Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
music pro, in a best case scenario fingerprinting would only be used to detect performances and cue sheets would still be used to identify usage and rights holders for those performances.
As I discovered during my switch from ASCAP to BMI, ASCAP missed at least 75% of my performances because my shows are syndicated and run during odd day parts.
Remember cue sheets only tell your pro that your music was used in a given show. Air date and time information (performance data) is completely different. That information is not on the cue sheet. ASCAP’s method of gather ing performance data, the second half of the equation can be problematic. I’m sure that BMI is not perfect. But my experience is that they are far more accurate at detecting performances.
S0…in a perfect world: the PROS would still use cue sheets for usage and publisher information AND they would use fingerprinting to gather performance data. Under that scenario, it doesn’t matter that digital detection can’t identify the publisher. All it needs to do is detect the proper number of performances, dates, times, and shows.
Implemented that way, re-titling could continue as is…IMHO.
What happens with re-titling is that composers are entering into multiple deals that look like sub-publishing, only they are giving up their publisher’s share, and deals are limited.
That should only they (writers) are giving up their publishing share, and the deals are not limited in scope.
Thanks Emmettt. Stupid question..is this limited to mp3 files?
Hi Emmett,
Looks good. Is the price a one-time investment, or subscription? How are meta-data and searching genres handled etc? Is the capacity limited, or can it handle a few thousand cues?
Good luck with it.
MichaelL
>If re-titling is such a bad idea, why do major (extreme music for example) still using re-titling as a way to make sub-publishing deals with A&E for example? (they split the publishing on the re-title). How is it different then a non-exclusive re-titling deal?<
@music pro, that’s an excellent question. Sub-publishing has been around for decades,without any problems. As we all know, there are ways to register alternative titles and sub-publishing arrangements with the PROs.
I suspect that the problem re-titling is two-fold:
1) the re-titled works are being registered as original titles and not sub-published titles so that the re-titling library can take 100% of the publishers’ share. In a sub-publishing deal, however, they would only get a portion of publishers share. Imagine if you were the original publisher, and instead of JP, SK and Crucial etc., each being an original publisher of your re-titled work they were each sub-publishers. Everyone would now have only a 25% publishing share (including you). That is the legitimate way of doing it, for which there is no controversy.
2) The other problem is that these re-titling libraries are providing their catalogs gratis to producers. So producers have the same music from different sources, but each source is claiming to own the whole pie rather than just a slice of the pie (sub-publishing).
It’s kind of like trying to a get a gallon of milk from a one quart container, instead of four 8 ounce glasses. Part of the issue is that the Networks, who pay blanket license fees to the PRO’s have figured out that they are paying for a gallon of milk, but only getting a quart, and they’re not happy.
EDIT: I forgot to add that sub-publishing deals are most likely limited in scope. In your example, Extreme enters into a sub-publishing deal with A&E. That arrangement should be limited in scope so that it only extends to shows produced by, or aired on A&E. It would not allow A&E to start the A&E music library and then license that music elsewhere. What happens with re-titling is that composers are entering into multiple deals that look like sub-publishing, only they are giving up their publisher’s share, and deals are limited. All of the re-titlng “sub-publishers” are competing with each other, providing gratis licenses for the same works, which may result in more or less a big “feedback” loop if and when fingerprinting is adopted.
@Glen. I think that you may be misinterpreting the nuances of Mr. Berg’s statement.
I have music in 7 exclusive libraries, and they did in fact buy and pay for my music.
Exclusive does not mean that you write for only one library, it means that you don’t put the same tracks in multiple libraries. In that sense, yes, I would sell my music to whoever is buying.
I’ve been a professional composer for 30+ years. I’ve learned to make money in this business a number of ways. I’m also a lawyer with knowledge of contracts and copyrights.
Right now, there is enough conflicting information and speculation about the future that it warrants caution with respect to protecting your primary asset, which is your catalog.
When you speak of what is in the interest of the composer, you have to consider short term interest v. long term interest. My personal opinion is that re-titling, while attractive in the short term is, at the moment, a potential risk to my long term interest.
Once the issue is resolved, fine, I’ll take advantage of the new normal, and I’ll be able to do so because my catalog will be free and clear of any complications or encumberments.
