Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Everyone’s experience is a little different but I, as production music library focused, find that sites like SC and RN are simply places to host tracks and create links. I don’t depend on any of the “marketing” aspects of those sites. However, if a library asks for links to some sample tracks, I send links to tracks on a site like SC. I stopped using RN because I found the site to become more and more confusing and they made linking to a single song more confusing (IMHO). Also, their sound quality is poor.
Usually, if a library asks for samples as links, I will send 2-4 individual links to tracks so as to focus them on what I want them to hear. One thing about SC is you can’t change the order in which your tracks appear on your profile. So I prefer to link to individual tracks.
Personally, for folks like us, I think the promotional aspects are WAY overrated. JMHO
Mlmusic… No, they would not have that legal right without your permission.
A library editing your track, adding instruments, etc (other than slicing up into sections such as 30 sec or sting) is pretty rare as far as I know. I’m talking about standard “catalog” libraries. Don’t know enough about custom work for hire situations, but my guess is even there it’s not all that common.
I have heard of situations on vocal songs whereby the library will replace the vocal with one sung in another language for a given market. Makes sense.
From my POV, if a library added instrumentation to one of my tracks, placed it, and paid me my full share, I’d be pleased.
Euca… You mentioned it’s not in the contract here but I have seen clauses in many library contracts that state they have broad permissions to edit your tracks. Usually there is a limitation that they can’t alter the “fundamental character” of the track.
It sounds like no harm was done here. You got a placement and got paid. As Art suggested, you could contact them and ask.
🙂
Hmmmm…. My massive wealth still shows up when I log in. 😉
I think Big Rome is referring to 2 (as you would call them) ‘pay for play’ sites. If that is the case, I am familiar with both and NO they are not at all the same company. Art doesn’t allow discussion of PFP companies on this website, so I’ll respect his wishes.
“Exclusivity” does not prevent any legal issues anyway. It just makes the paperwork easier. Infringement, whether intentional or unintentional, can happen regardless. One uncleared sample would technically be considered copyright infringement.
We always need to look at this through the eyes of the consumers of our music, not through composer’s eyes. Sometimes, it’s easy to think about what’s convenient for us which (unfortunately) doesn’t hold all that much weight.
Work IDs are no more unique than re-titles. Every registration has both it’s re-title and work ID that represent that instance of that track as registered with that library. None of the problems of repeat tracks among blanket deals, conflicting claims, etc. would be solved. One could argue that similar titles in re-titling is a problem but think about all the errors that could be caused by 1 digit being off in a work ID on a cue sheet? WAY more error prone. And expecting libraries to send out tracks to sups titled with long numbers instead of descriptive names? Well, that won’t fly either.
Exclusivity, of course, doesn’t prevent a copyright infringement claim. We’re not even talking about copyright infringement. We’re talking about a track being placed and more than one library/publisher claiming that the placement belongs to them. That puts the production company and music sup in a bad position which can also be costly in legal fees.
Exclusivity means it is very unlikely that such a conflict will arise. In fact, it should never happen unless the composer outright violated contracts and signed the same track to multiple exclusives. The odds of that are very tiny compared it being very possible with non-exclusive re-titles.
I don’t want to come off as anti-non-exclusive. That’s not at all where I’m coming from. Just putting the issues out there as I’ve heard them.
I’ve seen this type of thing before. A non-exclusive library tries to make a contract by editing an exclusive one they got from somewhere else. This reads all wrong for a non-exclusive contract (IMH non-legal O). You would have to review this with a qualified entertainment attorney and go back to the library with requested changes. That is, if it’s worth it to you. Also, ask them if they are open to some contract wording changes based on your consultation with a music attorney before you bother. If they are not open to changes, no point in incurring legal fees.
First, this is not a really big deal…
Yes, the production company files the cue sheets. But it’s the responsibility of the publisher (in this case a music library, even if a re-title) to check that cue sheets are filed, are accurate, etc. So, the “protocol” would be to first go through the library. Remember, cue sheet problems can affect how they get paid as well so they need to check them and manage problems.
Again… Not a big deal. I’d like to hear what others say but *I* would contact the library first and only if I can’t get it resolved that way, go directly to the PRO.
BTW, I had a bunch of cue sheet errors whereby I was incorrectly listed as writer on tracks that weren’t mine and was collecting money I didn’t deserve. I reported it to the library (starts with “J”, LOL) and, though it took awhile, they resolved it.
😀
Jay
Were these errors on placements through libraries or placements you made on your own? The reason I ask is I always thought that if you see a cue sheet error and it was a library placement, the first step should be to contact the library. Obviously, if the library doesn’t make the correction in a reasonable timeframe, contacting your PRO on your own makes sense.
Hey AxD… As you know, what matters is not what they call the tracks– approved, removed, retired, etc… It’s whether or not they will actively pitch it. What would concern me is if tracks were originally “retired”, does that mean JP probably won’ t pitch them very actively. You mentioned your tracks were exclusive, so you need more info to decide if you should have them removed from your JP exclusive agreement. Otherwise, they could be in limbo for a long time.
Good luck!
I really don’t see how this would solve some of the problems we’ve discussed many times including:
Multiple blanket deals paid for by production companies/networks that contain the same tracks– inefficient use of time and money.
Some music supervisors being concerned about who actually owns the copyright/rights to the tracks they are using— they don’t want conflicts, legal claims, etc.
I’m not at all against non-exclusive re-title as a composer… Just re-stating some of the issues that have been brought up by the users of our music.
🙂
Damn… I guess that means no gold watch and cake for me! 😉
>>> Everyone just needs to relax regarding JP.
The only concern I would have would be if the cues were exclusive because the ramifications then are much more serious. For non-exclusive, it’s pretty the same has having cues rejected by an NE library.
I am curious what the difference is between “retired” and “removed”. My guess is it doesn’t matter much because “retired” would probably mean they aren’t currently pitching.
If you signed tracks exclusively with them and they “retire” those tracks, I would hope they would allow you to remove them from your exclusive agreement. It wouldn’t seem right not to.
And they really should have a gold watch icon to put next to retired tracks on your cue list. 😛
I’m changing my login name to Good MichaelL. 😉