TAXI.com

Hello fellow musicians,

I'm rather new here on the Taxi scene, although pretty much a veteran working musician here in Italy. I have just started replying to some listings and am a bit puzzled about the way some music libraries work. Please have a look at this:

"This Library offers a NON-EXCLUSIVE, 50/50 split. You’ll get 50% of any sync fees and 100% of the Writer’s share. The Publisher will get 50% of the sync fee and 100% of the Publisher’s share. You must own or control the Master and Copyright to pitch for this opportunity. "

Let's imagine a best scenario - my music is accepted and the library takes 100% of the publisher rights. How does "NON-EXCLUSIVE" come into it? Does this mean that the publisher only receives the rights from its own pitches, and that I am free to publish the same music in other situations? I can't see how that works, but probably I'm missing something. Or am I to understand that "NON-EXCLUSIVE" simply means that the publisher does not sign me up for all my work?


I would welcome your thoughts on the matter.

Thanks and regards,

Aidan

Hey Aidan - Great questions, I believe the very next upcoming Taxi TV show (April 20) covers this sort of stuff, and if anything is still unclear after the
show Michael usually asks for questions on the chat or you can send questions before the show (i.e. before next monday) because
I just realized the time difference in Italy - it's not something you'd be wanting to stay up all night for ! But send him your questions
before the show and he'll be sure to address them, and then you can watch the re-run of the show perhaps.
Cheers, diane

www.taxi.com/dianeridaeus

"This Library offers a NON-EXCLUSIVE, 50/50 split. You’ll get 50% of any sync fees and 100% of the Writer’s share. The Publisher will get 50% of the sync fee and 100% of the Publisher’s share. You must own or control the Master and Copyright to pitch for this opportunity. "

Let's imagine a best scenario - my music is accepted and the library takes 100% of the publisher rights. How does "NON-EXCLUSIVE" come into it? Does this mean that the publisher only receives the rights from its own pitches, and that I am free to publish the same music in other situations? I can't see how that works, but probably I'm missing something. Or am I to understand that "NON-EXCLUSIVE" simply means that the publisher does not sign me up for all my work?

Non-exclusive means that you may sign that specific track to another non-exclusive agreement, and you will be paid by this particular library for the placements it obtains on your behalf for that cue. Often the non-exclusive library will retitle your cue and register it with the new name in order to keep track of the earnings separate from any other registrant. After signing this agreement you may not sign this particular track to any exclusive agreement for the length of the non-exclusive, unless you get it released by the 1st library. You may feel free to pitch it to all other opportunities except exclusive ones.

The royalty pie is split between publishing and songwriting. A typical deal, like this one, gives the songwriter/composer the "writers" share (as it should be) and the music library the "publishing" share, of any 'back end' royalties paid by your PRO for placements on film/tv. And the sync licencing fee, that's if any 'up front' money is paid for use of the cue, is split 50-50.

HTH

Thanks to both of you for your kind answers - I will be taking your advice and forwarding my question for the Taxi TV program.

I understand that one can work around the problem by retitling the same piece of music for different publishers, but as I'm sure you are aware, this can cause problems in some situations. As has already been mentioned around here, some publishers are against the multiple registration of a piece of music under different titles. Naturally the composer always gets the writers share, but the paying process can get held up if the performing rights organisation for some reason detects the multiple deposits.

Of course, we are all happy when different publishers are interested in our music. It's still a booster for the composer

Guess I'll solve the problem if and when it arises!

You've just jumped into the exclusive vs. non-exclusive Pandora's Box topic there.
Let me just say this little bit about that:
The only people that are making noise about there being a "problem" is the exclusive libraries.
And if there is a PRO royalties problem because of "detection", it's the library's problem to deal with. They chose to be non-exclusive.
And the noise being made about retitling composers being black listed? Bah! The music supes know they are dealing with non-exclusive music.

So don't worry about it.

Regards
Russell Landwehr

Thanks Russel,

I "wasted" a fair amount of my work in earlier days, because I gave it to publishers who then did nothing or next to nothing with it. That's one of the reasons I was curious about non exclusive deals and how they actually work.

You learn from your mistakes, I guess.

aidanzl wrote:Thanks Russel,

I "wasted" a fair amount of my work in earlier days, because I gave it to publishers who then did nothing or next to nothing with it. That's one of the reasons I was curious about non exclusive deals and how they actually work.

You learn from your mistakes, I guess.

Always look for the reversion clause so you know how and when you can get your tracks back.

Excellent information about the topic, having read this I thought it was very informative.

How do I send the question directly to Taxi TV? Chatting in realtime is not really an option from my timezone.

Thanks,

A

Very informative ....thanks for posting

Don