PMA (Production Music Association) meeting on Non-Exclusive libraries and retitling
If you find this information helpful, please consider donating.
Robin and I attended the PMA meeting, June 21st 2010, on “Non-Exclusive libraries and retitling”.
Tunesat sponsored this event and it was great to finally meet some of those folks, Mellisa, Chris and Lara. They are as nice in person as in the many e-mail conversations I’ve had with them! Chris was on the panel and was particularly eloquent in explaining Tunesat, fingerprinting and detection. It is the future!
Another nice surprise was when one of the panel members, Catherine Farley, Director of Music Licensing, for the Disney ABC Television group mentioned that she uses Music Library Report for research and recommended that others use it. Wow, cool, so they are paying attention. Very gratifying. Thanks Catherine!
The panel members included: Catherine Farley (Disney ABC), Cheryl Hodgson (Trademark and Copyright attorney), Ron Mendelsohn (Megatrax), Alicen Schneider (NBC Universal), moderator Randy Wachtler (615 Music) and Cris Woods (Tunesat).
It’s not hard to imagine how most of the assembled panel and guests felt about the topic. You can read more about their position here: http://app.e2ma.net/campaign/27456.af55d60b404c79870d1c9931918a94fc
I have a lot of mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, many of their points were well taken. In particular, I can see it from the networks’ point of view. Alicen Schneider (NBC) and Catherine Farley (ABC) both spoke of the increase of multiple claimants on music that has been aired. They also spoke of music that is overexposed because of the retitling issues. (Then again, at least with production music, how many people are going to recognize a short piece of music from one show to another, buried under dialog?). There is also the issue of 3rd party deals that might conflict and how they may impact foreign sales as well as potential legal and ethical problems. All very good points, and they opened my eyes a lot wider.
On the other hand, from the PMA’s point of view, it all seemed a bit self-serving. The old library business model appears to be failing and there is a mindset that the “The sky is falling”. It’s fine to protect the interest and value of music, no argument there, but the genie is out of the bottle regarding non-exclusive libraries and re-titling. There must be tens of thousands of re-titled tracks available through non-exclusive libraries. One of the biggest arguments against re-titling is the potential loss of ownership of your copyright. Call me naïve, but I find it hard to believe that the courts would take the position that all of those thousands of copyrights (involving untold numbers of libraries and composers) are in jeopardy because of re-titling. I think one of the answers lies with the PROs and finding a mechanism for keeping all those income streams straight. And yes their are other potential problems but I don’t think the “sky is falling”. Then again I’ve always been a “glass is always half-full” kind of guy!
For those of you who are new to this: Generally speaking, you have a number of options to promote your music to the film and TV world. There can be many variations depending on your negotiating skills and/or demand for your work:
Exclusive – Up-front Money. The music library will pay you, upfront, for each piece of music, up to and including, all recording costs and expenses. You will give up ownership of the copyright in perpetuity and will not participate in any license fees. You will retain your writers share of the performance royalties (but not the publishing share). There will be no re-titling of your music.
Exclusive – No Upfront- Money. The music library will NOT pay any upfront fee or costs. You will give up ownership of the copyright in perpetuity. You might participate in any license fees. You will retain your writers share of the performance royalties (but not the publishing share). There will be no re-titling of your music.
Non Exclusive – No Upfront Money. The music library will NOT pay any upfront fee or costs. You will NOT give up ownership of the copyright (any music placed with a show will stay with that show in perpetuity). You probably will participate in any license fees. You will retain your writers share of the performance royalties (but not the publishing share). Your music will be re-titled.
Go It Alone – You will NOT give up ownership of the copyright (any music placed with a show will stay with that show in perpetuity). You will receive 100% of any license fees. You will retain your writers share of the performance royalties AND the publishing share. Your music will not be re-titled.
Because the exclusive library route is not possible (or desirable) for the many and the “Go It Alone” takes a particular personality trait, the non-exclusive avenue is an attractive alternative.
One member of the audience asked the panel what they would say to a non-exclusive library owner who says that this is the only business model that works for him. A member of the panel gave a rather sharp reply; “go exclusive or get out of the business”. I found his comment not very constructive. I would assume he also feels the same away about composers who are unable to get signed exclusively by one of the major libraries.