@Glen and TV Composer, I’m not sure who you’ve spoken with at your PRO, whether its just a rep who answers the phone or a higher up exec.
I’ve spoken with upper level people at both BMI and ASCAP and they both said re-titling is a bad idea, and advised against it in the light of coming changes.
That was last summer. Maybe their policy is evolving.
_Michael
I must have missed the thread that explained how Tunestat is in a position to make non-exclusive libraries go away or languish. What is the potential issue there?
@Mark…there is an abundance of half-informed analysis flying around. As you know, the writers who will be affected most by fingerprint technology, like tunesat, if adopted by the PRO’s, are those who participate in re-titling.
Unfortunately many writers fail completely to differentiate between various non-exclusive business models and lump everything into one pile…. a library, is a library, is a library, which is a huge mistake. As such, they don’t realize that strictly RF catalogs shouldn’t suffer at all when fingerprint technology becomes the norm.
On the contrary, RF writers might actually gain by receiving royalties for performances that might otherwise go undetected.
Let’s not forget Musicsupervisors (Gael MacGregor) business model, not RF, non-exclusive AND non re-titling.
In sum, fingerprint technology may make re-titling go away, but it will not spell the end for non-exclusive RF libraries like yours, or for the Musicsupervisors model, nor will it spell the end for the exclusive catalogs that Jingle Punks, Scorekeepers and others are developing.
I’ve been very cautious, watching this trend for a few years, and building my catalog. My personal choice, at this time is to not re-title. If additional technology develops that allows the PRO’s to handle re-titling, then, I’ll do it. It will be a lot easier to put cues into the re-title model later, if there’s a work around, than it will be to sort things out, if re-titling collapses. Just my opinion.
_Michael
I’m looking at this from the perspective of a complete and total “reset, or overhaul” of an entire industry. I would think that the judge(s) would have no choice but to decide in favor of all “original creators” (getting their music back to, once again, become the sole owners of the intellectual property)….we’ll see…
Without getting into discussions of choice of law (each library might have it’s own provision), jurisdiction (each judge’s rulings only have precedent in their jurisdiction) and the process of going through the federal court system and actually getting the Supreme Court to hear the case (they turn down a lot) maybe…but if anything moves more slowly than technological shift at the PRO’s it is the wheels of justice.
My guess is that the change over to fingerprint technology and the “age-out” process will occur before the Court could hear the case, which would render it moot, in which case the Court would decline to hear the case.
The law is a beautiful thing. 😉
@David, I am aware of, but have not read the rights revision clause of the copyright act. I am, in fact going to try to get back some cues that I wrote around then, which I know the library did not move into the digital age.
As far as judges go, my experience is that they uphold the terms of a contract first, provided that there are no defenses to enforcement, like incapacity, over-reaching, or the failure of one party to perform.
_MichaelL
PS. Judges don’t “side”…they preside (unless you’ve reached the Supreme Court). A jury would hear the case (unless a bench trial is stipulated).
@Kenny…make sure you use two different cowbells, large and small.
There is no percentage. In the US, the Supreme Court has established several factors. It more or less comes down to what the average listener hears. Would they recognize the song the you are copying, etc. Then, it comes down to whether or not your song satisfies any of the possible defenses to infringement.
But….if you are talking about taking your own song and making it different because you want to put it into different libraries, I’d be a lot more flexible, especially if you’re not getting paid upfront. If a library buys your cue it’s one thing, if you just give it to them it’s another. (IMO).
“Under the immediate reversion terms of the 2013 Act, all music copyrights ever made for “non exclusive” publishing must become the creator’s property.”
If you’re in a non-exclusive library the copyright never transferred, it never stopped being your property. The library owns nothing, except a non-exclusive right to represent your music for licensing opportunities. Unless, of course, you agreed to transfer your rights, then go the the back of the class!
I knew somebody would eventually get me to say something “legal” today. 😉
@John…yes Maxx Bass is psyhcoacoustic plug used to create an overall sense of bottom, kind of like an exciter.
I think Blind has got it right. The PROs will phase in the new system, the old will age out and we will be uploading our song files to the PROs.
+1
So to bring the conversation full circle…what happens to tunesat when the PRO’s have their own fingerprint systems. It remains an expensive way of checking up on the PRO’s?