:Yeah thanks Steve.... So much to learn and so hard to absorb it all in one chunk, I'm better off asking questions as they arise. This particular outfit appears to re title everything right out of the gate is what concerned me - rather than on a case by case scenario. It could just be how I translated their language. But I assume the PROS kept things straight via case numbers assigned to the songs, rather than titles. If you search BMI music via song title - you will find dozens under the same title. Try one of your own songs.... the results are frieghtening! Chris Chris, I just received an ASCAP statement yesterday that showed I had :12 of four tracks on American Idol Rewind #304. This was from a publisher that retitles everything and he re-titled these as "American Idol Rewind Cue" and registered them as such with new title code numbers so I really can't even tell which tracks they were. I guess I could always call the publisher and ask but if everyone did that i'm sure it would be a big pain in the a$$ for him so . . . The whole thing is really confusing to me but it seems to be the way a lot of companies handle it so I wouldn't sweat it.The ASCAP statements are a whole 'nother source of head scratching for me. Maybe by the time (if ever) I have enough dough coming in for it to really matter I will have figured it all out!

[mazz]

Bill, I've seen that on my ASCAP statements too and my understanding is that happens when a production company files a cue sheet and the cue sheet hits ASCAP before the publisher registers the piece with them. ASCAP doesn't have a record of the piece but they have your info as the writer so they just name it "Show XYZ Cue" so at least you get paid for the airing. So the publisher didn't name it, ASCAP did.It might be worth it to contact the publisher to see if they can get the cue sheets and clear things up with ASCAP so the correct titles are registered. If your music is getting placed, it's in their best interest to get it registered with ASCAP.And I agree, the ASCAP statements are hard to decipher. At least the checks are intuitive!! HTH,Mazz