- This topic has 69 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 9 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
That’s just great advice TV composer guy. You simply nailed it! and I will go one step further and just come right out and say that I know exactly what these manipulative and calculated publishers are up to and I am not going to fall into their mouse trap.
It’s real simple ladies and gentlemen, if you give up an asset forever (your music composition) you better put a price tag on it. Non-exclusive makes sense and is fair to both parties. Business relationships have to be a win – win situation. Once it becomes “I win no matter what, you may lose” situation…you just have to pass on the deal. And that is what these exclusive contracts look like to me…publisher wins, you lose. What do you lose? Well…you lose control of your own intellectual property. For free.
Additionally, Exclusive libraries, too, get involved in shady, twisted deals where things get manipulated and twisted and retitled so 2 publishers can earn royalties, or the writer gets pressured into giving their shares away to make the deal happen.
In it’s simplest terms non-exclusive means this: We (Publisher) will bring to market and attempt to sell and generate revenue and royalties for your works, but in turn we will earn 50% of those royalties as publisher, and retain 50% of the license fees we collect. As the writer you still have the opportunity to privately sell your music yourself to any client that you may encounter or on any market available to you.
This is fair and everyone knows it, yet there are still composers some how, some way, justifying in their minds that it’s OK to sign these exclusive contracts. I simply see no advantage. If you can convince me otherwise, I’d enjoy hearing your perspective.
Also, just remember we weren’t the ones who started retitling, it was the libraries. They saw an easy loophole & duped the production companies with their oversized catalogs & duped the composers into signing these bogus deals… I don’t think that the production companies even knew in the beginning they were getting twice/thrice/ten times the same track.
The libraries then go into panic mode when they get found out & say we are now focusing on exclusive & only exclusive tracks will get pitched to exclusive opportunities. Has anyone yet got a track that they signed exclusive used for an ‘exclusive opportunity’? From what I have read from most of your responses, you are all hesitant to sign these new exclusive deals, some saying they have only signed a couple ‘to test the water’ others saying they are steering clear of it for now. Ask yourself if you truly feel comfortable signing these new deals & if you don’t, then refuse to sign them.
The end users aren’t telling the libraries to go exclusive, they just want to know that they aren’t wasting their time thinking they are listening to a new track when they have already heard it 5 times before under different names.
Non exclusive works fine if the titles are the same with a prefix at the end. The production companies don’t care if a track is non exclusive, if it’s a good track it will get used.
Don’t give away all your rights to your music, you created it, its YOUR product. if you get an opportunity to sell your music to an end user directly, you shouldn’t have to split it with someone else who had no part in the transaction. Can you imagine Apple selling a computer from it’s store online & then another shop that also sells apple computers saying they want 1/2 of the profits, even though they had nothing to do with the transaction? Absolutely ridiculous…
some saying they have only signed a couple ‘to test the water’
I have no problem with testing the waters.
I’ve always believed that keeping ones copyright is sacred. The two exclusive deals that I’m talking about have reversion clauses. There’s an old saying: “No risk, no reward” so I’m willing to take this very small risk.
FWIW to anybody else out there…
I’m making over $100K in royalties this year from non-exclusive library placements. 99% of those placements are cable, not network.
To be on the safe side, though:
– I’ve started to treat the non-exclusives as exclusive (i.e. not putting the same track in multiple libraries)
– I’ve started to branch out into exclusive territoryI don’t see any signs of non-exclusive libraries dying out any time soon, but it doesn’t hurt to plan for things that may come in the future.
FWIW to anybody else out there…
I’m making over $100K in royalties this year from non-exclusive library placements. 99% of those placements are cable, not network.
Wow, that is awesome!
I am not there yet, not even close. But I have noticed that over 90% of my income is derived from blanket cable royalties.
Great thread!
I have had a big drop in NE placements this year after two years of steady gains with a popular library (J) that is now pushing Exclusive only. My placements seem to have peaked in Dec 2012. New cue sheets have dropped to a trickle.
18 months ago I started with another popular NE library (S). They too began pushing exclusive in mid 2012.
I decided to raise my level of risk and submitted most of my new stuff exclusively to them for a few months. So far nothing to show for my risk.
This year I went back to NE with a smattering of E as I continue to test the waters.
I also added a few new RF sites this months.
For me it’s still too early to tellSome quick legal thoughts:
As the creator of your works, you own the copyright and control the whole bundle of rights thats goes along with that. When you sign an “exclusive” deal with formerly non-exclusive libraries, if you are not transferring the copyright (you shouldn’t) you still own and control your music. At best, your are granting the library a perpetual exclusive license to represent the music in question.
There has been some talk of reversion clauses, which sounds like an automatic threshold / time arrangement. What I’d prefer to see is a revocation clause, which allows either party to say, this isn’t working out, and the agrement is terminated in 6 months / 2 Quarters (like the PROs). In fact, unless there is some clause in the contract that specifically makes the license irrevocable, there really should be nothing to prevent a composer from revoking, upon giving adequate notice. Remember you still own your music.
As far as the legalities of “non-exclusive” go, there’s nothing sinister about the owner of intellectual property granting multiple non-exclusive licenses in that property. It’s a fairly common practice for many forms of intellectual property. Multiple exclusive licenses would be a problem, as would multiple copyright registrations. But…it’s worth noting that the copyright office allows you to register multiple titles for the same works, and the PRO’s allow you to register alternate titles, as well.
So…at this moment I tend to agree that the exclusive v. non-exclusive controversy appears to be for the convenience of some clients.
