- This topic has 75 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
1) The re-title contracts don’t really obligate the library to the composer
A chance that all of those non-exclusive contracts would be null and void? We get all our music back unencumbered?
The PRO’s governing documents allow them to not pay composers and publishers for any reason.
Just can’t see them doing that.
I guess that’s the product of being a lawyer…to err on the side of caution.
I get that but personally, I don’t see the risk.
The show name does not ever match the infomercial. So you don’t know who did it.
Many times there are schedule changes so the show names don’t match. It should reconcile after a period of time. I listen to the detections and can usually pick up the name. Found a Subway, Footbliss and Zumu.com commercial that way. Then it’s a matter of doing some research. Calling or e-mailing the company to get the production company’s name, getting a copy of the license and commercial, e-mailing all to BMI’s jingle dept.
“That genie is out of the bottle and will be impossible to put back.”
This one made me laugh a lot Art!…
You have that right.
Genie came out of the bottle and is flying all over the universe, and genie has procreated. Hence, lots of genies are flying around the universe. My thought about all of this is this: are things really that problematic? … I mean does everyone really feel as though we’re all getting the short end of the stick? Composers and Publishers? Is re-titling really that chaotic? Are publishers really pitching the EXACT same tracks for the exact same jobs and getting into “I’ll give you a better Price” war? I’d say – Perhaps Sometimes and we simply just don’t know, No, No, and No to all of my own questions.
P.S. I have not figured out the red bar thing for quotes.
P.S. I have not figured out the red bar thing for quotes.
Just above the “Reply” box you should see a “b-quote” button. Click on that and cut and paste the text you are replying to. Now you should see a “/blockquote” button. Click that and you have surrounded your text with a blockquote tag and /blockquote tag. You can also type these tags but each tag needs to be preceded by a < and end with a >.
I have never re-titled myself, but I probably will sometime very soon. I signed the JP deal a while ago, but have not submitted any tracks yet because I`ve not made up my mind about this re-titling issue.
I know that the PRO`s have the power to make re-titling almost worthless, but I really don`t see why they should do it. Is it not the PROs job to serve the composers and publishers and make sure they get the money they deserve for their music? I don`t think it`s the PRO`s job to determine how the business should work, and I really don`t believe they will develop and trust a fingerprinting technology that will make the work of so many of their composers absolute worthless. I can see that fingerprinting will cause some problems, but I just don`t believe the solution will be to stop paying for re-titled tracks.
What concerns me the most about re-titling is that music supervisors might not want to use re-titled tracks in the future. But that`s just a guess and right now I actually think it`s worth the risk.
I think that the PROs would probably like for re-titling to go away because it is a pain with no gain for them. Kenny, since you haven’t re-titled yourself you might not have experienced this, but cues get mis-filed with the PROs (incorrect re-title publisher, for example) and have to be corrected by having the production co file corrected cue sheets and the PROs then correct that in their system. This all involves paperwork, time, phone calls, etc with no increased income for the PROs – just a shift of where the money goes. That can’t be very appealing to them as a long term issue.
If I had to guess I would say finger-printing would be phased in the same way the PRO digital databases ultimately replaced paper forms – they weren’t retroactive, but were simply a new way forward.
@Blind…someone who gets it…thank you.
Having done battle with ASCAP for well over a year, I can tell you that the PROs are not necessarily your friend. The notion that they do what’s mutually beneficial for composers and publishers and wouldn’t possibly want re-titling to go away is simply naive. Re-titling only causes them headaches, and more work, for which they do not benefit. The pie gets re-sliced but they don’t get a bigger piece.
If I had to guess I would say finger-printing would be phased in the same way the PRO digital databases ultimately replaced paper forms – they weren’t retroactive, but were simply a new way forward.
Blind is absolutely on point. I have hundreds of cues that were paper registered in the 1980’s that simply do not exist as far as ASCAP is concerned….gone, vanished, poof, not in their system. I’m OK with that because I’m registering them with BMI now, as they are re-recorded.
I can understand why songwriters (with lyrics) get all bent out of shape over this, because their catalog may not be as large, and every piece is a like jewel to them, which represents blood, sweat, tears, and probably some emotional attachment. But, for guys that compose instrumental cues, on a professional basis, and have a fairly large catalog, it makes more sense to treat libraries like JP, SK and Crucial as exclusive. It’s not that hard to modify arrangements, change the feel a little, and re-work, rather than re-title cues. Nobody is going to sue you if you put the hip hop version of cue “A” in JP and the rockabilly version in SK, with two different and very distinct titles.
I would consider doing a limited variation on self re-titling. The copyright application allows the author to register alternative titles. I would register each cue with an original title and an alternative title. I would make the alternative title very different, so there’s no possible confusion. I would put one title in the non-exclusive catalog of only one library, like JP, SK or Crucial and I would put the alternative titles in RF libraries.
As far as signing exclusively goes, again for instrumental writers, what’s the big deal? Put 50 tracks in JP, 50 in SK (and whatever Crucial might accept) and see who delivers. Don’t lament signing 100 cues exclusively. To paraphrase Nike…JUST WRITE MORE.
Cheers,
_MichaelL
Funny that Music Dealers isnt on your list,MichaelL
No particular reason. I don’t know much about them. The list was just an example. Fill in your favorite libraries.
_MichaelL
Michael,
Exclusive and Non-exclusive Publishers are the one’s retitling, not composers.