So, what’s a composer to do? I’ve been a writer/producer all my life with a modicum of success. Certainly, I have not been able to earn enough to live on. That doesn’t mean I will stop writing or producing as I love what I do. The various “Big” libraries I have tried to get into are not interested. I’m also not interested in smaller exclusive libraries that offer nothing more than a promise and want my music in perpetuity. Does that mean I should “get out of the business?” Not gonna happen. In a perfect world I would rather work exclusively with a company that I believed in and that believed in what I did. In fact I had that many years ago as a writer with a couple of major publishing companies. In the meantime, I’m comfortable working with the few non-exclusive libraries I work with and yes, the retitling issue is a problem and will have to be dealt with. If nothing else, last night opened my eyes to the potential problems.
I do think a workable solution can be found. It’s too bad none of the non-exclusive libraries, that were asked to participate, chose not to do so. The only way to solve these problems is for all sides to come to the table, be open, communicate and work out a solution.
Did you find this information helpful? If you did, please consider donating.
Categories: Music Retitling | 
Tags: composer, composers, film and tv, music, music library, Music Licensing, performance royalties, PMA, production music, Production Music Association, Retitling, Tunesat | 
55 Comments »
Art-
First off, thanks for sharing…very informative.
Can you tell me: When they talk about re-title libraries, are they including those libraries that leave the title intact but add to the beginning or end? (i.e. the track is originally titled “New Day” and the library changes it to “XYZ – New Day”)
Or are they only talking about libraries that completely change the title?
Or are they talking about both scenarios?
[Reply]
Art, June 24th, 2010 at 2:01 pm Reply:
Both scenarios are a problem for them though I think the original title, with an ID before or after, is a better solution than a totally different title. We are indeed heading to detection of use through fingerprinting so we still have the problem of multiple registrations for one detection.
[Reply]
Frank, June 24th, 2010 at 2:51 pm Reply:
What I don’t understand is who would be the person/company to submit the digital fingerprint? If a track is in 3 different libraries under 3 different titles, who would submit the waveform? If it’s the original copyright holder, which makes the most sense, then wouldn’t the PRO pay that person/company automatically? If it’s one of the 3 libraries, wouldn’t they get paid to the exclusion of the other 2? This can become extremely complicated and frustrating for everyone involved.
[Reply]
Art, June 24th, 2010 at 3:49 pm Reply:
Aye, there’s the rub. The devil will be in the details and the PROs need to come up with a solution that would include much better attention to detail, from the production companies, about which library they used.
[Reply]
Frank, June 24th, 2010 at 5:56 pm Reply:
Yes, the concern would be that ASCAP/BMI/SESAC would not know who to pay so they would hold back the money until the proper party is identified and, knowing how slowly the wheels of the PROs turn, that could take a long time.
All the PROs already have a difficult time resolving issues with paying out royalties due for all kinds of situations. It’s generally slow, confusing for all parties and often inaccurate. Imagine how much more complicated this will make it.
[Reply]
One thing that was briefly touched on at the end of the panel was the issue of GRATIS licenses, which are licenses that pay NO money up front.
More and more TV production companies are only issuing gratis licenses to ilbraries/composers. One main reason is because if they paid blanket fees to libraries, they’re afraid of double/tripple/quadruple paying for the SAME CUES, since many people put their cues in different libraries.
The libraries that keep their music exclusive are known to get small but respectable license fees on a PER SHOW basis, since they can use their exclusivity as a selling point. Although as a composer, you probably won’t benefit from the blanket license fee unless the library goes to the cue-sheets to find out which cues were used, and pays out a cut of the blanket fee accordingly. Some libraries do pay out a piece of the blanket, some do not.
I guarantee once all of the networks stop using non-exclusive re-titlers, those libraries that are left will see an INCREASE in license fees (benefitting libraries AND composers), due to the evaporation of overpaying blanket fees, as well as a sharp decrease in the amount of claims/lawsuits brought by “misunderstandings” that are proven more prevalent among non-exlusive re-title libraries.
Treat your music like an asset instead of a commodity and you will be handsomely rewarded!
[Reply]
Art, June 24th, 2010 at 5:10 pm Reply:
Thanks John, great point. Networks, like all businesses, are driven by the bottom line so I wonder if they will indeed stop using retitlers. I think the solution will come from somewhere else.