AND…when /if the PROs implement digital recognition, the one thing they will know for sure with respect to non-exclusive music is who the composer/copyright owner is. Conceivably, in the event of a controversy regarding publishing rights, the default position of the PROS might be to award the publisher’s share to the writer, the one verifiable rights holder. That possibility, perhaps more than any other, may be at the root of the shift toward exclusive. I mean imagine doing all that work and not getting paid for it…oh wait, maybe you can. 😉_Michael
Just a quick aside as regards publishing splits in the world outside of library music.
In the “normal” music publishing world I have come across two types of deals exclusive and admin.
Exclusive means you sign away the control of the copyright forever for a fee with advances set out at various degrees. 50/50 is the worst split, most are better than that.
Admin. means you hire a company to administer your publishing, collect and chase money, promote etc for a percentage. 20% being average. There is no upfront fee or advance.
NE who libraries retitle just administer your catalogue that is with them. It always amazes me that a 50/50 split is seemed the norm and accepted.
EMusicMan@, congrats! Can I ask approximately how many tracks you have out there and in what genres? Thanks!
this moment I tend to agree that the exclusive v. non-exclusive controversy appears to be for the convenience of some clients.
AND…when /if the PROs implement digital recognition, the one thing they will know for sure with respect to non-exclusive music is who the composer/copyright owner is. Conceivably, in the event of a controversy regarding publishing rights, the default position of the PROS might be to award the publisher’s share to the writer, the one verifiable rights holder. That possibility, perhaps more than any other, may be at the root of the shift toward exclusive.Even if/when the PROs decide to use digital recognition, cue sheets will still need to be filled out, as there would have to be some kind of paper trail, as people have found out with tunesat, it is not 100% accurate. Also, what happens if the electronic system is down for a day? There goes hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of royalties with noone knowing who to pay, you can’t rely 100% on technology.
NE who libraries retitle just administer your catalogue that is with them. It always amazes me that a 50/50 split is seemed the norm and accepted.
This is exactly what I think as well. These libraries aren’t technically ‘publishers’, they are essentially just selling a license to use our music. The deal should have always been just a split on the licensing fee. Why do they also get 50% of royalties? A cinema does not get a share of royalties from each movie ticket they sell, iTunes doesn’t get a share of royalties when they sell a song, they all take a share of the sale & that’s it. Music libraries that don’t have a financial stake in the recorded works should have no entitlement to take any share of royalties. This is why licensing fees have eroded, because the music libraries didn’t invest in their products that they can afford to give it away for free, because they would get paid on the back end.
Music libraries that don’t have a financial stake in the recorded works should have no entitlement to take any share of royalties. This is why licensing fees have eroded, because the music libraries didn’t invest in their products that they can afford to give it away for free, because they would get paid on the back end.
Is there anything that can be done about this now?
Music libraries that don’t have a financial stake in the recorded works should have no entitlement to take any share of royalties. This is why licensing fees have eroded, because the music libraries didn’t invest in their products that they can afford to give it away for free, because they would get paid on the back end.
Is there anything that can be done about this now?
I don’t know…. Idealistically I’d like to say yes, but realistically it is probably no. I’d be happy if the industry just drew a line in the sand & us composers are not forced into exclusive deals. To me it is unethical to force people to sell their products in an exclusive arrangement, it is a little anti competition.
I know that the end users (music supervisors) want the best for musicians as if it wasn’t for us, they wouldn’t even have a job. Most music supervisors I have worked with have always had some kind of budget for a license fee, even if it was only a couple of hundred per track, they always made sure the composer got paid something…..
So I ask the question who is benefitting from the exclusive issue? Yes it makes the libraries/production companies jobs easier, but if it makes this industry a pennies game for composers, eventually all the good composers will leave the industry. If the music library industry goes completely exclusive, then I know I’m out, that is the last straw for me, I’m sick of getting screwed in this industry. I would love if other composers actually thought about the point of view I am putting across & agreed that enough is enough.
Think about what happens next, if all agreements become exclusive. Will the norm in a couple of years time be to split the writers share with the library because the production company want the publishers share? This already happens in some cases as I have been asked to do this in some situations, as I am sure everyone on here who has tracks signed to certain libraries have also been asked the same question. This is completely unethical & I would think also illegal.
I agree with TV Composer Guy, and anyone else who has said something similar, that it is a slippery slope – things that would not have been acceptable a few years ago are not given a second thought now, and that will be true another few years from now as well.
Attempting to create laws or alliances to combat these problems is far-fetched, but one thing that any individual can do is: just don’t pollute your own ecosystem.
By that I mean, try to consider how a deal you make now may adversely effect the future market of everyone’s music, including your own.
I think if we are going to criticize libraries for creating re-titling and this situation with the same tracks in many libraries, we have to at least accept our share of the responsibility if we, as composers, put our tracks in multiple libraries.
I did plenty of that, still do with older tracks, but I am cautious with newer material. So I’m as “guilty” as anyone else, for lack of a better word.
I’m not talking about putting a track in both an RF library that doesn’t really do much broadcast work and a conventional library that pitches TV. They are in very different markets.
Let’s not blame the libraries for creating this situation without acknowledging the role composers played.
Let’s not blame the libraries for creating this situation without acknowledging the role composers played.
Yes we composers also agreed to it & are also to blame, but think of it this way as well, if you were an inexperienced composer with no credits (we all were once) & you’re offered a publishing deal with a library that has plenty of credits & you are told that it is an industry norm to retile your tracks, I would say 99.99 out of every 100 composers would say ok. I know I did & pretty much everyone on this forum did as well. Musicians typically are not business savvy & are easily taken advantage of, most do not know (or care) what most of the legal jargon in a publishing contract actually means.
Retitling is just lazy & deceptive to the end user. Like I have stated before, there should not be a problem with non exclusive if the titles stay the same, with a prefix at the end.
- The topic ‘Non exclusive to exclusive’ is closed to new replies.