Retitling cues to signify change in ownership

[ypb2857]

I know retitling is generally frowned upon, especially by the PMA and the bigger, more successful music libraries.

Is retitling kosher when a piece of instrumental music has changed owners?

For example, let’s say that Great Song was under exclusive contract to Library A. Great Song’s publishing was (partially or fully) acquired by Library A too. Now, the contract between composer and Library A has lapsed, and composer elects to remove Great Song from Library A, and follows the contract to the letter to withdraw it legally.

Now Great Song belongs to the composer again. But let’s say the composer strikes a deal or a relationship with a new exclusive library, Library B. Before listing the song with Library B, might it actually be prudent to retitle it as Fantastic Song so that it’s entirely separate from its previously known incarnation at Library A?

My instinct tells me it might actually be wise to do this, thereby sidestepping any issues where Great Song has to have its ownership changed (e.g. at a PRO). The only place it might be an issue might be with any of the fingerprinting sites, who might flag a usage of Great Song, and then Library B may also register it as Fantastic Song, and the fingerprinting site could flag both (though only if Library A has been lax in removing it, which we hope they haven’t since they no longer have legal rights to it).

Thoughts?

[Author]

Posts