- This topic has 24 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Aha. I’ve been wondering the same thing as Composer-of-Notes and get it now. So, a high-end client can pay to have the track exclusively for a period. This makes sense.
It seems to follow that the top-end exclusive-use deals can only be made by exclusive libraries. Would this be a good reason for signing music on an exclusive deal? Presumably NE libraries cannot offer exclusive use to their clients.
This seems much cheaper than contacting a lawyer. I’ve been offered a few exclusive deals. Is it typical for the library to permanently own the tracks upon an exclusive agreement? One indicated this, although offered me 2,000 up front for the deal. I’ll have to ask the non-exclusive library to remove the tracks I want to submit.
I could be wrong, but I would imagine that from a supervisor’s point of view, exclusive libraries would be more valuable and hold more weight. The “this is the only place you can get this track” deal. Of course, I could be dead wrong. So far I only have tracks in exclusive libraries, not intentionally, but because that’s just how it worked out. If I ever do sign with a non-ex, I probably would treat it as exclusive anyway so I don’t have the same song out there a bunch of times under different titles. It just seems that if I did that, I’d be competing against (and undercutting) myself.
Thanks for the response. I’ve established a relationship with someone through Italy on a NX basis. They’ve really come through for me (of course I’m hoping they benefit as well!) I’d rather just stick with them. Text book is to diversify, although they’ve been getting me placements.
Yep, I also hear that it’s best to diversify. Some favor exclusive deals, other favor non-exclusive, some favor a combination of both. To each his own! Btw, I’m not an attorney or anything, and this isn’t legal advice 🙂
How about when a company like Scorekeepers gives away your exclusive music to Scripps and you get nothing? As the exclusive admin isn’t it their duty to protect our rights and collect on our behalf?
This is where it becomse REALLY important to differentiate between traditional “Work For Hire” exclsuive contracts and the libraries to whom composers just give their music on an exclusive basis.
There’s a difference.
Scorekeepers?! I just received correspondence from them. Glad I saw this post. Good timing.
A high end track that licenses non-exclusively (the library is the sole owner, but is licensing the track to whoever will pay) for trailers might go for $25,000, but if a movie studio wants a track exclusive for a year, i.e. no other trailer using it, then the fee could be upwards of $75,000.
but this is the part i dont quite understand. if you are a client who is looking to push a new ad campaign surely the most important thing is that the campaign is unique. therefore you would want an exclusive track from a library that cant be used by every other client shopping at that library. what would be the point of both coca cola and pepsi both loving the same exclusive track and both choosing the same great track for their campaign’s. would this not just p**s them both off big style? so would the approach of the library not be to push the exclusivity of a track at every client with the hope of one of them opting for one of these 1 year buy outs where no other customer could use the track? with the 50/50 split between publisher & composer would this not result in more lucrative bigger deals than just offering the same exclusive track at a much lower price to anyone who is interested in buying it.
@Danny Not everybody is Coca Cola or Pepsi… Not everybody wants to spend tens of thousands of dollars for every song they license.