Yet Another ReTitling Question

[scottcampbellmusic]

Hi all,

As I may have mentioned before, I’m brand new to this biz, and this site, so if this has been covered somewhere, plz point me in the right direction! I only had the energy to get about halfway through the existing retitling threads

QUESTION: I hear a lot about LIBRARIES retitling, but, is it legal/a practice for the COMPOSER to retitle? The application would be to discourage price shopping between RF libs and a disconnect from other NON RF, NON-Exclusive libs as well as allow for a pseudonym for further separation

I’m talking strictly non-exclusive and RF(non exclusive). Exclusive libraries are exclusive, one track, one title, one library(who may choose to retitle, np), no questions.

Thanks for any pointers or experience(s).

[Art Munson]

While some might disagree with the practice, I’ve been doing it for years. Illegal? I doubt it but I’m not an attorney and you should consult one if you have doubts.

[Michael]

Following on from the scotcambellmusic question.

There have been several cases of plagiarism down the years ,one of the most famous involving George Harrison, but has anybody ever heard of a music library taking a composer to court?

[Art Munson]

@Michael. I think you are confused by the question. You can’t copyright a title so plagiarism doesn’t apply here. The George Harrison case was about “My Sweet Lord” being a lift of “He’s So Fine”. At least I think that’s what you are referring to and that’s a whole different issue.

[Michael]

Thanks Art,your quite right,I did get them mixed up.

[Desire Inspires]

QUESTION: I hear a lot about LIBRARIES retitling, but, is it legal/a practice for the COMPOSER to retitle?

If you own the rights to the composition, you can enter into any deal that you choose. The entity that controls the copyright has the legal authority to enter into any beneficial deal. This is why owning the copyrights to your music can be highly beneficial.
Once you sign a contract with a company, you may end up giving up certain rights to your music. Study each deal carefully to avoid any future conflicts of interest.

[Mark Lewis]

The application would be to discourage price shopping between RF libs and a disconnect from other NON RF, NON-Exclusive libs as well as allow for a pseudonym for further separation

Lots of composers do this. There’s no real issue, definitely no legal issue.
It’s just kind of lame if a composer uses this method to sell the same music on one site for $1.99 and on another site for $49.95.
But if the customer can’t find the same version it’s not a huge deal.
But if you think your music is worth a certain price it’s probably good to maintain that price as much as possible across the different sites.

-Mark

[MichaelL]

Lots of composers do this. There’s no real issue, definitely no legal issue.
It’s just kind of lame if a composer uses this method to sell the same music on one site for $1.99 and on another site for $49.95.

+1  I agree with Mark. If you’re doing it to sell the same music at vastly different prices, it’s not a great idea. But…if you’re talking about different kinds / levels of music, that’s another story.

If you compose a lot of one genre, say rock, and you want to do electronica or hip hop, maybe you’d want a pseudonym to establish another persona in keeping with the genre. For example, Skrillex sounds a lot more “electronic” than Sonny John Moore. On the other hand, if he ever wanted to do country music….

I’ve been thinking about pseudonyms and/or business identities, mainly as a way of delineating “product lines” ….not disguising the same music.

I was asked by an exclusive library to write under several pseudonyms, for various reasons, including avoiding over exposure and/or to avoid getting pigeon-holed.

 

[scottcampbellmusic]

Hey folks,

Thanks for all of the feedback. You’ve spelled out (very nicely) what I’ve been trying to piece together in my mind for quite some time now.

Interesting thought of using a pseudonym for branding purposes, never got that far in my thinking. Will have to chew on that a bit as well.

Again, thanks for all your responses. I’m slowly getting more and more miles under my feet 🙂

 

[Art Munson]

I’ll have to disagree a little bit about pseudonyms when dealing with the Internet and reaching an audience through the net. What with Google placing more and more importance on “authorship” and your “brand name” you might want to think twice about it. Google wants authenticated content when returning search results and branding yourself is important in the eyes of Google. Think about everything you post on the net including song descriptions. The more it can all tie back to your “brand” (meaning you) the more weight Google places on your content. Search for “Google authorship” to read more.

Anyway it’s the path I’m following. I’ll let you know if it actually works! 😉

[scottcampbellmusic]

@Art: Hmm. Very interesting thoughts re: Google. I can see keeping your ‘brand’ consistent very important. Are you speaking more towards RF sites than other  ‘more traditional’ libraries?

It seems to me that some of the libraries I’m involved with don’t really have too much of a ‘public’ face. Maybe that’s a problem 🙂

[Art Munson]

Are you speaking more towards RF sites than other ‘more traditional’ libraries?

I’m thinking very broadly. When you factor in how we are becoming more and more interconnected through the Internet via social media, blogging, forums, YouTube, etc the possibility exists to cast an ever widening net for potential clients.

The Internet is becoming less “anonymous” which is a major shift. Some might call that a bad thing but it’s great for building your brand and credibility. Google Authorship is one way to do that and rewards you as an “authority” figure in your field.

I’ve been heavily into researching and studying the latest in SEO for my own music site and it has led me this line of thinking.

Keeping your “brand” consistent, I think, is very important. If not now, it will be in the future.

[MichaelL]

Keeping your “brand” consistent, I think, is very important. If not now, it will be in the future.

This is one reason why some people use pseudonyms. If they are known as a composer who does who does EPIC cues, they don’t want to dilute that “brand” by doing gentle new age cues, or urban beats under the same name.

I can see where a library would want to establish its brand and be known for a certain level of quality across all genres, but individual composers can get pigeon-holed, or type cast.

Art…do you see that changing, and how will it be affected by Google Authorship. How does someone walking down the crowded Coldplay, U2…pop path venture into Baroque string quartets without diluting their pop guitar brand, without using a separate identity?

Cheers,

MichaelL

[Art Munson]

If they are known as a composer who does who does EPIC cues, they don’t want to dilute that “brand” by doing gentle new age cues, or urban beats under the same name.

You may be right but for me, my “gut” tells me different and it’s the path I’m traveling. I’ve always been a bit of a serial entrepreneur so I’m thinking beyond just musically. As I mentioned above I’ll let you know how it works out! 🙂

[MichaelL]

I’ve always been a bit of a serial entrepreneur so I’m thinking beyond just musically.

That’s more or less he essence of my question, whether it’s different for a business vs. an individual. I was going to ask about how you’re dealing you vs. your library, but it looks like you’ve changed the name of your library to be more closely linked to yourself rather than further.

[Author]

Posts