[Reply]
Matt, June 25th, 2010 at 9:06 pm Reply:
I think there’s already a viable solution – digital watermarking. Instead of just relying on audio recognition (like the iPhone apps that allow your phone to recognize music playing in a bar), the libraries, PROs, and broadcasters can get around the whole re-titling issue by working with an inaudible signal embedded in a music file. Software can then detect the watermark, which would contain writer and publisher info. This type of watermark is used in the film and TV world to track copies like awards screeners and rough cuts given to composers to work on.
The only issue is the workload and cost of a library having to add watermarks to its entire catalog. I’m not sure how it can be done in a more efficient manner other than one track, one edit at a time. No doubt there are companies that specialize in watermarking audio and video. Hopefully this is the magic bullet that we’re all waiting for, and these companies will soon be getting a lot more work.
[Reply]
Art, June 25th, 2010 at 10:02 pm Reply:
Sounds like a great idea but aren’t there questions about sonic integrity?
[Reply]
Matt, June 25th, 2010 at 11:42 pm Reply:
Hi Art, I’m not exactly sure about that, but I assume the watermarking is at a frequency that is detectable and not removed by TV or radio broadcasting.
[Reply]
Art, June 27th, 2010 at 9:25 am Reply:
The watermarking issue has been around since the analog days and always the “golden ear” folks have been very vocal in that it degrades the quality of the music. AND they can hear it!
[Reply]
I don’t think the cable networks will stop using retitling libraries. They need a ton of music for all their reality shows & they won’t want to pay per cue, especially since they have got the music so cheap for so long now.
I myself would like to sign with a pay upfront library, but like Art has also stated those doors appear very closed, I keep knocking, but noone ever answers. sometimes retitle libraries are the only option.
[Reply]
John Fulford, June 25th, 2010 at 1:20 pm Reply:
Hey boss,
If you have enough cues, you can go directly to the cable networks. I did that when i was a 21 year old jitter bug with no clue as to what i was doing. If it worked for me it can work for anyone.
[Reply]
Anonymous, June 25th, 2010 at 1:36 pm Reply:
Hey John,
I’d love to take this approach. Did you already have the contacts? If not, how did you get em’
[Reply]
John Fulford, June 25th, 2010 at 9:42 pm Reply:
I had no contacts. I started with a weekly edition of The Hollywood Reporter. Everything else i figured out by myself..
This was before DVRs were common place. With the internet and a DVR you can have a music library up and running in two business days…
[Reply]
Matt, June 25th, 2010 at 11:36 pm Reply:
Sorry if this is a silly question, but what’s the significance of a DVR to starting a library?
[Reply]
Art, June 27th, 2010 at 9:21 am Reply:
Probably to record the various shows, listen to the types of music, look for end credits and the production company names. John?
[Reply]
John Fulford, June 29th, 2010 at 12:42 pm Reply:
Hey Art,
That’s one way to use it, the other is alot more useful. I can’t give that secret away over the internet!!
[Reply]
Entropik, June 29th, 2010 at 12:55 pm Reply:
Or you would have to shoot us?
I like buttons though!
[Reply]
John (the other John), June 29th, 2010 at 2:11 pm Reply:
Ahh, come on and tell us John. The truth will set you free.
[Reply]
John Fulford, June 29th, 2010 at 5:19 pm Reply:
HAHAHA
I’ll share a tip…order The Hollywood Reporter magazine, weekly edition. I’d get it delivered to my place in Florida before i moved to LA. They have listings of movies/tv shows in production.
Call up movies and TV shows you think your music would fit with, it takes a lot of nerve, but I’d end up talking to about 2 new music supervisors each week. Great way to build your contact list!!
[Reply]
Hi Art,
Thanks for taking the time to post this.
Based on what I’ve been hearing lately from other sources AND from what you saw this week, it looks like the Networks are continuing to move away from the re-titling process. Comments like “go exclusive or get out of the business” does seem like the old business model, but these are the folks we’re trying to get our music to.
Although I don’t think that non-exclusive deals are going to disappear anytime soon, I do think that maybe the best approach “for now” would be for the composer to treat non-exclusive deals as if they were exclusive.
