Should I Sign With A ReTitle Library?

x
Bookmark
GD Star Rating
loading...

Chris Jones recently wrote an article about re-titling over at SonicScoop. I thought it would be of interest to many and Chris kindly gave us permission to re-post it here.

By Chris Jones

With master recording licensing and synchronization now being the current revenue-generating and promotional system in the music industry, we see all the traditional recording exploitation boundaries disappearing.

Music libraries take on scoring gigs, produce artists/songwriters, and ad work while maintaining their catalogs of TV-ready production music. Record labels seem to be fully hitched to omni-lateral licensing pie, artist-endorsed ad campaigns, single tie-ins, whatever. Add the quick-and-easy factor of digital delivery AND soon-to-be ubiquitous audio recognition tech AND deeper metadata AND the slippery slope of what passes as acceptable quality both audio- and video-wise AND this is America, the land of excess. Production = bigger and faster, but not always better.

Point: The “production music” pool is one big pattern-recognizing server of every kind of gang. It’s all our turf. Can you dig it?

One of these “gangs” or business models in production music specific publishers is the re-title library or (to illustrate points using metaphor and acronym) “inert” libraries. It’s a (typically) Independent Non-Exclusive ReTitle music library that will rep your catalog after they give your (only) master a unique title. The library then registers that unique title to their PRO (be it ASCAP, BMI, et al.) as that titles’ “publisher” and can then go forward and collect future performance royalties on said title and also collect any other fees (direct license, sync) associated with licensing. From the research I’ve done, this model has the composer world polarized yet unified in one aspect: we seem to be waiting for the other shoe to drop.”

On the surface, one would think: What’s to lose? I have tons of crap sitting on my drive doing nothing for nobody no-how. If someone can make me money and wants to take 50% please be my guest. And it’s non-exclusive? Even better. I’ll look up every re-title library and get cracking. Man, I am sitting on a f*****g gold mine.

So, should I sign with an inert library? That question creates more questions and that is the universal choking sign of a deal to me. I agree that the inert model could be a positive way to crowd-source useful, high-quality, and (most importantly) available masters. But I speak from the viewpoint of a composer that has a specific agenda of producing a high volume of library music for the big exclusive Production Music Association (PMA) libs in addition to what I’ll call “custom” music like songwriting, sound design for composers, remixing, whatever.

There are many ways to poke holes in the inert model, but let’s start with imminent ubiquity of audio pattern recognition technology. BMI acquired BlueArrow almost 5 years ago, and ASCAP has been working on Mediaguide since 2002. These are technologies and services that give your audio/masters a fingerprint via audio analysis, not traditional watermarking (which is hit-or-miss and distorts the file). The tech then monitors broadcasts looking for matches. Soon (the sooner the better) all broadcasts are going to be monitored with this robotic vigilance. Unfailing accuracy. Amid endless dirty AM radio ads, it will be searching for your singularly unique combination of digital DNA. Wait, what-the? This track has 5 titles and 5 publishers…the robot computes.

I’m curious how that’s going to work.

Plus, I thought the whole idea in business was to be exclusive. Where’d that go?

So I send this stupid breakbeat track called “A” to inert lib A. Inert lib A registers “A” to ASCAP as publisher. Already I’m uncomfortable. I send the same exact file to inert lib B. All the way to f*****g Z. I have 26 people claiming to publish my tracks? Are they all undercutting each other or is there a standardized fee? The fee is nothing because you gave sync away in lieu of the slow buck? You just gave away my 50% of shared sync but I guess the contract says you are publisher so you have that right. Oh and the gig was non-broadcast so there is no slow buck. No buck at all.

Oh well I’ll see money on the back end.

Holy s**t, there are 50,000 tracks on this drive! The editor, overhearing my subconscious italics, says 50,000 is way too much b*****t to wade through and goes back to cutting a backend-less corporate video. Then he looks closer. He’s p****d because it’s the same 50,000 tracks the guy from inert lib G left last week. He went through a random 100 or so and they all sucked so he figured they all must suck. Therefore, all inert libs must suck, he thinks. No wonder he waived sync. To charge would have been criminal and there’s no way he paid for this music.

I only have 25 tracks on that drive. I hope the users find them. Back-end may not enter the picture because there’s tons of s**t you never see called non-broadcast. It’s all front-end. So if they waive sync I’m screwed. If they direct license I’ll do better at .0002%, unless it’s .0002% of zero.

I hope A-Z keep tabs on the reporting process. I hope the drives aren’t circulating. I hope an exclusive deal on a track doesn’t come along because that would mean having to turn down a lot of money. I wonder if I could call every editor in the world that FTP-posted or p2ped my slutty one-offs and say, “I own the copyright on these masters and I want to sell them.” Seems like inert libs and their supporters wave the flag on “copyright control.” But how do you retain total control if your choice to sell exclusive is removed? Note: I worked with one inert model that had an “OK to buy” option but again…how could you repo that master if it’s in A-Z and beyond? I fear being the real publisher of these types of masters for these exact scenarios of potential ass-biting to be honest.

