Vaughn Johnson, composer and President of ScoreKeepers Music, recently wrote an article for Film Magazine and has given us permission to post it here. It’s nice to hear another point of view from one of the more successful non-exclusive retitling music libraries.
————-
A Voice From the “Dark Side”: Confessions of a Retitler
Hi, my name is Vaughn Johnson and I’m a retitler.
I am a composer by trade with a great deal of experience selling all rights to my music as a hired hand for television production. When I became involved in the music library business, I set out to provide a different experience for composers by offering them an opportunity to retain ownership of their work. I wondered if, as a publisher, there would be a way to collect royalties only for those broadcast performances that are the result of my company’s placements. I discussed these issues with a representative from BMI when I started this venture. He suggested that we retitle the tracks as that would be the simplest solution to properly allocate publishing royalties per our agreement.
I have read the criticism and misinformation swirling around the internet regarding non-exclusive libraries and the practice of retitling, and feel motivated to raise my voice with others who view the non-exclusive model as a viable alternative.
It is worth noting that my business deals with providing instrumental underscore tracks for TV, not pitching individual songs. Perhaps in the world of advertising, promos, etc. where individual songs compete for placement, the retitling concerns take on a different scope than what I’ll discuss below. Since I do not represent the views of other non-exclusive libraries, some of my responses are personalized to accurately reflect the philosophies and practices of my own company.
Criticism #1. Multiple claims of ownership/legal disputes and ethical issues
Only one party owns the music: the composer. He/she has given us non-exclusive control, the authority to retitle, and the right to collect publishing royalties generated from our placements. Non-exclusive library administrators understand that the cue sheet indicates which title was actually used in the broadcast and therefore which party is entitled to collect publishing royalties. Opponents of retitling are making this practice out to be some sort of back-room deception, using terms such as sketchy, unethical, and insidious. In reality, retitling affords complete accuracy in administering non-exclusive deals by providing the simplest way to satisfy the terms of the agreement.
Criticism #2. Blacklisting by TV clients
I work with producers and editors every day to make sure they have the music and service they need to create successful scores for their programs. They are not concerned where the cleared music came from, or if they can get the same music from another source. They need great music that works for their shows. And lots of it. Deliver that with a smile and they’re happy. I have not encountered any “blacklists”. However, if there are music supervisors or networks that have a problem with non-exclusive libraries, I offer a solution: You don’t need to rule out all non-exclusive libraries, you just need to rule out all but one. One non-exclusive library fits nicely alongside your exclusive libraries and offers a wealth of great music that the exclusives can’t provide.
Criticism #3. Retitling devalues your music
Sustained financial success in the TV music business comes from performance royalties. You don’t get a higher royalty rate because your composition is represented exclusively. From my viewpoint, retitling increases the value of your music by allowing more opportunities for placements and generating royalties. I think most of us will admit that there is a degree of luck involved in this business. As a composer, how do you know which library will be the “lucky” one with your track?
We have composers who are making a substantial annual income due to one particular show for which we provide music. Had these composers put their tracks in an exclusive library (or, for that matter, divided their tracks among non-exclusives) they may have seen income from different sources, but completely missed out on the huge ongoing payout from that particular show. In cases like this, these non-exclusive retitles have proven to be invaluable.
Criticism #4. No possibility of exclusive deals
Composers, do you think that if there is an opportunity for exclusive libraries to make money from your music they will say, “No thanks, that track has been tainted with non-exclusivity”? If the music works and they have clients who are willing to pay for it, I’m sure they’d be happy to take it off of your hands. And per our deal, we will remove any track from our database at the composer’s request, in order to accommodate a better opportunity for them.
Criticism #5. Retitling can attach inferior titles to your songs
Not true with our company. We use actual and completely new titles that complement search parameters in our database to make tracks as useful and marketable as possible. What advantage would we gain by assigning an inferior title?
Criticism #6. Limited potential for international income
We have a system in place that legally affords our composer-owned catalogue international placements and receipt of all applicable royalties including mechanical royalties.
Criticism #7. Performances not tracked by fingerprinting/sound recognition technology
Recently, a music library that uses TuneSat recognition technology claimed that a track credited to me on cue sheet was actually theirs. After reviewing the track itself, it was clear to all parties that the cue sheet was correct and the track was mine. Here’s what caused the trouble:
Both my track and the track from the other library used the same drum loop, with different overdubs. I had added timpani, while the other composer had added guitar. I contacted TuneSat to inquire as to how my track could have been mistaken for the one it fingerprinted. TuneSat’s response was that the track they had in its database was the closest match to the track that was broadcast (mine). Closest? Doesn’t sound like a fingerprint match to me. TuneSat acknowledged that improvements to their technology are necessary to account for different compositions that use the same commercially available loops and sounds, as well as compositions that have been retitled. It is evident that until this technology is perfected, we can anticipate inaccurate results. Perhaps the ultimate solution in sound recognition technology will be one that can account for both the use of drum loops and retitling.
