Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@ Blind, I like you’re version of “age out” a lot better. I have noticed over the years, though, that there can be sort of a bell-shaped curve to the life a of cue. Maybe its more of a roller coaster. I’m going to float a few 30-year old cues out there and see what happens. 😉
@ David…you’re talking about niche stuff….for which there is always a market, under the right circumstances, like Louie Armstrong’s Wonderful World and Jimmy Durante’s Make Someone Happy. Those are iconic tracks.
The things that will age out are the more or less generic, can’t tell one from the next, cues that are based on current pop trends….which flood the market.How do you get FUSE to pay up Michael L. That is a major problem for alot of people
Start by asking your PRO if MSG Media pays an annual blanket fee, or if they do not, like Scripps. If they do, then the problem is failure to file cue sheets. The library that placed the music should pursue that, because they aren’t getting paid either. If it was a gratis direct deal, you’re screwed.
“But to answer your question David, I think that writers should be able to do what you way.”
This statement is confusing? Grammar error?Sorry David, multi-tasking here, trying to get my crib on the market in four weeks. I meant to say that I think writers should be able to do what you “say”….in a perfect world.
Yes, getting decent license money is a different kettle of fish, when you are the one doing the contracting. I once got paid 4K and flown to St Louis for a 30 second spot. But, if you listen to recent posts by Maddie Madsen and sarah Gavigan hefty license fees are drying up.
Blind has it exactly right. When WE are uploading our cues to our PRO, and they are fingerprinted, titles will be irrelevant. The audio will be connected to it’s owner. Unless there is a technological shift that allows for fingerprinting AND watermarking, re-titling won’t be possible. It’s not a right vs. wrong moral argument. It’s a matter of technological change which is about efficiency and it is, unfortunately, indifferent to what a subset of composers need.
Again, if you think the PRO’s are concerned about decisions that cause writers to lose money, think about all of the vocal cues that are now getting paid at the same rate as instrumentals.
I agree with Blind. It’s going to be a slow change. A big percentage of re-titled music will simply age-out, before composers even need to worry about it. The issue is how do you prepare for the future? Maybe, like Art said, everybody gets their tracks back unencumbered, or maybe you’ll have to designate a single publisher for each track.Why should a composer not be able to have their cue in a shop that has a reputation for moving cues into shows, while simultaneously have that same cue in another shop (music Dealers for example) and have it placed into a national spot for $15,000? This can and does happen folks!
Outside the trailer realm, very unlikely for an unknown, i.e., not famous writer, or well known song. $1,500 would be more like it.
JP said do not do this
@ Bigg Rome, if I did two different versions of the same cue you would never know it. They would be radically different sonically and harmonically. Different key, different tempo, different instruments, probably different scale structure.
But to answer your question David, I think that writers should be able to do what you way. The royalty system, as it stands, wasn’t designed for that, just like many of our highways weren’t desinged for the amount of traffic they now carry. As a result, there are traffic jams. New technology, and maybe new copyright laws, will alter the system in the future, just like widening roads. How that will effect writers who knows?
Funny that Music Dealers isnt on your list,MichaelL
No particular reason. I don’t know much about them. The list was just an example. Fill in your favorite libraries.
_MichaelL
@Blind…someone who gets it…thank you.
Having done battle with ASCAP for well over a year, I can tell you that the PROs are not necessarily your friend. The notion that they do what’s mutually beneficial for composers and publishers and wouldn’t possibly want re-titling to go away is simply naive. Re-titling only causes them headaches, and more work, for which they do not benefit. The pie gets re-sliced but they don’t get a bigger piece.
If I had to guess I would say finger-printing would be phased in the same way the PRO digital databases ultimately replaced paper forms – they weren’t retroactive, but were simply a new way forward.
Blind is absolutely on point. I have hundreds of cues that were paper registered in the 1980’s that simply do not exist as far as ASCAP is concerned….gone, vanished, poof, not in their system. I’m OK with that because I’m registering them with BMI now, as they are re-recorded.
I can understand why songwriters (with lyrics) get all bent out of shape over this, because their catalog may not be as large, and every piece is a like jewel to them, which represents blood, sweat, tears, and probably some emotional attachment. But, for guys that compose instrumental cues, on a professional basis, and have a fairly large catalog, it makes more sense to treat libraries like JP, SK and Crucial as exclusive. It’s not that hard to modify arrangements, change the feel a little, and re-work, rather than re-title cues. Nobody is going to sue you if you put the hip hop version of cue “A” in JP and the rockabilly version in SK, with two different and very distinct titles.
I would consider doing a limited variation on self re-titling. The copyright application allows the author to register alternative titles. I would register each cue with an original title and an alternative title. I would make the alternative title very different, so there’s no possible confusion. I would put one title in the non-exclusive catalog of only one library, like JP, SK or Crucial and I would put the alternative titles in RF libraries.
As far as signing exclusively goes, again for instrumental writers, what’s the big deal? Put 50 tracks in JP, 50 in SK (and whatever Crucial might accept) and see who delivers. Don’t lament signing 100 cues exclusively. To paraphrase Nike…JUST WRITE MORE.
Cheers,
_MichaelL
just too many have done re-titles, its not so easy to dump it.