Say you a catalog of 200 songs. Pick about 5 non-exclusive libraries that have proven they can really work at getting you placements and divide up your songs where each only get 40 songs.
Sure this is not as productive as given 5 libraries 200 songs, but considering the way things are going, I can’t think of another “better” solution. Also, waiting on the PRO’s to do something about this is like waiting for rain in the Sahara…:) Composers (and publishers) need to take the initiative.
Again, Thanks for keeping us posted..
[Reply]
Art, June 25th, 2010 at 7:39 am Reply:
Just to clear up one point. The “go exclusive or get out of the business” comment was made by one of the two music libraries represented on the panel, not by any of the other panel members.
Also I like the idea of treating the non-exclusive libraries as exclusive and is the direction I have been heading.
[Reply]
I am more confused than ever now!
I think non-exclusive libraries can be good for some composers, but I do not know if they would work for me. There is so much info but there is no real guidance. How can I tell if I am getting scammed by non-exclusives? Which ones are the good ones? Music is too confusing. I just want to put my songs in a good library and make some money.
[Reply]
John (the other John), June 27th, 2010 at 12:41 pm Reply:
“I just want to put my songs in a good library and make some money” – Eddy
Yeah, if only it was as easy as that.
It’s more a trial and error business. Even a great library may not make you money. Just make sure there’s a reversion clause in any contract you sign. Then if a library isn’t working for you, there’s a way out.
Non-exclusive may be your best option for your situation. As you create new tracks, spread them around like manure and see if something starts to bloom.
[Reply]
guscave, June 28th, 2010 at 10:14 am Reply:
Hi Eddy,
Keep in mind that “non-exclusive” is simply a terminology for a type of deal. It’s not a representation of weather or not a library is good. Personally I’ve made more money out of non-exclusive libraries than from exclusive ones. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t sign to exclusive deals again, but know that every library has it’s own way of doing things. Some better than others.
I’d try to get them into “exclusives” first. If you don’t get any bites, than try some of the more prominent non-exclusive libraries. There are a handful that are a bit more picky and won’t just take everything you throw at them.
[Reply]
HA spread them around like manure. EXACTLY. That’s already what these non-exclusive “libraries” are full of.
[Reply]
Hey All,
I’ve been out of the loop for a few days. My OS drive died and took most of my audio applications with it. Then, a major storm snapped the utility pole behind my house, and I had now power or internet for sveral days. Ouch!
The PMA info is interesting. It seems like the debate will rage on. The self-interested position of the exclusives is a bit transparent. But, to that I say, if you want non-exclusive libraries to go away, prepare to open your doors and your checkbooks to the composers who are knocking. Otherwise, how are you going to keep people from looking for alternatives.
Art — what did the trademark / copyright attorney have to say?
@ Matt, I agree that technology is likely to provide a solution before the law changes.
That said — I’m following John Fulford’s advice and going solo — once I reload my computer that is.
Cheers,
Michael
[Reply]
Art, June 29th, 2010 at 8:00 pm Reply:
Ouch, sorry to hear that Michael.
The attorney on the panel pretty much concurred with the panel and thought deeper issues could lay ahead.
[Reply]
About Re-titling, has anybody ever had a ReTitle library register the Original title of a Song and Not the NEW TITLE with them getting 100% publishing. Im trying to correct this BS right now
[Reply]
Art, July 3rd, 2010 at 9:50 am Reply:
Yeah, InDigi Music did that to me on three songs. She missed the prefix I had for those three. Nicole has put in a correction to BMI but it can take awhile (according to her) for BMI to correct.
[Reply]
oontz oontz, July 3rd, 2010 at 10:29 am Reply:
I had a library retitle one of my tracks with a new word that was one letter different than my original title. They said they wouldn’t pitch my tracks to my existing clients….but they did. So they’re collecting money for a track that I placed myself. They’re being pretty cool about it, but I had to show them a heap of proof that the Music Supervisor know of my track before i even started working with the library.
Can someone tell me a benefit of re-titling?
[Reply]
I had a situation a couple of years ago where a song that was re-titled accidentally listed the library as the writer. Luckily the library owner contacted me to let me know what had happened and got the issue fixed with BMI. I was even able to get back pay for the mistake.
