Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think it most music library deals, the composer keeps the publishing. Please explain.
@Tony, no this is not correct. As I’ve stated before the music library business is a tiered business.
1) The top level exclusive libraries, that operate under the traditional business model, most often acquire music on a work-for-hire, or buyout basis, where the composer transfers copyright ownership to the library.
2) Re-titling libraries operate in a legally gray area. The composer does not transfer any ownership rights to the re-titling library. Instead the re-titling library changes the title slightly or adds a code, so that it can register that title with a PRO, as the publisher, and collect royalties. So, some writers put the same track into multiple re-titling libraries. As a result, the same piece of music, gets registered with your PRO many times under different titles. Broadcasters do not like this practice, among other reasons, because they end up paying for the same piece of music multiple times, when they should only pay once, under their blanket payment to your PRO. I’m not going to argue or debate the merits of the practice. Suffice it to say that many re-titling companies see the writing on the wall and are developing exclusive catalogs.
3) Royalty Free libraries generally do not re-title, and they generally do not act as publishers. It might be easier to think of royalty free libraries really as “stores” where you sell your music.
AudioSparx offers the option of administrating writers’ publishing, in which AS essentially acts as the publisher. This AS option is not a retitling scheme, and it can be non-exclusive. In other words, you can put your tracks in as many other RF libraries as you want (except the “banned” list). This is not legally gray because there is only one publisher…AS.
SO, to finally answer your question, what I mean is that if you are going to register your works (copyright) as a collection there must be single copyright owner. Whether, you act as publisher, or you let a company, like AS, administer your publishing, you still own the copyright.
@Advice…the copyright in your music is established at the moment your work is contained in a fixed medium, be it a recording or on paper. A copyright registration is your ticket into federal court (which is where infringement suits must be filed). You are correct, that you cannot copyright titles. It is the underlying work that is “protected.” However, when a library re-titles, and does not reregister, no registration exists in the new title.One of the most likely scenarios in which someone may copy your music occurs when a composer is given a temp track to work from. That is a nearly standard practice in the industry, where an editor cuts a film, or TV show with temporary music.
I’ll give you a typical law school hypothetical:
You write a song called “Blue Sky” and you register that title with the copyright office. Great. Then you give it to retitling libraries A, B, & C. A retiles it “Blue Skies.” B retitles it “A Very Blue Sky.” C retitles it “Blue Sky C-101.” The retitling libraries do not register the new titles with the copyright office. That would be illegal because they don’t own the copyright.
All of the libraries send out their catalogs gratis on hard drives. PlaidBoy Hipster, the editor for XYZ productions is working on a new reality show about tragic holiday cooking accidents called “Deep Fried Turkeys.” PlaidBoy puts “Blue Skies” from library A into his temp track. XYZ Productions then has a composer write music for the show, based on the temp track.
One night you’re watching “Deep Fried Turkeys” and you hear a piece of music that sounds an awful lot like “Blue Sky.” But, nothing shows up in your tunesat report. No cue sheets are filed with your PRO. You wait 6 months and no backend money arrives (but you already bought that new car!) Outraged, you call an IP attorney and convince him, or her, that you’ve sustained 75K in damages. You give the IP attorney a 10K retainer to file suit in federal court (meanwhile the meter is running).
In response to your suit, XYZ Productions hires a ruthless (me for example) attorney. I depose PlaidBoy who swears under oath that he used “Blue Skies” from library A in the temp track. He’s never heard of you or “Blue Sky.” Next, I depose the composer. He says that he was inspired by “Blue Skies” from Library A on the temp track. But, he says, “Blue Skies” contains so many commonly used loops and sounds that it’s almost generic.
Next, I search the Library of Congress for the title “Blue Skies” and find only one song registered under that title and its by Irving Berlin…not you. So, I immediately file a motion to dismiss your suit on the basis that you have no standing, because there is no registration for the title “Blue Skies” in your name. We never get to hear the underlying work because the judge grants the motion.
Alternatively, the courts agrees to proceed, at which point you write your attorney a check for another 10K. We enter a lengthy process involving expert testimony on both sides comparing your song “Blue Sky” to what XYZ’s composer wrote. Our experts successfully convince the court that numerous composers using the same loops and sounds has resulted in a proliferation of fairly generic music, that all sounds alike, and it would be nearly impossible to prove that XYZ’s composer copied any single work. As evidence we site the number of times fingerprinting detects the wrong title.
Next, I call you as a witness to explain to the judge why you registered your works as an unpublished collection to save a money, but then you published your works using a re-titling scheme, hoping that you’d make more money that way.