Criticism #8. Non-exclusive libraries are less motivated to promote your tracks
Another generalization that is untrue in our case. Our company is thriving because we work diligently to promote our composers’ tracks. We like making money and our composers do too. ?
Some claim that non-exclusive libraries are only interested in amassing cues—regardless of quality—in order to boast a large track count. In our case, we only accept high quality cues that are sonically and compositionally useful in television underscore. We champion quantity when it’s quality.
Criticism #9. Actual quote: “Exclusive libraries have a long track record of generating steady income for composers; non-exclusive libraries, on the other hand, are doing everything possible to drive sync fees out of existence and to further accelerate the devaluation of music in the marketplace.”
I will assume that the author’s generalization is an effort to stir up discussion and that he doesn’t actually believe these points to be absolutes. I will address each issue separately:
A. “Exclusive libraries have a long track record of generating steady income for composers.”
I’m sure for some this is true, but isn’t it possible that there are composers who sold their copyright to an exclusive library and have never seen another dime for that composition? Is it possible that they have sold several pieces and after years of exclusive representation have only seen an occasional trickling of performance royalties? These same disappointing results are possible with non-exclusives as well. The difference is that with non-exclusive deals, composers keep their copyrights, control their material, and can pursue many outlets for representation and potential income.
I recently received a call from a very good composer. He has music in our non-exclusive library and has also provided music for several major exclusive libraries over the years. He stated that ours is the only library from which he has seen substantial performance royalty income. For him, generating “steady income” turned out to be the product of a non-exclusive deal. It’s not the music library business model that determines whether or not a composer will make money. Both exclusive and non-exclusive libraries can generate steady income for composers.
B. “Non-exclusive libraries, on the other hand, are doing everything possible to drive sync fees out of existence and to further accelerate the devaluation of music in the marketplace.”
The assumption that it is the motive of non-exclusive libraries to lower fees in an effort to devalue music is absurd. There is more than one factor contributing to decreasing upfront fees in the television music business. As far as music libraries go, low-ball bids are not the sole domain of the non-exclusives. We have had our pricing undercut before by big, reputable, exclusive libraries. Obviously no one in this business is above doing what it takes to compete.
When considering the value of music composed for TV, every experienced composer in this marketplace knows that the sync, or upfront fees are inconsequential when compared to performance royalty income. Any business focused on getting music on the air to generate broadcast royalties truly values the income potential of that music. Our company not only places high value on the income potential of composers’ music, but on their right to keep ownership of it.
In conclusion, we all want to write some cool tunes and make some money while we’re at it. In the music-licensing world, the past few years have proven that you don’t have to be affiliated with a traditional production music library to make a buck. Is it a market-share-scare that would cause some of these exclusives to ban together to cast aspersion on a different business model? Do they feel that by demonizing the practice of retitling they will undermine their non-exclusive competitors? Surely there is room for more than one way to represent a composer’s catalogue. The important issue is the composer’s ability to maintain rights to his/her hard work. I question the motives of any party that would castigate an honest effort used to advance that cause.
I believe it is the composers, not the naysayers, who will determine the future of retitling. An alternative method may emerge, one that may require more complicated administration, but still offers non-exclusive representation. It’s been my experience that music for picture has many lives and many uses. A well-structured non-exclusive deal affords the owners of those useful compositions many opportunities for income, and at the same time leaves open the possibility of selling their works exclusively should the right deal come along.
Vaughn Johnson, Composer/President ScoreKeepers Music
As a composer who has not published even one of his works yet, I find this world of deciding how to release my material into the world quite confusing. How is a newbee like myself supposed to decide which method (exclusive or non-exclusive) to use? Obviously my compositions are important to me and it seems on the outside looking in that I would want to retain ownership of my music. On one hand it seems that the exclusive model forces me to give up my rights to ownership of the music, but is the way that things “have always been done”. On the other hand, the non-exclusive method may allow me more exposure, but the name of my composition will be changed and the music modified to suit the needs of someone else trying to make money from my efforts. Do I have this wrong?
“How is a newbee like myself supposed to decide which method (exclusive or non-exclusive) to use?”
Hey Dave,
That’s tough to answer completely because it’s not a simple answer. You’ll find your own personal strategy as you discover your strengths and weaknesses. But to answer some of you what posed:
“..exclusive model forces me to give up my rights to ownership of the music”
With most exclusive deals (always will be exceptions) you’ll keep 100% of your songwriting royalties – the library will want 100% of the publishing royalties (that’s their reward for placing your music and making you money). So that’s the common 50/50 split you’ve read about. Also, if there’s a sync license fee (the fee a company pays to the library to sync your music to their images – TV; Commercial, etc) some libraries will split that with you.
