Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@EdTr: Please try clearing your browser’s cache and history for musiclibraryreport.com. You could also try using a “Private” window or “Incognito mode” in your browser. See this link if you are not sure on how to do that https://www.howtogeek.com/269265/how-to-enable-private-browsing-on-any-web-browser/.
Thanks for the detailed reply Art. That is very helpful!
I will try to find a music lawyer, but I don’t know whether I can find in my country lawyers with experience in this field. There probably are some, but I don’t know how and where I could find them. I think that if I went to just any random lawyer in my town they probably couldn’t be of much help because they almost certainly have no knowledge of the music business. Any advice on how and where to find music lawyers?
And a question unrelated to this: I have tried several times, in different browsers (Firefox, Chrome) to post a new topic in this forum yesterday and today, and I always got an error message saying something like “Your topic couldn’t be created at this time. Try again later”.
@EdTr: You’re right to pause here—this is a pretty heavy indemnification clause.
What the Clause Means
Unlimited liability: You’d be on the hook for all of the library’s costs, damages, and attorney fees, not just up to what you earned from them.
Alleged breach included: Even if a claim is false and you’re later proven innocent, you may still have to front the money until it’s resolved.
No time limit: The clause survives termination, so you could face a claim years after your deal with them ends.
One-sided: The library doesn’t seem to indemnify you in return.
Are These Clauses Common?
Yes, indemnification is common in music library contracts. Libraries want protection in case a composer submits infringing material (e.g., plagiarized music, uncleared samples, or improper metadata). But the wording matters.Many libraries include similar clauses, but reputable ones often limit liability—for example, capping it at the royalties you’ve earned, or tying it only to actual breaches(not “alleged” breaches). One-sided terms are also common, but the more professional and composer-friendly libraries usually strike a better balance.
Why It’s Risky for You
You’re effectively insuring the library against any risk, with no cap. If a third party sues, you could face six-figure legal costs—even if you did nothing wrong. Since you don’t control how the library uses or markets your music, that’s a lot of exposure.
What You Can Do
1. Ask for clarification or negotiation:
Can the indemnity be capped at the royalties you’ve earned?
Can “alleged breach” be narrowed to “actual breach, determined by a court”?
Can mutual indemnification be added (so they also protect you if their actions create liability)?2. Review industry norms:
Many non-exclusive RF libraries use similar language but don’t usually pursue composers unless there’s real misconduct. Higher-end libraries may be more open to negotiation.
3. Get legal eyes on it:
A music attorney can spot red flags, suggest fair language, and maybe give you template carve-outs. The cost is usually worth it when liability is uncapped.
Bottom line:
Indemnity clauses are standard, but this one is especially broad, unlimited, and one-sided. It puts all the risk on you. At a minimum, I’d try to negotiate limits—or walk away if the library isn’t reputable enough to justify that risk.
I am currently being offered a contract that would obligate me to pay to the library, “on demand, all claims, loses, liabilities, judgments, costs, expenses, and damages (including, without limitation, reasonable attourneys’ fees and legal costs) Arising out of or in connection with any breach or alleged breach by Composer of any warranty, covenant, representation, or agreement made or to be performed by Composer hereunder.
Composer shall reimburse ______, on demand, for any payment made by ______, at any time after
the date hereof (including after the date this Agreement terminates), with respect to any
liability or claim to which the foregoing indemnity applies.”In other words, I would be obligated to cover 100% of all of their costs and damages, not capped by the amount of royalties I earned, and even if it is a false claim and I am proven innocent.
I have no previous experience with libraries, so I don’t know either whether these types of clauses are usual with most libraries or whether these terms are particularly bad.
@tpile1 I don’t have, or can’t find, any info on them. Sounds slightly familiar but most likely they are gone.
I would not be comfortable with that clause.
@mmuser You are quite welcome.
Great questions — these are things a lot of composers run into once they start using Content ID. Let me break it down step by step in plain terms, with specifics for your case using Identifyy.
1. Claimed YouTube Videos (3,000 in May)
The number you’re seeing doesn’t automatically mean 3,000 people “stole” your music. Content ID simply scans videos for matches to your tracks. Those matches can be:
Unauthorized uses — people who ripped or used your music without a license.
