The re-title game is over

[Cat Herder]

You can argue all you want, you can jump up and down in tantrums, even hold your breath, but this game of non-exclusive re-titling is up! And it is straight from the horses mouths.

I attended a Film and TV Music paned at the Kauai Music festival recently. Among the members of this panel were the Director of Music Comcast/NBC Universal, the Director of TV Music, ABC Entertainment Group, and a Music Supervisor for MTV/VH1, and others. The question was asked specifically as to their position on non-exclusive re-titling and the response by all three was as clear as it could be stated. I’m paraphrasing: We will no longer accept new music from "non-exclusive" sources (regardless of the retitle issue), and are phasing out all non-exclusive libraries at this time. You cannot get any clearer than that. I had the opportunity to ask one of them later if there is, in fact, a black list for both libraries and writers and he stated that there certainly was such a thing. I have talked to a number of writers in the past couple years who continue to advise (out of either ignorance or pure stupidity) for writers to retitle and spread their a specific piece of music to as many libraries as possible. If you do that you are dumb, dumb, dumb, and possibly screwed. So; swim at your own risk kids.

Dave, I took the names out so those guys don't get barraged with emails. ML Good idea DT

[kclements]

OK, so please excuse my ignorance on this.

Are you saying their is a practice where in one would take the very same piece of music, and, let's say, give it 5 different titles and place it in 5 different libraries? So, a music supervisor could have a CD from Library ABC - listen to a track called X, and then get a CD from Library EFG - listen to a track called Y and they could be the same song?

How does that work with copyright? - never mind, I don't think I want to know.

I have heard that some libraries take your music and re-title them, but I thought that was so they would own the publishing, no? Maybe that's the same thing you are talking about.

I find this interesting, even though I know very little about how it works. So, if I ever get to a point where I get a deal, I should reject anyone that wants to re-title my track? Or, if the deal is too good to refuse, I just re-title that track myself and use the libraries name?

Thanks for the education -
Cheers -
kc

[ShadowaterMusic]

When the Production Music Association makes non-exclusive retitling one of their 'core values', it's probably a good idea to back them up.

The PMA opposes the practice of re-titling when used in conjunction with non-exclusive representation.

http://pmamusic.com/pma/?page_id=24

When I first started making my music available for licensing, it was casually, more for fun than for profit. Retitling was the brilliant new idea, and I went with it. Going with the non-exclusive libraries was simpler and probably more effective based on the amount of business side work I was interested in doing at the time. Once I started focusing on making an eventual full time career out of music and reviewing the assessments of retitling from major libraries and music supervisors (my target market), I dropped retitling.

One thing that concerns me now, though, is that even though I'm offering my new and future music for exclusive publishing deals/direct licensing only, I still have a back catalog that's in multiple non-exclusive libraries. I wonder if there are any possible consequences for that? A potential client does a search and sees older tracks in multiple libraries; do they write that composer off, or do they only care about the exclusivity of the track(s) that are currently on the table?

[admin]

I was actually the moderator on that panel, and while Dave is correct in saying that the panelists did in fact say that they do not use re-titled music, I don't remember them saying there was an actual black list. Most of the supervisors I know won't use non-exclusive libraries, but that's certainly not true for all of them. Also, there is at least one "non-exclusive" library that codes its titles in a way that I know makes at least one of the networks feel comfortable using them. But there is little doubt that the days of dozens of non-exclusive libraries feeding the beast seem to be diminishing.

That's not the only panel I've moderated or attended recently where the supervisors or network wonks have stated that. Yet, I still see plenty of songs getting licensed by non-exclusive libraries as of today. Nature will take its course, and rarely do things ever happens over night.

Michael

[mazz]

EDIT: Posted at exact same time as Michael

Kayle, my experience with this is that yes, the library will retitle the work as a "derivative work", the writer retains the copyright but the library gets the publishing on the derivative work. There's nothing stopping the composer from putting that same piece of music into another library and for that library to create yet another "derivative work" simply by changing the title and taking publishing on that very same piece of music, just with a different title.

The thing is, there are some pretty high end libraries that do non-exclusive deals with composers all the time, and they still seem to be placing music in these productions. Maybe there's a time lag between the time the supervisors refuse to work with non-exclusive libraries and that actually happening. I don't have the insider info that Dave does, but I would venture to guess that if a supervisor has a great relationship with a library and gets great music from them, they would be foolish to cut their nose off to spite their face and stop working with that reliable high quality source. But they may be trying to discourage new entities starting up from doing the non-exclusive thing. I think even Dave knows some of the non-exclusive libraries I'm talking about with some folks who are extremely experienced in the library/publishing/licensing business. It would be interesting to hear what those folks would say in response.

The problem for the artist is mostly, IMO, with bands and artists that write songs to sell CDs and downloads at gigs, etc. These folks will most likely have a much smaller catalog than someone that writes several instrumentals a week. An artist with a catalog of less than 100 pieces really needs to be picky where and how they sign these songs. Would you sign your copyright away to an unproven startup company that only deals in exclusivity to the point that you can't even sell your music online to the public for 99 cents a pop? Or would you really look around for somewhere that could get you great placements (proven track record) and still have the freedom to sell your music on line (retain copyright) and at gigs, etc.