“As far as signing exclusively goes, again for instrumental writers, what’s the big deal? Put 50 tracks in JP, 50 in SK (and whatever Crucial might accept) and see who delivers. Don’t lament signing 100 cues exclusively. To paraphrase Nike…JUST WRITE MORE.”
A lot of us are doing exactly this, but we are not telling these guys to re-title…retitling is THEIR policy. I have cues in both, they are both placing my cues, in some cases the exact same show! (not same episode). This has not presented any conflicts Michael. Neither publisher has claimed a conflict or felt as though the placement should go to their pub co as opposed to the other one because it’s all been squared away and documented accurately, and reviewed properly on cue sheets!
You see how I would get screwed out of royalties and revenue if I were forced to be in one library and not the other? You see how music supervisors don’t care where they get the background cue from as long as it works for their production?
I know I don’t when I occasionally act as “buyer”. I could care less if I find a cue in Dewolfe, but then perhaps find it in Extreme…and guess what? As buyer, I am not even going to make the time to search around in multiple catalogs. I am going to find what I need in one shop and finish the project and I will not complicate the negotiations and create bidding wars with 2 or 3 libraries.
Both SK and JP make their clients sign contracts that state that they can use cues in exchange for filling out cue sheets. I have been told by these companies that the cue sheets are reviewed by JP and SK. Exactly, where is the problem?
I feel like this discussion is all about convincing ourselves that a big problem exists.
Why should a composer not be able to have their cue in a shop that has a reputation for moving cues into shows, while simultaneously have that same cue in another shop (music Dealers for example) and have it placed into a national spot for $15,000? This can and does happen folks! I am sorry, but not every company has the same clients. Why should we (composers) be denied the maximum amount of licensing revenue and royalty revenue from our most popular cues?
The answer is…. we shouldn’t…. because none of us are getting rich from this business anyway.
Why should a composer not be able to have their cue in a shop that has a reputation for moving cues into shows, while simultaneously have that same cue in another shop (music Dealers for example) and have it placed into a national spot for $15,000? This can and does happen folks!
Outside the trailer realm, very unlikely for an unknown, i.e., not famous writer, or well known song. $1,500 would be more like it.
JP said do not do this
@ Bigg Rome, if I did two different versions of the same cue you would never know it. They would be radically different sonically and harmonically. Different key, different tempo, different instruments, probably different scale structure.
But to answer your question David, I think that writers should be able to do what you way. The royalty system, as it stands, wasn’t designed for that, just like many of our highways weren’t desinged for the amount of traffic they now carry. As a result, there are traffic jams. New technology, and maybe new copyright laws, will alter the system in the future, just like widening roads. How that will effect writers who knows?
Michael, I am an “unknown” yet have been paid big budget money for big spots that I contracted myself throughout my career. Libraries can get the big bucks if they have savvy sales folks pitching a track. You are right when you say $1000 is more realistic for spots (coming from the library). However, I know of many situations where libraries have pulled in a lot more for composers, and I have actually been paid more than 1K from libraries for spots a few times now…
I Have a colleague who just pulled in 4K from a Music Dealers spot and even know about a guy who pulled in 38K for a song for Target….He is not at all a famous “known” writer.
“But to answer your question David, I think that writers should be able to do what you way.”
This statement is confusing? Grammar error?
The royalty system, as it stands, wasn’t designed for that, just like many of our highways weren’t desinged for the amount of traffic they now carry. As a result, there are traffic jams
But where I live they constantly build new and better highways, and as far as I know you are still allowed to drive old cars on all of them…. 😉
But to be serious, I don`t doubt that this is a bit messy and the PROs would like re-titling to go away. As I said I have never re-titled for various reasons. But my biggest concern is not that the PROs all of a sudden decides that they will no longer pay royalties for re-titled tracks. This will cause too much trouble for so many of their composers.
@Michael…. I do get your point and I know there is a possibility that this could happen. But personally I don`t think it will.Kenny, I don’t think anyone is saying that the PROs will suddenly stop paying for re-titled tracks (how would they even know the “original” from the “re-title” anyway?). What I am saying is that change will be gradual – an evolution over time of how they work. Basically, one day we are all going to wake up and when we register a new title at ASCAP or BMI we will be asked to upload the actual AUDIO of the track, which up to this point no PRO has ever asked for and doesn’t have on file AT ALL. (It’s going to be a blast to upload all of our audio into their databases…ugh)
That will be the beginning of the shift – everything going forward will be finger-printed, but everything prior to that date will be left as is and still paid royalties for re-runs, etc. But, when those re-runs and past re-title placements run their course, the new system of finger-printing will have supplanted the old system of cue sheets, etc. I think that it will be a hybrid approach for a long time, but eventually will change. You have to think about incentive and there isn’t a whole lot of incentive for it not to change. The production companies wouldn’t have to deal with cue sheets anymore, so they won’t complain, exclusive libraries won’t complain, non-retitling composers won’t complain, and the PROs wouldn’t have to deal with re-titling.
The only thing I can think that will slow it down is again a question of incentive: the PROs don’t really have a whole lot of incentive to quickly implement finger-printing when it’s going to be more expensive and open up other cans of worms, some unknowable and some that are easy to see, like if you have 5 libraries who have placed a single re-titled track (titles cease to mean anything b/c audio detection is all that is used) and you have no cue sheets, who gets the money? That is a painful transition that I’m sure the PROs aren’t in a hurry to face up to.
Again, I think it will all be gradual but I can’t see it not happening any more than I could imagine ASCAP never having transitioned out of a snail mail paper form system.