So, no, I don’t like it. I want people selling my stuff like they own it because they do. If you own music and want to re-purpose it please do. But why not re-cut it into expected TV format and sell it to a proper exclusive library with sales, search, and broadcast (back-end) clients? Refuse to re-cut because you “channelled” something or claim “it would just feel like murder”? You are a precious lazy b*****d. It’s a reject of some kind. That’s why it’s sitting on your drive. Slap some make-up on and make a :30. If you get frustrated because you cannot re-cut a through-composed orchestral film score, just think what a TV editor will say.

Regardless of what type of library model you love or hate, consider this: you still have to go away and make amazing tracks appear out of thin air every day. None of these arguments apply to composers that are unaware of their music’s failure to meet the creative and technical requirements to be broadcast in the 21st century.

Should I Sign With A ReTitle Library?, 9.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

310 thoughts on “Should I Sign With A ReTitle Library?

  1. Hey Art,

    I can’t wait to hear your take on last nights panel.

  2. Robin and I attended the PMA meeting on “Non-exclusive libraries and re-titling” last night. I’ll have a report later.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Here’s my concern with re-titling. Say you sign a song called “Street Love” with a library. They re-title it as “Love on E Street”, and send you all the information showing they’ve registered the new title with the PRO. You can actually go online and see the new title on your PRO’s website.

    However, what’s to stop this library from re-titling it again under a 3rd title (ex: “Blind Love”), keeping you completely out of the loop? No license fee, no back-end royalties. Unless someone told you or you heard the song buried in the back of some commercial, you would never know that your song is generating revenue that you are not receiving.

    I’m not saying this is happening and I’m sure most libraries are not so unscrupulous, but the possibility of it happening is there, and that alone is reason enough for me to think twice about signing songs to re-titling libraries.

    Or maybe I’m missing something…

    • You could sign with a company who does not re-title and they could do the same thing. One of the reasons I have a Tunesat account.

      • Art, can I ask – do you sell your music on any Royalty Free websites?

        If so, how does Tunesat work if you don’t know where the person who is using your music has bought it from?

        ie. if you see from Tunesat that someone used your music on a tv show, surely they can just say “yea I bought it from x Royalty Free site, so I’m not paying you any royalties” – how can you differentiate with usages?

    • Gael MacGregor says:

      Nope, Anon,

      You’re not missing a thing.

      That’s exactly what DOES happen in some cases, and the way many of those agreements are worded, the composers are giving libraries the right to re-purpose the music any way the company wants.

      It’s even gone beyond that — and is the subject of controversy regarding use of composers’ works & recordings in productions outside of the programs for which the music was created (sorta like the whole AFM re-use thing — where you hafta pay additional money [that's supposed to go to the musicians] if the tracks are used outside of the scope of the job/recording for which they were initially paid).

      • “(sorta like the whole AFM re-use thing — where you hafta pay additional money [that's supposed to go to the musicians] if the tracks are used outside of the scope of the job/recording for which they were initially paid).”

        That works quite well. I have gotten a number good sized re-use checks for a hit I played on many years ago that has ended up in films and commercials. Each new use, ka-ching!

      • Wow, I was only speculating that this “COULD” happen, but if I understand your post correctly, this “IS” happening. Give me a whole new perspective on things.

        Art, you’re right that this could also happen with exclusive deals. I guess the only way to protect ourselves is with services like Tunesat.

  4. I have a question. As a noob to this whole production music field, I’ve carefully selected 3 non-exclusive libraries (that don’t seem to be in obvious direct competition though that’s not easy to ascertain) based a lot on what I’ve read on this site. I’ve put the same music into each of them with the intent that over the next 12 months the one that creates the best financial outcome for me will get to keep the tracks and I will pull duplicates from the other libraries. In the meantime, I will be pitching to some quality exclusive libraries with other tracks.

    Is this is a bad idea? I realise I will get quite a range of responses but I would like to consider pros and cons of this approach.

    Thanks for any replies.

    • Good idea!

      Make sure you do the trial with enough tracks – just a handful of tracks is probably not a fair test for the royalty free libraries – you’ll do better with some websites when you have a lot of tracks in their catalog. If someone’s looking for music, comes across yours and is blown away, they may very well browse through all the tracks you’ve uploaded and decide to buy a good number of them. Same goes for royalties based libraries – I know for sure that one particular network TV show (that uses a library I contribute to) discovered that I was a pretty reliable source of big dramatic tracks. I’ve got about 100 tracks in this library of over 5000 tracks, but the show keeps coming back to my stuff when they need that particular sound.

      The other reason it pays to upload a lot is some royalty free libraries (like Audiosparx for example) reward you by featuring you on their homepage.