Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Are we supposed to be thrilled about helping libraries prep for a sale where they sell our creations and make all the money?
Mark, would you not have to take full ownership of the cues? Literally buy them?
That’s exactly correct Mojo. Sending your cues to “exclusive jail” to NOT earn money in other markets is completely ridiculous! Dannyc It amazes me how you continue to support and back this proposed model and come up with justifications for saying…”I think this is just OK”
If you have great tracks present the music and just ask if they want to take it in non-exclusively so you can also sell it in non-competing RF platforms. What do have to lose? Nothing. Let the music speak for itself. I really believe that if they hear something good and feel as though they will move it, they will take it in. Can someone even pinpoint a story where a non-exclusive background TV cue has caused a music library great harm? I have never heard of any “major problems”. The only argument is “Networks don’t want to buy blankets companies offering the same music”. OK simple solution, allow us to have the music repped by 1 company, black list the competitors, but allow RF. It’s really not that complicated and Everyone wins. Library wins because they can accept in a offer fresh music, composer wins because they can sell on RF and RF does not compete against the typical TV cue supplying libraries.
Art and Michael, I do believe that everything is negotiable. If you have a proven track record of earning money for a company and your new music is solid and something a publisher knows they will sell, place into tv, or license into ad campaigns, they will take it in non-exclusively. I have accomplished this and I know other writers who have too even from companies posturing as “No More NE!”. You have to present the music first, then explain why you can not let go of the assets in perpetuity. It’s my creation, and therefore eternally my intellectual property. It can not just now become your property (or under your control) for $0. You can take this in non-exclusively, but I have to be able to sell it myself, and in other non-competing markets. These folks do understand this. At the same time, Danny C, I understand the “issues’ with TV cue feeding libraries. It was presented once to me this way: A post house is feverishly editing 10 new episodes of a show. Perhaps 3 video editors are cutting the shows together episode by episode. They and their assistants are are digging around for cues in several “go to” libraries. In edit suite 1 they find “Reality underscore 1” cue, love it and use it under a scene. Down the hall, the other edit team finds and uses “Comedy Pizz underscore”…1 hour later as someone is walking around the post house someone realizes the same exact music is being used, it has 2 different titles, and is in 2 different libraries. Assistant editor then thinks…hmmmmm…who do I credit as publisher on cue sheet. They become “confused” and have a “minor problem” to resolve. Personally, I think the problem is very minimal, you simply credit the publisher where you actually found the cue! It’s that simple. These are 3rd party, hopefully objective honest people, filling in these cue sheets. They have no vested interest in favoring 1 publisher over another. Their job is to be truthful about where the cue was sourced from. Guys, There are millions of cues out there! If edit suite 1 found it in Library A…Credit A. If edit suite 2 finds the same cue in library B, credit B. This should be the “minor issue resolution” to this “lots of Free music problem”.
Now, on the other hand Libs may argue, well we like to sell blankets to the shows we service and if we’re all selling the same music under different titles, the client won’t buy our blankets. Well guess what? Us composers don’t see action on the blankets most of the time. So we’re supposed to give our music to these folks so they can sell Scripps blankets at $1000 an episode and we see no performance royalties? Only THEY make money? Who is winning in this deal? Only the library cashes in on $1000 per episode, or $500 per episode “blanket license fee” (Whatever they may get these days) The deal typically is: use our music just cue sheet it so we get paid. So yes, I can not feel sorry for post houses and networks swimming in millions of “free” music options, even if they discover duplicate, exact same, free options with a different title.
What can be done about this to be fair to all writers? It’s real simple, make the contracts “semi-exclusive” by writing “if we represent this track in our (TV show focused) library, you may not send it to libraries blank, blank and blank…send the blacklist of competitors who work with the same networks and shows. BUT, we need to be able to sell on RF because RF does not compete at all against TV cue feeding libraries. RF serves mainly corporate and youtube and cheap low budget advertising jobs.
Let me address the argument of “On RF we waste a lot of time keywording and uploading and then the music does not sell.” Well, I agree that this can seem this way at times, but for the persistent and patient writer, just you wait and see what can happen when suddenly someone buys that “weird” 10 to 20 year old cue overseas or in the USA (you NEVER thought would sell on RF) 20 times out of the blue and you suddenly make $3000 on it. Or another example would be a small RF broadcast license getting sold for use in a TV spot and YOU get to file the advertising and promo claim at your PRO as writer and Publisher and collect $3000 more in back end performance royalties! Wow! A $250 RF license sure did morph into $3250 out of nowhere. or…an e-mail comes one day for that silly little light, cute pizz cue (you’d never thought would do anything on RF) “We licensed this for $1200 to a client please invoice your split next month”
Have all of these examples happened to me? You bet!
We need to talk with the publishers and ask who are your main clients? And we as writers need to do our part to limit “confusion” and “issues” for the assistant editors who may have found our cues in 2 places, by not supplying those same TV cue feeding libraries). Anyway, I still argue that it really is not that problematic and I have seen my name on cue sheets before with 2 different pubs, but also 2 different cues (not the same music with a different title). Yes, free NE creates some “issues” but free is still free and free does not pay our bills. We need to squeeze out every dollar we can from every asset we create.
Let me address litigation: No one will litigate over $500 issues. Personally I don’t think people will litigate over $5000 issues.
Litigation comes into play when BIG MONEY is at stake.To All younger writers. Owning and controlling your catalog is where it’s at. The only asset we have is the music we create. Why give it to someone else to control for free in perpetuity? It literally makes no sense from my perspective. Sorry about the long post Art….just have to shed some light on things. I am not looking to argue…just sharing my 25 year experience and philosophy. I will write a lot of exclusive cues if you buy them from me for a respectable fee and I keep my writers share and collect performance royalties. No advance fee, no exclusivity.
I will come to the table to discuss semi exclusivity so we can all win and avoid “issues” when it comes to prepping the cue sheets.