You must remove your songs from any medium. What is this?

[TheoNt]

Hi there,

I’ve got offered to make an album with Klanglobby (Martin is a nice guy), though I believe that I have to go to song by song agreement plan, and I was to ld that I have to remove any song that is gonna used from the library from any medium like Spotify, Youtube, etc.
I have released my music thought CD BABY in digital platforms. As a ArtistI find it very disappointing to give up all the songs that I have on my account because they have to republish them from scratch.
What can I do?
Is there a solution to this?

From what I know it seems that you have to have a label in order to solve this issue, right?

Cheers.
Theo

[gigdude]

Hello Theo,
I believe you would just write different songs for the Kanglobby CD. You need different parts to your Catalog. Some for the public , your artist side ( Spotify etc) Some for NE Libraries , which could also be on the public outlets, and then some for the exclusives of which you are willing to surrender and trust to somebody. .That’s also why you need a bunch of tunes. Some people here have 1000’s of tunes.

[TheoNt]

I am OK with exclusive side of it. What I don’t get is why I have to remove the tracks from Spotify etc. I own the copyright of the songs and I don’t have a label, thus I published the songs by myself, via CD BABY but it doesn’t matter at all which company.
for example, if a popular Artist gets a sync on TV/Film does he have to remove the songs? Of course not!
It’s a law thing I guess and I am really unaware of it.
The only that will make sense is retitling (use an alternate mix) and register the songs to a PRO again.
Dunno!

[RM90]

An exclusive deal means that the label or publisher is the first and only one to release the music (until the contract expires). Since you have already published your tracks to these other platforms, they aren’t eligible for such a contract. You’ll want to create some new music to give to them. Your artist music that has already been released can be used on non-exclusive sites.

[TheoNt]

Thanks a lot for the info RMcGravey90. If I remove the tracks I guess the deal can be made, right?
What happens when you have a label? Do they contact licensing companies?

“Since you have already published your tracks to these other platforms, they aren’t eligible for such a contract.”

So, in other words it’s quite impossible being an indie Artist and try to get an exclusive deal of your pre-released songs. Right?

[RM90]

In this case the label is the licensing company, and they collect the publishing royalties. And yes, an indie artist should seek out non-exclusive representation. If the tracks have already been published to Spotify and whatnot then someone is already collecting the publishing royalties.

[TheoNt]

I see. unfortunately, the way to go in non-exclusive as an indie Artist. On the other hand, licensing companies won’t take it seriously as they love exclusivity.
That’s why having a big label is helpful in order to have an opportunity for greater syncs otherwise you can follow the composers path of exclusivity or you can do both.
A lot of thought have to be taken then.

Is it possible for a company to do the republishing and register the song on PRO, or change the data as prompt, while not removing from streaming platforms?

[RM90]

It is possible for them to do it, but I doubt they would be interested in doing it. And I wouldn’t be so quick to knock non exclusive libraries, I just found out about my first TV placement back in March and it was for a non exclusive track.

[jdt9517]

What Klanglobby is doing is it will re-publish the tracks on Spotify, etc., showing Klanglobby as the publisher. Then Klanglobby will get the publisher’s share of the royalties and will also control how the music is published in the future. This is not just a problem with production music as Taylor Swift recently found out. https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14/entertainment/taylor-swift-scooter-braun/index.html

Sounds like Klanglobby wants total control over those compositions. You need to decide whether ceding those IP rights make sense in the long term. Intellectual property rights can be very powerful and very valuable. That’s why everyone wants to get them for themselves.

BTW, this is all contractually based. There is no “law” that forces you to give up your rights. The laws come into play after you have signed away the rights.

Look at it as if you were selling a car to them. You own the car until you sell it to them. Then you don’t. The deal is sell me the car for nothing and let me use it. You have no rights to use the car unless you get my permission and you will have to pay me for that use. If I make any money off the use of the car, I will give you a percentage.

They will effectively own the compositions for free with just a promise to split future revenue based upon what the contract says. How valuable is your car, and does it make sense to give it to them in that manner? Only you know for sure.

[Philtunes]

Re Jd above car I feel this perfectly sums the situation .
Phil tunes

[TheoNt]

Great insight jdt9517! Thank you! You should be really sure on what you re signing and if it’ll any potential for your music especially if the case is what you’ve mentioned.

[jdt9517]

Thank you TheoNt. Looking back on it, there is one thing I would change in the car example. I am purchasing the right to control the car. You would technically still have ownership. However, right of control is 90% of the right of ownership. So, giving up control is practically like selling it outright. You just retain a percentage of the royalties from whatever the publisher does with it.
Major artists, e.g., Paul McCartney, spend their lives trying to regain control (the publishing rights) of their music they sold in their youth.

[TheoNt]

Scary situation!

[Curry]

@jdt9517 Your car analogy was very helpful. Thanks!

[Author]

Posts