Finally, I introduce XYZ’s composer’s PRO statement into evidence, which shows that he made $2.25 for the 20 seconds of music you thought sounded like your song. Upon seeing that your liquidated damages are $74,997.75 short of the federal threshold, the judge dismisses the case. At which point, your attorney hands you a final bill for another 25K including his fees and expenses (experts aren’t cheap).
OK…that was a long winded, but hopefully humorous look at why gambling with copyrights and re-titling may not be such a hot idea.
Now to clarify a few legal points:
There are two ways to copyright a collection. Here’s the language from the law.
(A) In the case of published works: all copyrightable elements that are otherwise recognizable as self-contained works, that are included in a single unit of publication, and in which the copyright claimant is the same; and
(B) In the case of unpublished works: all copyrightable elements that are otherwise recognizable as self-contained works, and are combined in a single unpublished “collection.” For these purposes, a combination of such elements shall be considered a “collection” if:
( 1 ) The elements are assembled in an orderly form;
( 2 ) The combined elements bear a single title identifying the collection as a whole;
( 3 ) The copyright claimant in all of the elements, and in the collection as a whole, is the same; and
( 4 ) All of the elements are by the same author, or, if they are by different authors, at least one of the authors has contributed copyrightable authorship to each element.Note that in both cases, the copyright claimant (owner) must be the same. If you register an unpublished collection you can break-up the collection and reregister the works singly later.
You may find this helpful. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
I’m not going to debate retitling, and/or registering works as a collection. I register works as a collection when I am acting as the publisher, or if I am assigning the collection to only one publisher.
It’s time to go on “sabbatical” now. I’ve got a house to sell, a new studio to build, and a catalog in desperate need of attention.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL
MichaelL
@Tony and @Advice…
I’ll answer your questions tomorrow morning. Gotta get some sleep now.
Hang in there until tomorrow.
_Michael
AND….I know somebody is going to say that you can just re-register a part of the collection if an exclusive publisher wants it later. Maybe….
That might work if you have been the only publisher, but NOT if you’ve already put the track into multiple libraries and/or it’s been retitled.
Bottom-line: for copyright to be of any value, you’ve got to play by the rules. The government isn’t very flexible that way.
Why is it that people go to a doctor when they’re sick, but are quite comfortable at guessing how the law works?
_MichaelL
Hi Tony,
Let me simplify…
The issue with registering as a collection arises when you wan to split the collection among different publishers because a collection is a single work. Splitting up the collection among different publishers would be like having Random House publish a few chapters from a book, and Knopf publish a few more chapters, and Penguin publish some more chapters….
Registering a collection is not a problem if YOU are the only publisher. For example, you put all of your tracks into different RF libraries and DO NOT assign them publishing.
Registering a copyright DOES NOT protect your work. It is merely a threshold requirement to get into federal court if YOU want to sue someone for infringement. If your work is not registered and some one copies it, you will have no legal recourse. That said, the damages threshold to get into federal court is $75,000. Very few library cues ever get close to making that kind of money.
Another consideration: if you put your tracks into re-titling libraries and some one “steels” your music, it’s very unclear whether your copyright would have any value, especially if you registered a collection, and then put it into multiple re-title libraries. The re-titled version of your music is NOT REGISTERED and therefore not eligible for federal court. If I was defense counsel I would immediately file a motion for dismissal on the basis that the work in question was not registered.
And one final consideration, beyond the 75K threshold, set aside 100K for legal fees. Copyright litigation is very expensive.
Cheers,
MichaelL
Yeah, I am a lawyer and I should start charging for advice 🙂
All modules in Ozone of course, I just prefer to have each component individual.
So you’re going into each module and tweaking?
Thanks for the tip…money to spend elsewhere.
Hmm…the Lexicon dropped its price on the PCM bundle 🙂
Primarily Ozone
But, like Denis, I have a bunch of tools in my ear candy jar.
In no particular order:
Oxford Inflator
The Glue
Waves Tony Maserati GRP
Slate Digital Virtual Consoles
Slate Digital Virtual Tape Machine
Right now I use Ozone 5, but I’m thinking about upgrading to Ozone 5 Advanced to get individual component control AND Insight metering. (any thoughts on that Denis?)
Time will tell as the RF model continues to adapt while new composers continue to flood the RF market.
People worry too much about the number of composers “flooding” the market. There are just as many opportunities.
The percentage of composers that “get it” and are producing music that actually works is another question….somewhat less than a flood.
The writers with the most difficulty will be the ones in crowded genres, like hip hop, that only represent a small percentage of sales, e.g., on AudioSparx hip hop accounts for less than 2% of sales.
If you do not have a large diverse catalog, and work primarily in one genre for which there is little demand, you will have difficulty.
If you do not take the time to study the industry, and only live in the hope that your style of music is licensable, you will have a lot of difficulty.
_Michael
PS..this isn’t directed at you personally Tony.