[Reply]
Ive always KNOWN that retitling would come a cropper one day, and i assumed that it would take another 10 to 15 years due to the sheer volume of music out there and the potential of enough lawsuits to sink a developed country, in terms of costs. However, going by Art’s report above, it seems that it might all happen within 5 years or even less.
At the end of the day, someone will lose out, and others will win, which is no change there. But the real issue of restoring value to cue music, will be redressed in favour of the artist AND their rights will hopefully be restored and re-evaluated in their favour, too.
[Reply]
Art,
Thanks for attending the PMA panel and for expressing your candid views on the subject. My intention by writing the article was to provoke debate on this issue, and I am glad to see that that is happening. Regarding the PMA panel being “self-serving”, I can understand why it might appear that way, however it is important to mention that we extended invitations to several retitling libraries and that none of them was willing to show up to defend their business model. Please also note that no one on the panel suggested that retitling involves “loss of copyright”; it was merely pointed out that titles are not copyrightable and therefore that retitlted libraries may not sue for infringement and may not have the right to negotiate direct licenses. Finally, I regret that we left you with the impression that “the sky is falling”; the purpose of the panel was to educate and inform, which is an important part of the PMA’s mission.
[Reply]
Art, July 9th, 2010 at 6:33 pm Reply:
Hi Ron,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting. I appreciate it and I’m sure everyone else here does too.
I agree that it would have been helpful for some of the retitling libraries to have attended the meeting as it would have made for a more balanced discussion.
As I noted above I did come away with my eyes opened a bit wider about the potential problems with non-exclusives and retitling. Still, for some of us, the non-exclusive approach works best, at least for now.
Take care
Art
[Reply]
Re: the early digital watermarking…we were beta testers at Videohelper back in 2002 and the mark distorted the track. Landmark/BlueArrow FTW.
[Reply]
Matt, July 29th, 2010 at 11:44 am Reply:
Is that because the process of adding the watermark meant adding audio signal to an already mastered track? If so, I’m sure it wouldn’t hurt the audio quality much to run a limiter, slight decrease in gain, or similar finishing tool over the track.
Admittedly, I’m not well versed on the subject, but it seems that digital watermarking is a promising solution to the looming re-titling train wreck.
[Reply]
Watermarking is not a solution. We have had experience watermarking tracks using various systems and it is a huge hassle. Everytime the technology changes, the tracks need to be re-watermarked again. Now imagine doing that for a library with tens of thousands of tracks. Plus the fact that watermarking does nothing for “legacy” data, meaning the huge volume of music that is already released in the marketplace. Most importantly, the PROs are not paying based on watermarks and they are in fact moving away from watermarking and very quickly adopting fingerprinting (audio recognition) solutions. I can assure you first-hand that these fingerprinting technologies are evolving rapidly and they can very successfully identify tracks. It is very clear to those in the industry that fingerprinting is the solution for the future, not watermarking.
[Reply]
Matt, July 29th, 2010 at 1:22 pm Reply:
Thanks Ron, I appreciate you taking the time to set the record straight. From what you’re saying, I guess a re-titling showdown is inevitable. Unless someone comes up with a way to efficiently (cheaply) watermark 10′s of 1000′s of tracks, and then re-deliver all the legacy data to clients who already have the music on their shelves and in their servers. A huge undertaking that mostly benefits re-titling libraries.
If everything was digital, accessed online by editors and music supervisors, might it be possible though?
What if it meant the end of filling out cue sheets? An integrated system that automatically fills out cue sheets might entice everyone (PROs, libraries, broadcasters) to work towards a sweeping solution like a complete overhaul of how music is tracked and identified.
[Reply]
Thanks Art (and all) for attending this event!
It’s not easy to get around to all the important events, especially if one is not located in a film industry hub.
Your efforts to bring this back and share it are greatly appreciated. For the last year, I’ve been struggling with these notions of (re-titling/non-exclusives etc.) I was lucky enough (for a while) to have a direct connect to compose/license via a production company, but changes in economic environments and the desire to create more artful works / IP assets than are generally practical to do/use for ‘filler’ music for reality TV or commercial/corporate projects, has caused me to really pause before jumping. The dialog here has been very helpful in assisting in making a reasonably sound evaluation to develop my business expansion and direction!
Much Love:)
T. Reed/TAO X Productions
[Reply]
Art, July 29th, 2010 at 1:51 pm Reply:
My pleasure T. Glad to help out.
