I think I solved the retitle issue. :-)

[Desire Inspires]

One thing I recently learned about BMI and ASCAP is that titles really do not matter. Each time a song is registered, a new Work ID is formed.

I could register the same title with me as the songwriter and a different publisher for each version. The work ID would be unique to that particular registration.

Music libraries and publishers should use the work ID instead of the song title to add to a cue sheet. That Work ID is as unique as DNA. That alone would solve all retitle issues

Thoughts?

[Mark Petrie]

Problem is, who fills out the cue sheet? Almost always it’s the editor or post production supervisor (or their assistants). So the number would have to used in the file naming, instead of a track name. Libraries know that a good title is key to getting a track used – they wouldn’t want a faceless number instead of a track name. What would you rather listen to: ‘Freedom Fighters’ or ‘00001233421’?

[Advice]

I really don’t see how this would solve some of the problems we’ve discussed many times including:

Multiple blanket deals paid for by production companies/networks that contain the same tracks– inefficient use of time and money.

Some music supervisors being concerned about who actually owns the copyright/rights to the tracks they are using— they don’t want conflicts, legal claims, etc.

I’m not at all against non-exclusive re-title as a composer… Just re-stating some of the issues that have been brought up by the users of our music.

🙂

 

 

[Desire Inspires]

Those issues are great. But why are they issues? Because people are confused by title names. Song titles alone do not differentiate a song from one another. If you type in the song title “I Love You” and search using the BMI search engine, you get over 4,000 responses. Did all of those guys infringe on someone else? No. But the work ID for each song is unique.

Those that are opposed to retitling will not accept any solution except to avoid it. Others that are on the fence can solve the problem by using the work ID to check the songwriter and publisher info at BMI and ASCAP.

Title names are not of the utmost importance. I have many songs licensed that read “______ Cues”. This happens with non-exclusive and exclusive libraries that handle a large volume of music for a show. For example, a library can have 50 tracks licensed to a show that reads “Reality TV Show Cues”. Each registration would have the same title. Each registration would also have the same publisher. But the songwriter for each song would be different. How would someone make sense of that? By using the Work ID assigned by the PRO.

“Exclusivity” does not prevent any legal issues anyway. It just makes the paperwork easier. Infringement, whether intentional or unintentional, can happen regardless. One uncleared sample would technically be considered copyright infringement.

[Advice]

“Exclusivity” does not prevent any legal issues anyway. It just makes the paperwork easier. Infringement, whether intentional or unintentional, can happen regardless. One uncleared sample would technically be considered copyright infringement.

We always need to look at this through the eyes of the consumers of our music, not through composer’s eyes. Sometimes, it’s easy to think about what’s convenient for us which (unfortunately) doesn’t hold all that much weight.

Work IDs are no more unique than re-titles. Every registration has both it’s re-title and work ID that represent that instance of that track as registered with that library. None of the problems of repeat tracks among blanket deals, conflicting claims, etc. would be solved. One could argue that similar titles in re-titling is a problem but think about all the errors that could be caused by 1 digit being off in a work ID on a cue sheet? WAY more error prone. And expecting libraries to send out tracks to sups titled with long numbers instead of descriptive names? Well, that won’t fly either.

Exclusivity, of course, doesn’t prevent a copyright infringement claim. We’re not even talking about copyright infringement. We’re talking about a track being placed and more than one library/publisher claiming that the placement belongs to them. That puts the production company and music sup in a bad position which can also be costly in legal fees.

Exclusivity means it is very unlikely that such a conflict will arise. In fact, it should never happen unless the composer outright violated contracts and signed the same track to multiple exclusives. The odds of that are very tiny compared it being very possible with non-exclusive re-titles.

I don’t want to come off as anti-non-exclusive. That’s not at all where I’m coming from. Just putting the issues out there as I’ve heard them.

[Tv composer guy]

I still think the jingle punks & crucial musics version of retitling is how it always should have been done, with a prefix or JP in the title.

It is ridiculous for the libraries to fight over who got what placement. I’m pretty sure the music supervisor knows who gave them the cue & they will fill out the cue sheet accordingly.

The argument that production houses are paying too many blanket license fees is a little redundant now too as most blanket deals these days are gratis or very close to it.

[Desire Inspires]

The argument that production houses are paying too many blanket license fees is a little redundant now too as most blanket deals these days are gratis or very close to it.

Yes. Some companies give away access to the catalog just for all of the backend to be earned. I think that networks themselves have contributed to the demise of sync fees. They wanted music cheaply. Now they complain that they are getting the same music over and over.
But I do not worry about it too much. I know that exclusive libraries also retitle songs. Sometimes they split the publishing of the song with the company or network that licenses the music. Music publishers sometimes retitle a song and split the publishing with the TV network. I know that the A&E network has publishing units.
Another surprise: I recently discovered that Procter & Gamble has music publishing units. This company makes Tide, Gillette, Vicks, Febreze, Downy, Crest, and many other consumer products. But they use music in their commercials. They figure, “hey, why not monetize our commercials”.
It is all about leverage.

[Author]

Posts