Licensed uses — people who *did* buy a license, but whose videos were still flagged because Content ID can’t tell the difference between a paying customer and a random uploader.So yes, that 3,000 count almost certainly includes both groups.
2. Licensed Users & Disputes
When a licensed user disputes a claim with valid proof (like an invoice or license PDF), the claim is released. Once that happens:
Monetization reverts 100% to the uploader/channel owner.
Identifyy (or any Content ID admin) only earns revenue during the period the claim was active, and only if the dispute hasn’t been resolved yet.
After release, Identifyy doesn’t keep anything — they only collect on unlicensed/unauthorized uses.This is why some libraries that allow client use on YouTube provide “claim release instructions” so buyers don’t panic when they see a claim.
3. Whitelisting YouTube Channels
Yes, you (or Identifyy support) can whitelist specific YouTube channels. This means:
That channel’s uploads won’t be flagged at all by Content ID for your music.
It’s a clean solution if you have direct buyers (like your client) who need hassle-free use.Pros:
No claims, no disputes, no extra communication with the buyer.
Builds trust with your clients.Cons:
If that channel misuses your music outside the scope of their license, you won’t catch it via Content ID.
Some composers only whitelist for trusted, long-term clients rather than one-off licenses.✅ Best Practice Recommendation for You
Keep Identifyy running for protection and revenue on unauthorized uses.
If a direct client buys a license for YouTube, ask for their channel URL and request Identifyy to whitelist it.
Provide buyers with a short FAQ: “If you see a Content ID claim, don’t panic — this is normal. Here’s how to dispute with your license info.”That way, you cover both bases: automatic enforcement for unauthorized users, but smooth sailing for legit clients.
Hi Alex, I gave a quick listen. My immediate thought was that the drums were to upfront in the mix. I also thought the music could develop more of the course of each piece. Just my 2 pennies worth. 🙂
@bobsstudio I’ve been with them a long time, know the owner, so I signed. Others may disagree but we are all chasing pennies. 🙂
@newsound PD arrangements require extra verification, such as confirming that the underlying composition is indeed public domain and that your arrangement is original. BMI may need to review metadata, split sheets, or ensure no conflict with existing registrations — this typically triggers the longer wait time, at least 7 days.
Is a Perpetual License Standard in UK Production Music Libraries?
Perpetual, or in-perpetuity, licenses have become increasingly common in UK production music deals, particularly with exclusive library albums. Many UK-based libraries prefer these terms because broadcasters and media clients require long-term access to tracks without concerns about rights expiring.
However, just because perpetual licensing is becoming standard does not mean it is always in the best interest of composers. There are several important considerations before agreeing to such terms.
Why UK Libraries Ask for Perpetual Rights
Broadcasters, streaming platforms, and advertisers often demand long-term or perpetual usage rights to avoid legal and licensing complications in the future.
Libraries that work with international sub-publishers or aggregators require the ability to license music freely across various territories for extended periods.
Managing catalogs is simpler for publishers when they don’t have to track expiration dates or renegotiate terms every few years.The Risks of a Perpetual License
1. No Exit Strategy
Without a reversion clause, your music could remain in a publisher’s catalog forever—even if it never earns a single placement or dollar.2. Lost Opportunities
Tracks tied up in perpetuity cannot be re-pitched to other libraries or used elsewhere. This limits your ability to earn income from those compositions in the future.3. Unequal Risk
If a publisher wants the benefit of long-term exclusivity, they should also share in the risk—such as offering a clause that releases rights back to the composer after a period of inactivity.4. Verbal Assurances Are Not Enough
A publisher may seem trustworthy, but unless rights and expectations are clearly defined in writing, good intentions mean very little in the long run.Reasonable Compromises to Consider
If you’re open to negotiating, consider proposing:
A term-limited exclusive agreement (e.g., 3 to 5 years), with the option to renew if placements are being made.
A reversion clause stating that if no placements or income are generated within a certain timeframe (typically 2 to 3 years), the rights revert to you.