“I’ve been saying this for years. A lot of folks have been saying “the sky is falling” but I just don’t buy it. That genie is out of the bottle and will be impossible to put back.”
From a strictly legal point of view, I don’t think that it would be hard at all to dump re-titling.
1) The re-title contracts don’t really obligate the library to the composer, and
2) The PRO’s governing documents allow them to not pay composers and publishers for any reason.
In other words, it’s not a matter of putting the genie back in the bottle. Legally, they can simply turn the faucet off, and say “from this moment forward, we do not pay for re-titled tracks.” That is kind of the nuclear option instead of working things out.
I don’t think that this is analogous to Wall Street, where PROs would consider retitling to big to fail.
I do think that there’s enough of a likelihood that retitling will either fade, or be limited in some way, that I won’t do it until the situation resolves.
The upside to that approach is that my catalog isn’t in jeopardy. The downside is that I might, emphasis on might, be missing some near term opportunities. If the situation resolves in favor of retitling, then great, I’ll have a big catalog, ready to roll. If retitling goes away, then, I will have preserved the long term value of my catalog.
I guess that’s the product of being a lawyer…to err on the side of caution.
I hope it all works out in everyone’s favor.
Michael
@David. Ramble On…enjoy!
@TheOne…too much speculation. I hope they figure out a work around for everyone’s sake. I’m playing it cautious right now. But, if they figure out a way to make it work, I’ve got a few thousand tracks that I’ll happily re-title. Otherwise, I’ve got a few thousand tracks that I’m going to produce 5 different ways. 😉
I’m glad it’s working for you
I don’t expect an overnight change. But, it’s sometimes better to plan for change rather than having to respond to it after the fact. Obviously, libraries like SK and JP are looking ahead.
Maybe there’ll be a work around.
All the best,
_Michael
So if you get a cue sheet from a production company displaying the cues that were used…isn’t that the proof you and the Pros will have proving factually that your publishing company placed the cue ?…and not the other one?
No, the PRO’s don’t accept cue sheets as “proof” of anything. They are in fact very suspicious of cue sheets, as potential sources of fraud, which is why the survey “rules,” and why they do not accept cues sheets from composers and publishers.
Aren’t publishers reviewing the list of cues used in a production prior to the cue sheet being filed? If not…why aren’t they?
They should, but often it’s long after the fact. Cues sheets, if they get filed at all, are often filed months after a show airs. Several times I picked up cue sheets errors, only after we had missing royalties.
Tunesat spells out the reality. Nobody likes to fill out cue sheets. It’s time consuming and tedious, and many producers would rather not have their employees using valuable time filling out cue sheets. Often, it’s the lowest paid staff member, like an intern, who gets the job. And, unfortunately, they are probably more interested in other things.
At the upper end of the food chain, the Networks have the major exclusive libraries in house and its all managed with Soundminer / Musicminer software.
Bottom line, if composers are forced to go exclusive: it’s great for publishers but a terrible loss of royalty and up-front license revenue for composers. Why should only publishers win in this business?
Not necessarily:
1) There are no upfront fees for gratis licensing.
2) There are many composers who make a lot of money from exclusive deals.
Yeah…pretty much what I said. Fingerprints will be used to “corroborate” and “fill in holes.”
Now…think about the second part. Who gets paid in a re-title situation?…The composer. If potentially only the composer is going to get paid, what will the incentive be for publishers to continue to re-title and risk not getting paid?
On the surface it looks good because the composer still gets paid. But, taking it one step further, I believe that you’re going to see fewer non-exclusive opportunities. Fewer non-exclusive opportunities means fewer opportunities, period.
As a publisher, I am not going to do the work of getting a cue placed only to not be paid because the writer put the same cue in another library. I believe that more libraries will focus on developing an exclusive catalog, while letting their non-exclusive catalogs age out and fade. Just my perspective, as a writer and publisher.
@David…if I had to look into my crystal ball, I’d say that cue sheets and fingerprints will co-exist for a while, with fingerprints confirming / supplementing cue sheet data, until detection technology becomes the norm.
@angopop…this has been discussed to death. Detection technology only identifies a piece of music. It cannot distinguish between re-title publishers. So, the PROs won’t know which publisher to pay. When that happens, they just won’t pay. The PROs are not likely to waste time and resources trying to figure who the publisher of the moment is, and therefore will probably not pay for re-titled tracks. They have no obligation to do that.If you are an ASCAP writer, look very closely at their writer/publisher agreement. It states that they can decline payment for any reason. I would wager, again looking into my crystal ball, that once ASCAP’s detection technology is implemented, re-titling will be one of the ‘reasons” that it doesn’t pay. It is very likely that BMI has similar provisions.
They make the rules. They will close loopholes if it’s more efficient. Broadcasters don’t want to pay for the same piece of music multiple times, through blanket payments to the PROS. PRO’s don’t want writers and publishers to double dip.
@JD…ASCAP and BMI have already developed their own technology. It has been implemented for the most part on radio. But…they will eventually use it for TV.
And …I have been told by both (not to steal the thread), that’s when the poop hits the fan for re-titling.
During the process of switching from ASCAP to BMI, I asked upper level individuals at both about re-titling and they said don’t do it because detection technology is coming to television.