I think the "semi-exclusive" model is a good compromise: You can't sign your music to another library but you can continue to sell it in non-competing markets. Chances are the library isn't going to come to your gig and set up a merch table and compete with you to sell your music to your fans!! To take it further, the library may limit or curtail your ability to market the song directly to music supervisors, particularly under it's original title, if they, in fact, do not re-title. Most of these semi-exclusive libraries, it seems though, will still re-title.

The confusion that started this whole discussion that Dave had with these guys was that they started getting the exact same song from several different publishers, under different titles and with probably different fees attached. Now what does the supervisor do? Composers flooding the market with the same piece of music under different titles without taking into consideration the markets these libraries serve is an issue, for sure!

It's a quandary, IMO.

Mazz

[davewalton]

Quiz time. Some of Taxi's biggest deals have been and continue to be with:

A. Exclusive Libraries
B. Non-exclusive Libraries
C. Both

Answer = C

I've had great placements on network television via exclusive arrangements. But also true is that some of the top libraries in the world are non-exclusive and have made and continue to make many awesome deals and placements for Taxi members (including me!). The thing to remember (for me at least) is to treat each deal as though it *was* exclusive. Also I try to remember that each deal stands on its own and can be good or bad regardless of the licensing arrangement. The basic deals can be exclusive with upfront pay, exclusive without upfront pay, non-exclusive (always no upfront pay)... they can each be good or bad deals, depending on the situation.

Like Michael said, maybe things will change but for now at least I've seen/heard of some really nice recent deals and placements with non-exclusive libraries thorugh Taxi. And of course I firmly believe that Taxi will no longer allow non-exclusive libraries to list when it becomes a bad deal all around.

In the end there is one issue on which we can all agree... trying to saturate a single market with the same music through multiple non-exclusive libaries is not professional or valuable in any way shape or form.

FWIW,

Dave

[Cat Herder]

I am going to take more time to follow up.

Michael, it was in the hall after the panel that Tony and I discussed the black list, although I posed that question based on a very public statement made at the June 2010 meeting of the PMA that both ABC and NBC made the "Blacklist" statement. You and I have discussed the only non-exclusive that I would personally consider doing business with although my membership in the PMA prevents it. I am not certain that they really fit the bill of a re-title or not. I do believe however; they may eventually find themselves having to tweak their model. They are among the highest quality out there and have been at it from the beginning. I sat in their office discussing the industry as a whole a few months back and respect them completely.

John, The issue goes way deeper. Having the same piece pop up in multiple libraries, although aggravation, is the most minor issue. I know of one supervisor who told me he not only had a cue show up 3 times but in all three instances the writers were different. Writer A and B were in one library, writer A only in another, and the B in the third. He has these writers blacklisted for very good reason; they both appear dishonest. What the networks are claiming is that music clearance is the very top priority. Granted, an exclusive library does not erase the possibility of a piece being uncleared, the likelihood is exponentially reduced. Who actually holds copyright to a given piece. Broadcasting a piece of music is essentially making a temporary copy, and if the library does not hold or control copyright (the right to copy) the network may find themselves in a position of liability. This is what the majors are most concerned about. The producer may pick library B because their licensing fee is lower, but if A controls copyright then they have the right to sue the network for copyright violation resulting in a substiantial investment in time and money for the network. This stuff goes on all the time as one exec told me. They are no longer willing to do this. Regardless of the quality of the library they are likely to find themselve out. I have to stop because I can't see what I' typing. (edited for typonese)

[Cat Herder]

To continue....

We do allow our writers to participate in digital downloads, and compilations where the buyer is purchasing for their own personal entertainment, as you know. But we do not allow them to retitle even for that purpose. This is the high road, and production companies appreciate that fact. It is best to be ahead of the curve, than lagging behind. C is not a great option for the novice. Even for many more experienced. There are not "a lot" of really good re-title libraries. If you are not sure; then what do you do? Agreed that treating each library as exclusive may be the high road for someone traveling the middle ground. The high road, and the road you will be most noted for is exclusive. Consider this: if this industry moves toward exclusivity and removes the non exclusives, which I sincerly believe will happen. What ya going to do with all the music you have in non-exclusives? I think you will be eating it.

[davewalton]

What ya going to do with all the music you have in non-exclusives? I think you will be eating it.

Every Taxi member with non-exclusive deals will read that and think the worst. One of the biggest non-exclusive libraries I'm in just wound up modifying the way they title. Like Laskow said, that seemed to satisfy the networks (for now). Some non-exclusives have decided reissued contracts to reflect a new exclusive status. Problem solved. No biggie.

I'm just trying to offer a balance here. Matt Hirt, Mazz, myself and many others have deals with non-exclusive libraries that make excellent placements. Most of these non-exclusive deals came through Taxi. On the other side of things, I just signed with a high-end exclusive library (through a Taxi introduction) that pays very well upfront for each project as a financial commitment to the composer. And... of course they make that money back quickly through great placements. As composers we all want that and strive for that but regardless, the non-exclusives fit a market that's mostly not served by the high-end libraries and vice-versa. And in some markets they overlap. But it is agreed that trying to spread our music further by placing the same tracks in multiple non-exclusive libraries is bad business for all involved.

Exclusive and non-exclusive... they all serve a market and a purpose. And they're all part of the Taxi experience.

[Cat Herder]

This is exactly what I am talking about. Do as you choose. The one library we are all talking about is the one exception I know of. When it comes to my choices, I will choose to listen to ABC, NBC, CBS, MTV, VH1. Pretty simple.