Exclusive vs. Non-Exclusive Strategy?

Home Forums General Questions Exclusive vs. Non-Exclusive Strategy?


Viewing 10 posts - 21 through 30 (of 288 total)
  • Author
  • #8931 Reply

    What happens with re-titling is that composers are entering into multiple deals that look like sub-publishing, only they are giving up their publisher’s share, and deals are limited. 

    That should only they (writers) are giving up their publishing share, and the deals are not limited in scope.

    #8932 Reply

    MichaelL, I understand what you saying. I know A&E will only use the music for their shows, but it is still under a new title for the same piece of music. So when fingerprinting will be the only way to determine the publisher for that piece of music, then those titles for this Extreme/A&E sub publishing deal will not longer be valid. PRO’s will have to invent another way to do it (don’t they?), and if they do, then re-titling non-exclusive libraries will be able to use it too.

    If not, how they will do a sub-publishing deals? The only way I can think about is that they will program the system so that each time a cue is getting played on A&E, then lets say, 50% of the publishing goes to A&E publishing company.

    #8933 Reply

    music pro, in a best case scenario fingerprinting would only be used to detect performances and cue sheets would still be used to identify usage and  rights holders for those performances.

    As I discovered during my switch from ASCAP to BMI, ASCAP missed at least 75% of my performances because my shows are syndicated and run during odd day parts.

    Remember cue sheets only tell your pro that your music was used in a given show. Air date and time information (performance data) is completely different. That information is not on the cue sheet. ASCAP’s method of gather ing performance data, the second half of the equation can be problematic. I’m sure that BMI is not perfect. But my experience is that they are far more accurate at detecting performances.

    S0…in a perfect world: the PROS would still use cue sheets for usage and publisher information AND they would use fingerprinting to gather performance data. Under that scenario, it doesn’t matter that digital detection can’t identify the publisher. All it needs to do is detect the proper number of performances, dates, times, and shows.

    Implemented that way, re-titling could continue as is…IMHO.


    #8934 Reply

    Thank you MichaelL. I didn’t know that! every day you learn something new. So I really hope it will be just like you said, a hybrid of both. Also, yes, BMI is not perfect either. If it was perfect I probably had quit my job a year ago 🙂

    #8935 Reply

    I think the “elephant in the room” as they say, will be the issue of network blanket payments and gratis licensing, which results in Networks paying multiple times for the same music.

    It’s quite possible that the PRO’s would reduce what they charge the Networks for blanket licenses, to compensate for the redundancy, which could then result in lower royalties to composers.


    #8936 Reply
    Art Munson

    S0…in a perfect world: the PROS would still use cue sheets for usage and publisher information AND they would use fingerprinting to gather performance data.

    In a more perfect world all the data would be embedded in the performance and automatically transmitted to the PROs.

    #8937 Reply

    But wait a minute, I think the networks should sit quiet. They are getting tons of music without paying sync fees. If they will pay PRO’s less money and royalties will get much smaller, composers will not going to give them gratis cues so easily, so eventually they gonna pay more, I hope they know it too.

    #8938 Reply
    Tv composer guy

    I also think the elephant in the room is gratis blanket deals. We arent the ones negiotiating these deals, the libraries are. Down here in Australia, the price of licensing library music is regulated & controlled by our PRO APRA. The licensing fee for any track is the same from whichever library the track is bought from. If i recall correctly, the licensing fees are paid to APRA & are then distributed to each library.

    Maybe there should have been something similar in place in America, or maybe if the non exclusive libraries had just retained their cut of licensing fees/blanket deals & not double dipped by taking the publishers share of royalties also, we would not be seeing the erosion of licensing fees & the common practice of gratis blanket deals. These libraries can afford to offer gratis blanket deals as they are still getting paid on the back end & not paying any money for the music they represent. 

    Again, this is a perfect world senario….


    #8939 Reply

    In a more perfect world all the data would be embedded in the performance and automatically transmitted to the PROs.

    I have to wonder why the re-titling libraries don’t form an organization, like the PMA, to set standards for themselves, and for writers. More importantly, I wonder why they don’t band together to develop and promote the technology suggested above, that would preserve their business model. Perhaps they don’t look at the “big picture” as much, and /or consider the common good of the industry.


    #8940 Reply

    Thanks for all the input.

    Mark: By

    My NE library is tied up for up to 5 years,

    I meant that I can’t pull all my tracks and go exclusive next year if fingerprinting comes to pass and is a problem for composers… the library many of my tracks are in is a 5-year NE deal.

    From what I can glean from this thread thus far, both the NE and E models in their various permutations can work for writers.  Some like Coke, some Pepsi.  And there’s nothing fatal about drinking both from time to time.



Viewing 10 posts - 21 through 30 (of 288 total)
Reply To: Reply #8936 in Exclusive vs. Non-Exclusive Strategy?
Your information: