TAXI.com

Watching Taxi TV tonight guest Robin Frederick mentioned that libraries are starting to change how they define "exclusive" listings. So that got me thinking, how do we define the term? If I record a piece for solo piano and it goes to an exclusive listing, then I record a different style version of the same song, is that new version restricted because of the exclusive agreement? For example, solo piano ballad in Library A, then a jazz trio swing version in Library B. They are technically the same song, but are they considered the same from the Library's perspective?

I'd say yes. Write a new one for Library B.

When you sign with a library, it represents both the composition (music+lyrics/only music) as well as the master recording. Even if you changed the arrangement and master recording, the composition itself remains the same and should not be placed in a different library.

On the show, I believe they were mentioning these forms of exclusive contracts:

Copyright Assignment in this deal you assign your copyright to the publisher in perp, possibly for an up front fee, but very possibly not. This is exclusive of course because now they own the copyright.

Exclusive Synch Representation in this deal artists still sell, perform, own, and collect income as usual but have given one company the exclusive right to pitch their music to Film/TV. This may be for a set number of years.

On the show she mentioned how some artists in exclusive deals were still able to personally pitch/place their music if they get approached directly by a supervisor or have their own connections (since the company didn't bring about this placement). Certainly a nice deal but more rarely seen.

I hate to bring my legal hat to the music party but the answer is "read the contract".

Contract law (in both the US and UK, which are very similar) allows a great deal of flexibility in how terms are defined, and music contracts are very often poorly drafted (particularly if done by US lawyers - just because US drafting styles tend to be a lot looser than in the UK, not any post-colonial beef).

If you have any doubt about WHAT is being given exclusively (composition rights, master rights, representation etc) or what "exclusively" means (territory, duration, etc) then seek clarification from the library (or whoever) and if necessary get an amendment to the contract to make your respective rights clear - it's as much in their interests as in yours.

I think exclusive would always include any version of the same song, unless it is changed so much that it's truly a different song.

Jim

Ok this is good.
As I understand it Exclusive means publisher owns the copyright in perp
You have signed it away.

Just to turn it around a bit
On a Non Exclusive where the writer gets 100% of the writers share Publisher gets 100% of the Publisher share

Is this just for this particular version of the song
In other words the songwriter still owns the copyright of the song, just not this version

Being clear on what Exclusive is makes Non Exclusive where publisher get 100% of publishing a bit unclear.
so confusing

Not all exclusive deals are in perpetuity, as always it depends on the contract.

100% of the publisher's share refers to royalties. A very common deal is when you retain 100% of your writer's share of royalties and the publisher gets 100% of the publisher's share of royalties. In other words the royalties are split 50/50. And it's common to split any upfront money (sync fees) the same way. And this deal is quite common for both exclusive and non-exclusive deals.

eo

sansharbour wrote:Ok this is good.
As I understand it Exclusive means publisher owns the copyright in perp
You have signed it away.

Just to turn it around a bit
On a Non Exclusive where the writer gets 100% of the writers share Publisher gets 100% of the Publisher share

Is this just for this particular version of the song
In other words the songwriter still owns the copyright of the song, just not this version

Being clear on what Exclusive is makes Non Exclusive where publisher get 100% of publishing a bit unclear.
so confusing

Exclusive and non-exclusive have nothing to do with copyright in most cases. "Exclusive" does not mean they 'own' the piece.

Exclusive - writer 100% share writers royalties, publisher/library 100% share publishing royalties
a- you may not pitch the piece to other libraries or publishers, 'exclusive' means they have the exclusive right to pitch the piece on your behalf in the music world OR
b- you may not pitch the piece to other libraries or publishers, but you may pitch it yourself directly to supervisor/end user
-- some libraries offer a reversion clause of two to five years, meaning you get your track back if it has not been placed during the specified period. If there is no reversion clause then the library has control [a or b] of the track in perpetuity

Non-exclusive - writer 100% share writers royalties, publisher/library 100% share publishing royalties
-you may pitch the same piece to other non-exclusive libraries, publishers or direct opportunities
-- there's usually no reversion clause cause you can pitch it elsewhere
-- it IS possible to 'get a track back' if you decide you want to sign it somewhere exclusively providing it hasn't been placed


HTH
H

check this:

http://www.taxi.com/transmitter/1504/kn ... lingo.html

you have seen it already I know

Lots of Good tips and clarity

Thanks