- This topic has 10 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
How do you define exclusivity? Do some libraries define a track as ‘exclusive’ if they represent all the versions of that track (like publishing) – or do some libraries consider ‘exclusive’ as meaning a version of a track (e.g. a remix). So in the second example you could effectively have the same track in different exclusive libraries if the remix was sufficiently different. If it’s ultimately down to digital fingerprinting, then a remix with different instrument levels/sounds would generally create a different fingerprint.
The definition of Jingle Punks or other libraries exclusive contract lies within the wording of their contracts. There is no one absolute definition. It can mean forever, for a fixed-term or until a certain level is reached . Sometimes they allow you to pitch your music via your own website. It depends.
However in general an exclusive contract gives the publisher/library an exclusive right to license to a third party the recording (master) and the composition for a fee. These two things are linked in this scenario. I don’t think that in an exclusive contract you can just remix the master. The composition has not changed and that is still under the exclusive control of the library/publisher you have signed with.
In the traditional publishing world the composition and the master are handled separately by a publishing company (composition) and a record company ( master ). In this scenario of you want to use a U2 track and it’s master recording you need permission from two sources. If however you want just to use the composition, the publishers consent is all that is required. I am talking in general terms here.
MichaelL will give a much more consise answer but I think remixing an existing track to sign to different exclusive libraries would be fraught with danger. However it may be a question how different it is. Could a gazoo version of an orchestral piece be acceptable. Mmm interesting discussion.
@Exclusive, I’m going to give you a standard lawyer answer…”it depends.”
There is no single definition, like a statute, that defines the meaning of exclusive in the context to which your are referring. What is meant by exclusive may differ from library to library. The term should be defined in the library’s contract. If not, you should ask for clarification.
The fundamental issue is whether you are granting exclusivity to the sound recording or to the underlying composition. This is the kind of thing that lawyers will argue about until hell freezes over.
My personal opinion is that you are granting a time-limited exclusive license in the sound recording. That said, it is also my personal opinion that alternate mixes are not enough to constitute an new track that could be licensed freely elsewhere, because they are derived from the sound recording.
On the other hand, in this vague twilight world, in which “libraries” are actually licensing agents, not paying for your work, and no transfer of copyright occurs,  alternate arrangements/orchestrations may be fair game, if they completely change the character of the work, in this case the sound recording. For example, if I wrote a classical style string quartet and put it “exclusively” into a no-money upfront library, I wouldn’t think twice about putting a dubstep arrangement of the same composition elsewhere.
You should:
1) ask the library and,
2) have your lawyer read the contract
Cheers,
Michael
I will now set out to do dub step versions of my entire catalogue !!!!!!
Thanks Michael for your response. The important point is read the contract and if you don’t understand it, take it to someone who does.
Even stranger is this, which is a piano version of a Skrillex tune which I think is remarkable.
Original above.
Kind of goes with the idea of the same composition done in radically different ways, re exclusivity.
The way ‘exclusive’ contracts look to me – which are often called ‘work for hire’ agreements, is that the ownership of the music is signed over. Changing just the arrangement, or merely re-recording the music wouldn’t normally be considered a separate piece that you then own, unless… the deal is merely for the ‘masters’ of the music. I’ve signed deals before for films where they owned the recordings as made for the film (the master recordings), but I was free to re-record the music and I would then own those recordings, and the copyright 100%.