@Advice, thanks for the kind words. I’m no guru. I’ve been very very lucky.
This is a brutal business that requires a lot of time and investment. There were four factors that I considered when I made the risky decision to leave my law practice and return to composing.
1) I had already earned a living as a composer for 20 + years, 2) I was already earning royalties from 4 TV theme songs, 3) we had another source of income, and 4) I had saved 20 years worth of midi files (about 2,000) from which I could build a new catalog.
If I had to start over from square one, without any one of those factors, I’d still be practicing law, despite my love of music and composing.
As far as exclusives go, I’m used to getting paid upfront. In the 90’s I was making around mid five figures to produce 10-15 cues per month, including 5 versions of each cue: full, bed, 60, 30 and 15. I look back at that as library boot camp.
So, I’m not really comfortable just handing cues over for free, particularly when there’s sometimes marginal difference between the backend payout for 15-30 seconds of music on a TV show and what the net would be on a sale of the same cue in a RF library. Case in point :38 of BG music in one of my shows on FOX paid $10.27. I just sold a :30 RF cue and netted $20. So, the RF cue is ahead by $9.73. Plus, that same RF cue has sold twice now.
But…there’s always a but, this business is highly nuanced. There’s no single path to success. I spent 20+ years composing for corporate clients, technical films/videos and educational productions, non-broadcast producers…the heart of the RF client base. As such, the vast majority of the 2,000 cues that I’ve accumulated will go into RF libraries. Libraries like JP and Crucial don’t have much need for music that was composed for a manufacturing sequence in a corporate film, or for horseshoe crabs mating in a science documentary. So, I’m building on my strengths and experience.
All libraries are not the same. You have to be a student of this business. You really have to do your homework and understand the libraries that you want to work with, what they need, and what they expect, who their clients are. Otherwise, you are just shooting in the dark.
Notice that I didn’t mention writing “MY” music, or “MY” vision, or “MY” art? There are places for that if you’re an indie artist or avant-garde composer, but generally speaking outside the realm of production music.
You can learn a lot from composers who post here. Mark Petrie has offered tons of great advice, like “write every day, even when you don’t feel like it.” He also laid out his strategy of building on his back catalog, 12 hours a day, 6 days per week for 3 0r 4 years to get to the point of earning a living, with about (if I recall correctly) 1,500 tracks.
Steven Baird once laid out his approach, which included minimizing his living expenses, which I think is very important. I think Steve said he had been at it for 3-4 years, and was approaching the point of being able to leave his day job, with about 500 tracks.
In addition to being excellent writers, Mark and Steve have one thing in common…they understand business. That is so very very important.
As Art says YMMV. What your needs are, and how you define “earning a living” are huge factors. My recollection is that at the end of 3-4 years Mark was making about twice what Steve projected that he would make 100K/50K, respectively.
Minimizing your expenses, as Steven did, helps you get there sooner. Hence, my wife and I are downsizing, de-blinging, and moving to the country. We all come from a different place. If you have kids or a mortgage, it’s not so easy.
To address your question: Do I think that part-timers should give up and throw in the towel? NO. But…they need to be realistic. The day you get that first placement, is not the day to tell your boss what you really think of him or her. If you’re having fun and not losing your shirt, go for it.
Enough rambling on. I’ll never get those tracks done, if I keep doing this.
Cheers,
Michael
I’d be inclined to say that for tracks in RF libraries whereby the sale depends on end users coming to the site and finding your track, it MIGHT be less risky to be in multiple ones (though you are still competing with yourself and watering down the market).
Not a problem IF you retain the publishing and DO NOT retile. Then, it actually doesn’t matter which RF library the music came from.
One could make the argument that if you are not prolific, you shouldn’t be in this game. Not a very nice thing to hear if you only write a handful of tracks per year (like me!), but every industry has qualities one must have to truly succeed.
Sorry, but that is an absolutely viable argument, and a very realistic one. We’ve done the math. It takes hundreds, if not thousands, of tracks to earn a living at this. Y0u are 100% correct. Every industry has “qualities one must have to truly succeed, ” or perhaps requirements. In law and medicine you must have degrees and pass bar exams and boards. Plumbers and electricians must be licensed. While there are no such formal requirements for success in this business, there are unwritten rules and harsh realities.
Last summer, I painted a room in our house. It took me two months! It was beautiful…perfect. And as the father of a close friend once said, “nice work, but you’ll never make a living at it.” The point being no matter how good the paint job was, I am far too slow a painter to earn a living at it. My time would have been far better spent writing. (which is completely different argument posed by an economist friend of mine: i.e., by not writing, I lost more money than I saved. The same is true in the library game. No matter how wonderful your music is, if you only produce a few tracks per year, you’ll have a very tough time.