[Reply]
Hi Matt,
In response to your question, yes if you are hosting audio from one central server without distributing hard drives or other distribution devices then yes, it would be relatively easy to batch watermark the content. But you would still have to deal with unwatermarked legacy content that was previously downloaded by your clients. And the main problem is that the PROs are not paying on watermarked detections so the whole effort would be futile anyway. Regarding cue sheets, watermarking has no affect on cue sheets since watermark detections do not indicate the context of the performance, they only indicate the time, duration and source of the broadcast. This is not enough information to fill out a cue sheet. But the main point is that watermarking technology is quite primitive compared to fingerprinting, which is where most of the development is happening these days.
[Reply]
Art, July 30th, 2010 at 1:18 pm Reply:
Yep, I do think fingerprinting is the future. I’m amazed at how accurate the detections are on my Tunesat account. Sometimes I have to really strain through the dialog and SFX to hear the music but it’s there, detected and I can recognize it as mine.
[Reply]
Re: Fingerprinting.
Will the fingerprinting software be able to detect the actual production that the piece of music is in?
I could envision a piece of music with any title whatsoever being placed in a Final Cut timeline and a cue sheet entry automatically generated from that timeline reflecting all the necessary data about the production and have that data linked to that particular title. When the fingerprinting search picks up that show, it would be great if it was able to cross reference the piece of music with the cue sheet from that show. I’m not sure how this could be done technically, but it seems like something to shoot for.
Thanks,
John Mazzei
[Reply]
Matt, August 1st, 2010 at 1:47 pm Reply:
Good question! Before someone who actually knows the answer responds, I’d guess that currently the system in place wouldn’t actually ‘detect’ the production, but would already know it because there would be a log that keeps track of what the fingerprinting software is listening to.
The only thing missing from a cue sheet would then be the usage – BI, VI, VV, BV, F, THM etc. I wonder if it’s even possible to automate the detection of that.
[Reply]
Hello John,
In answer to your question, the fingerprinting services are able to determine the type of production since their data is cross referenced against databases provided by broadcast media services. These services know what show was broadcast on each channel at a particular time, and it is relatively simple for the fingerprinting services to match their detections against this data. However, what is still missing is the TYPE of usage- the fingerprint cannot determine if the usage was program underscore or interstitial (promo, commercial, PSA).
[Reply]
Art, August 1st, 2010 at 2:24 pm Reply:
Though I have found that sometimes the detection and the shows do not match. In one instance detections indicated a number of episodes from a show in which I had no idea how they had gotten the music. When I called the production company they were as mystified as me. Turns out the company listened to the detection and determined it wasn’t their show, which I later confirmed. In another instance I had a cue that had supposedly ran on ABC World News. I was excited until I listened to the detection. Ah, not!
[Reply]
Alas, none of these technologies are perfect, but then again neither are cue sheets.
[Reply]
Any comments between; ISRC, Fingerprinting,Tunestat, the same, differences??
[Reply]
Art, August 21st, 2010 at 10:22 am Reply:
ISRC codes are like a serial number for your recording. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Recording_Code.
Fingerprinting,Tunestat is a digital fingerprint of your recording.
Remember, Google is your friend:)
[Reply]
Matt, August 21st, 2010 at 2:18 pm Reply:
Hey Jason, I checked out your site, really nice music! Just was wondering why you were switching to ASCAP from BMI. I’ve considered doing the opposite, so would be interested to hear your reason(s).
[Reply]
I had a song played on Today Show, twice. I didn’t know it until it showed up on my PRO statement. I don’t know how they got the song, I never sent it to them, and the only library that might have it would be Pump Audio. If they sent it to them, they(Pump) would have re-titled, so I would not have gotten the publishing amount, but I did get writers and publishers royalties. Good royalties for each spin too. It is a mystery to me.
[Reply]
guscave, August 25th, 2010 at 9:01 am Reply:
Hey EV, That’s good news. Always nice to get those surprise checks in the mail. Is there any other library or publisher that you have the song signed to that could’ve pitched it to the Today Show?
[Reply]
There is a publishing company that holds 25% of the publishing on this song but I doubt that they did it, not on good terms with them right now, they would do me no favours.
[Reply]