A performance-based extension, where the license is only extended if the publisher actively secures placements or generates revenue.Even including these points in an email as a documented understanding is better than leaving things completely open-ended. If a publisher refuses to include any form of time limit or reversion clause, that may signal an imbalance in the deal.
Comparing Other Offers
You mentioned having interest from other publishers:
If some are slow to respond, that is not necessarily a reason to disqualify them. Many small but legitimate libraries are under-resourced and can be delayed in communication.
If another publisher is unclear or vague about administrative fees, that’s a more serious concern. Always request full transparency on what they deduct and how royalties are split.It may be better to wait a few extra days for a fairer offer than to rush into an agreement that ties up your music indefinitely with no guaranteed benefit.
Final Thoughts
If a publisher expects perpetual exclusivity but offers no clear path for you to benefit from it—such as a track record of placements or a willingness to include fair contractual terms—then you should consider whether the deal is truly in your best interest.
This album is your intellectual property. Make sure the agreement respects the long-term value of your work.
If needed, you might offer to start with a smaller set of tracks under a shorter term to evaluate how the relationship develops. Many good publishers are open to proving their value before asking for long-term commitments.
@mmuser Glad I could help. Best of luck to you!
@mmuser Understanding Semi-Exclusive Music Libraries
You’re right to feel a bit unsure — the term semi-exclusive is often used inconsistently in the sync licensing world. Let’s clarify what it means and answer your two key questions.
What is a Semi-Exclusive Library?
There are two main types of semi-exclusive deals, and the confusion often comes from not distinguishing between them:
1. Retitled Semi-Exclusive (a.k.a. non-exclusive with exclusive representation by title)
The same recording is retitled by the library.
The library registers their version and acts as publisher only for that version.
You can pitch the original version elsewhere or even self-license it.
This model is more prone to metadata conflicts (e.g., on BMAT or Soundmouse) if the audio is identical.
2. Exclusive-to-the-Library, Non-Exclusive-to-You(What you’re describing)
You give the library exclusive representation rights to the track.
You cannot submit it to any other libraries or sync agents.
However, you retain ownership and may license the track directly on your own (e.g., to clients, for your projects, or via your site).
No retitling is typically involved. Metadata stays clean and consistent.
This second model is increasingly common — especially among higher-quality boutique libraries that want cleaner rights management, but don’t demand full publishing exclusivity.
Now to Your Questions:
1. If a track is already registered with BMI with me listed as the publisher, can the library still register it under their publishing name by simply retitling it — or do they require unregistered tracks?
That depends on the type of semi-exclusive deal they offer:
If they retitle the track (Type 1 above), then yes — they can register their versionunder a new title and list themselves as publisher. You remain listed as composer.
If they don’t retitle and instead want exclusivity to represent the original track (Type 2), they may require that the track not be registered yet, or ask you to: remove your original registration, or grant them publishing rights under the existing title.
Important: Many of these libraries do not want pre-registered tracks unless they can cleanly update the PRO registration. Always ask before submitting.
2. Is this system reliable? Could Soundmouse or BMAT confuse a track and misattribute a placement?
This is a legitimate concern — especially in retitling scenarios.
If retitling is involved:
Systems like Soundmouse, BMAT, and TuneSat use audio fingerprinting to detect tracks.
If the same audio fileis submitted by multiple parties under different titles, these platforms might misattribute plays or placements, leading to royalty misallocation.If the track is exclusive to one library (without retitling):
You’re much safer. Since there’s only one version of the track, with one title, and a clear publisher, tracking systems are less likely to make a mistake. This is one reason why many publishers prefer title-exclusive or true exclusive representation — it reduces ambiguity and improves reporting accuracy. That said, metadata mismatches and cue sheet errors do still happen— even with exclusive titles — but they’re less frequent.
Final Takeaways:
Clarify exactly what kind of semi-exclusive deal is being offered. Not all libraries define it the same way.
Ask whether they retitle, and whether they require unregistered tracks. If you want to avoid confusion and royalty risk, avoid retitling across multiple libraries. Keep careful metadata records and track where and how each version of your music is being represented.@mmuser Calling the Nashville office is a good start as they have always seemed more responsive than L.A. or New York. You can also try Chris Janecek at: CJanecek@bmi.com. Good luck!