There’s another, very practical, reason for this as well. A lot of music has a “best when used by” date on it. Things go in cycles. Technology, sounds and tastes change quickly. If you’re only producing a handful of tracks every year AND you’re writing trend driven music, the tracks that you write this year might only replace what you wrote last year, rather than add to it. I wouldn’t want to fill my catalog with 1,000 dubstep cues.
It’s not that non-prolific writers shouldn’t be in this game. But, they need to have realistic expectations (unless they are working at a very high level). By analogy, it’s a little like a weekend warrior trying to compete in the NFL. Every once in a while, it happens. For the majority, though, it will be an avocation.
_Michael
+1
Well said Denis. There is an art and a craft to creating production music. And, successful composers of production music should take pride in their work.
My issue with this thread is that characterizing a certain body of work as “populist schlock” is a judgment call the demeans both the work and its audience.
To be fair, I should have written “FOR Hollywood schlock”, because it’s not the music that affects-disaffects?-me but the “what’s popular” entertainment machine, that seems largely unconcerned with innovation. This sensibility, I find, trickles down to the music supervisors/libraries and, in turn, to the composers and their work.
Emlyn, there’s a saying in the law, res ipsa loquitur, “the thing speaks for itself.” Your attitude speaks for itself. You want enlightenment not entertainment, art not commerce.
There are many professional composers, who take great pride in their work, even if it is for what you call the “what’s popular entertainment machine.” I just heard the doors to 100’s of libraries slamming.
You’re going to have to find a way to balance and compartmentalize those needs to survive in this game.
Food for thought.
_Michael
I have not had to tweak the EastWest samples much to get them to sound good – other than adding reverb.
The biggest advances in orchestral libraries are arguably * not necessarily with their sound, or sonic, quality, but in their ability to do some things faster and more realistically. For example, EWQLSO strings sound very good, but LASS, Cinematic Strings and other newer libraries are far better and more natural at legato playing than the old EW dxf method. Additionally, some libraries like LASS, Berlin Woodwinds etc., allow the composer to do accurate divisi writing. There are more velocity layers and more round robins, all of which enhance realism and speed up the work flow.
* However, I say “arguably” because some developers, like CineSamples (and the newer EW Hollywood series) have gone to great lengths to capture the sonic quality of specific sound stages. Spitfire libraries are renowned for their sonic quality, being recorded at Air Lyndhurst Studios.
BUT…depending or your style of writing all, or some, of these improvements may not be relevant.
_Michael
The real issue, IMO? Marketability. That’s a biggie, no matter what niche you plan to fill.
Yes, Emlyn, THAT is the real issue. This IS a business. The library business, licensing business, whatever you want to call, it is a business. The music that one puts into this marketplace must FUNCTION on some level within the marketplace.
What Rob (cruciform) composes is trailer style music (very well I would ad). And, generally speaking, that kind of high-end music is not licensed through non-exclusive libraries. It’s not a small niche, but rather one with very specific standards, particularly with respect to sonic quality.
So would you rather write Hollywood/TVland schlock-even GREAT Hollywood/TVland schlock-and make a living writing music, or write strange, different, interesting stuff that will probably never sell (unless you get hella lucky with a kooky director’s pet project!)?
To be blunt, your question tells us everything that we might need to know about about why someone, anyone, would have difficulty succeeding in this business. The moment that one characterizes well-produced commercially viable music as “schlock” they are making a value judgement that places them outside the sphere of most frequent industry needs and industry norms.
That might satisfy one’s “artistic” yearnings, but it is tilting at windmills in this business. I would ask why would anyone try to make it in this frustrating business, if they dislike and look down on the very medium in which they are trying to succeed?
That said. there are a few libraries/licensing companies where one can be more adventurous, but you’ve got to do your homework. [Removed by moderator]
Bets of luck.
Michael
….they sometimes got better more real Hip Hop/Dance/Indie Rock styles because the ones who make those styles are sometimes artists who just want more exposure, and they make those tracks better then the all around composer…
Lack of “more real” hip hop/dance etc., in exclusive libraries is not necessarily the result of music being composed by “all around composers.” Real hip hop and dance music is not “mainstream” enough for a lot of broadcast audiences, and it gets in the way. Hip hop “flavored” often works better, and is more marketable on many levels.
So…we’re downsizing and getting rid of excess baggage, and moving to the country.
@ Matt, don’t miss the important part. We’re dumping the bling and focusing on what’s important to us. As my wife puts it, living authentically, For us, that means scaling back, so that we have the freedom to focus on creative endeavors, with less economic pressure. At the end of the day, stuff is just stuff, and it doesn’t feed your soul.
I hope to hear from you. I think Art’s having a membership sale. Is that over?
Best,
Michael