[Advice]

I had one of my cues show up on a cue sheet under its original title with my own publishing company even though it was not in any library under the exact original title. I narrowed it down to a library that just added a tag to the original title. I think when ASCAP was matching what they saw on the cue sheet to my cues, they just made an error because the names were so similar. Or, maybe the cue sheet filed with ASCAP accidentally left off the tag. I contacted the library and had it straightened out. Didn’t want them to lose out on money that was rightfully theirs for making the placement.

[Advice]

As Michael said, any placements using the re-title that library gave your track should have publishing royalties still go to the library, even though they dropped it. That title means it was placed through their efforts and their contract undoubtedly covers that they still get their share. The fact that they dropped it from their library is irrelevant.

What’s funny is this has happened to me occasionally. A library drops a track of mine that they’ve actually placed. Don’t quite get ‘why’ other than that with so many tracks and so many placements for a given library, maybe they, themselves don’t know what’s happened with various tracks in blanket deals. Or…. they DO know it was placed but still they don’t feel like it will get much traction going forward.

[Advice]

I know we don’t want to get into a big debate about that “car company” but to be fair, one point needs to be made. Music sups get tons of music from libraries and often have no knowledge of how that music got into those libraries to begin with. So they may very well be using music that came through that “car company”.

[Advice]

Jon
Sorry if I misunderstood and implied you wanted to violate contracts. I’ve read all sorts of stuff on forums over the years! 🙂

I think your question was already answered but:

Always follow contractual agreements (You know that)

When in doubt, contact the library. I was confused, for example, as to whether I could put tracks in RF Lib B while the same tracks were in RF Lib A because Lib A had some rules I wasn’t sure about. I simply contacted Lib A and they cleared it up.

I do think using a pseudonym and re-titles is a good idea in many cases as long as the purpose is not to deceive or break any contractual agreements. For example, I have tracks in conventional libraries. I placed some of the same ones in an RF library to go after a different segment of the market. However, I didn’t want a conventional library or their potential clients to suddenly see with simply Google searches, that the same tracks they are negotiating licenses for are available cheaper on an RF site. It might be tacky.

[Advice]

Jon
If you sign a contract with a library that is exclusive or partly exclusive in that it says you can’t submit to other libraries, it ABSOLUTELY would be unethical and, more important, a **SERIOUS** contract violation if you did. You could get sued and destroy your reputation.

If you are not comfortable with the terms of an agreement, don’t sign it. Otherwise you are legally bound by it.

[Advice]

I was kinda hoping for money for nothing and chicks for free. 😛

[Advice]

I’d rather not get into the specific company here. My main question for anyone who knows is this: When a composer signs a publishing contract that involves assignment of copyright, does that publisher usually go through the process of filing paperwork with the Library of Congress for the copyright transfer?

I would think that this is not that common due to the cost and overhead associated with it. According to what I read from the US Copyright Office, there is no form for a copyright transfer. However, a separate contract detailing the transfer can be filed with them for a fee.

Thanks

[Advice]

What seems odd to me is this… If they are trying to avoid a fee for the re-registration of filing of copyright assignment documentation, it makes no sense. If they were filing an original registration, they would pay a fee as well. So why should they care if it’s already registered? (rhetorical question)

My guess is that most libraries/publishers, unless there is big money involved such as with major placements or artists, never file anything as far as the assignment of copyright. They couldn’t afford the overhead.

Yes, red flag. Thanks, Michael! 🙂

[Advice]

Just replying to see if I can bump this one up. 🙂

[Advice]

Actually, copyright assignment is not always the norm with exclusive library deals. But yes, you need to read and understand the contract carefully and a consultation with a qualified music attorney is the way to go. But done right, AFAIK, exclusive libraries can be a viable option.

I’ll leave it at that since Art is going to take this offline with you, Dogged.

[Advice]

Dogged
I would *NOT* rule out exclusive music libraries. Many of them are exclusive ONLY to film/TV pitches or only exclude working with other music libraries. It is very common to have music in an exclusive library and still be free to sell the same tunes on CD’s, iTunes, etc.

[Advice]

I was very pleased with my ASCAP quarter. One of my best ever.

D_I, you know the formulas vary widely according to which network, time of day, etc. So one play in prime time last quarter on a decent paying network could trump 20 plays on a smaller network in the middle of the night. Just keeping feeding the flames and they will grow.

[Advice]

Let me start out by saying I have the same tracks in multiple re-title libraries so there is no holier than thou attitude here.

The prefix or suffix method solves some problems but not all. Even if the end user can easily recognize up front that they have the same track from multiple sources, it doesn’t take away from issues than *MAY* create. What we’re seeing a lot of is in the so called “lower end” of the market– blanket deals for cable TV shows. Budgets are tights and no matter how the tracks are named, paying multiple times for the same music is not cost effective. And, disputes over who really is the publisher when a track is used cost time and money as well. It’s already happened to me whereby a cue sheet incorrectly credited publisher A when I know it was publisher B by the title. I see all the time that my tracks in J-land directly compete with the same tracks in S-land on the same shows.

[Advice]

I think if we are going to criticize libraries for creating re-titling and this situation with the same tracks in many libraries, we have to at least accept our share of the responsibility if we, as composers, put our tracks in multiple libraries.

I did plenty of that, still do with older tracks, but I am cautious with newer material. So I’m as “guilty” as anyone else, for lack of a better word.

I’m not talking about putting a track in both an RF library that doesn’t really do much broadcast work and a conventional library that pitches TV. They are in very different markets.

Let’s not blame the libraries for creating this situation without acknowledging the role composers played.

[Advice]

Develop relationships. Be a professional, not a prima donna. You won’t regret it.

Very well said! I think what people forget in this whole discussion about whether or not TV producers will accept non-exclusive or only exclusive is it can very much depend on WHO is providing the music. That’s what the phrase “trusted source” is all about. If you are a composer who they have dealt with directly over the years and they feel is a reliable, trustworthy, professional… well that carries a lot of weight. Some newbie who contacts them out of the clear blue with attitude… not the same. A library such as C***** with an impeccable reputation? Or another also ran library full of the same tracks as everyone else?

Another point is end users are probably more concerned when dealing with libraries as far as exclusivity then trusted composers. They know that libraries are full of duplicate tracks right now. And library conflicts are more on the radar. That’s not to say that a composer can’t give them a track that’s also in libraries and cause an issue. But I think (in some cases! Not Gospel!) non-exclusive libraries are getting a bad image with them right now.

I get annoyed when people view libraries switching to exclusive as the “big bad libraries” trying to give us a raw deal. They are doing what they need to do to survive as businesses in an extremely competitive market with low margins. If their businesses didn’t need these changes, they wouldn’t do it. However, we all have choices. I personally don’t sign a lot of exclusives yet.

As Michael said, do what works for you. It won’t be the same for everyone…. And be a pro. Avoid attitude. That will always bite you in the butt.

[Author]

Posts