“..the music modified to suit the needs of someone else trying to make money from my efforts”
Exactly! They’ll change the title and in most cases will need to edit the song (alter the layout) so the client can make use of your track. But you’ll get paid.
You’re correct about non-exclusive (NE)- you can place that piece of music into multiple NEs.
And regarding Exclusive – personally, I write for Exclusives only if the deal is better than if I placed that music in a NE. But everyone makes their own call on what they consider is worth the Exclusive agreement. And many composers do both.
Did that help address the things you were most concerned about?
Paul
>In fact, here is a picture of the composer, his wife, and the house…<
Ah, so that's what all those "Mick Dodge" placements can buy you!
The thing is that a lot of these non-exclusive libraries that are getting placements that produce back-end royalties are eventually moving more towards exclusive deals. So it may just be a matter of time before they all go the same route as SK, which (for now) will still offer non-exclusive deals but put more priority on the exclusive tracks.
In the last 3 years I’ve seen more & more libraries doing this. Almost every non RF library that I started working with 5 years ago on a non-exclusive basis has either moved completely exclusive or partially exclusive.
While I agree that giving exclusives to libraries that mainly do backend only, cable reality TV cues is not a good deal, a few points… Not defending the switch that libraries such as SK and JP made… I didn’t go exclusive with either because it didn’t seem right to me and I’m glad I made that decision.
(1) The article by Vaughn is at least a few years old, maybe even 4-5 years old by now. Market conditions do change in fairness to him. But I wouldn’t call him out on something he wrote that long ago.
(2) DI, I’m not sure pulling your tracks is such a good idea because (a) placements from any library, exclusive or not, can take years (or never happen) so it’s hard to draw conclusions and (b) It could be a definite bridge burner, especially with SK. Is that worth it? What would you do with the tracks next?
DI, when you say you are pulling your tracks, do you mean not renewing the contract when it expires at the end of its term (I think 5 years) or are you contacting asking them to pull sooner? The latter is an absolute bridge burner.
I don’t believe in sunk costs or burning bridges. When one opportunity closes, others open up.
For the most part, any tracks that are being removed would not be sent out to other companies unless some request came up that needed a specific kind of music onn a non-exclusive basis. I am not actively working to license tracks that I made 5 years ago. That will definitely mean less music available for licensing.
But I am moving my sound into new directions. I have to let go of the past in order to move forward. So far, certain libraries have not promised what they stated. I see no inclination on their part to fulfill those promises on my behalf. When my music is removed, it will be replaced by music from many other composers.
Even though the library has made money from my music, they will not go out of business once my tracks are removed. In the same token, I will not really lose anything. The tracks that have been licensed will continue to make money. The tracks that were not licensed will do nothing just as if they were never submitted to the library.
I just see a lot of people being taken advantage of these days. The heavy-handed deals from most of these deals never materialize into something good for most composers. A handful will do extremely well (5% to 10%), a few more will do marginally good (20% to 30%), and the rest will do nothing at all (60% to 75%).
I just remember all of the hype about having more opportunities for placements with major networks, placements for commercials, more opportunities for sync fees, more participation for more backend deals. A few years later, most of us get the same backend placements on cable shows. The PRO royalties per placement are about the same as the non-exclusive cues were. Synce fees are not increasing. Direct licenses are still being made.
I know that business needs change for the library. But my business needs are changing as well. I am not making a change based solely on the words that were put on paper. I am changes based on the amount of money that I am not getting. I should be making more money from participating exclusively. Since I am not, it is time to change things.
I cannot speak for others, but I am moving forward. I don’t believe in sunk costs or burning bridges. When one opportunity closes, others open up.
“Even though the library has made money from my music, they will not go out of business once my tracks are removed…”
Whew!! That’s a relief, DI!! 😉 😛
All jokes aside, it is time for me to make new moves. I can’t get ahead doing the same thing over and over.
“I can’t get ahead doing the same thing over and over.”
Not because you aren’t talented, but because you are in a very crowded genre. Everybody’s doing the “same thing.”
I wish that was the case. I have music in many different genres. Hip-hop, Electronica, Pop, Ethnic, Lounge/Downtempo, and others. I have at least one song licensed in each one of these genres. That is not to say that I am a guru or music God (maybe I am. LMFAO! :-)).
But I have worked extremely hard at making music. I still have an enormous amount of information to learn, digest, and implement. But I know that I have done a great deal on my end and others have not done their part.
I am not disgruntled or even angry. I am simply disappointed in what was presented to me. I have learned and now it is time for me to look within myself to see what I can do to change things.
Anyway, it isn’t all about me. Other composers were lead astray as well. Their journeys, stories, successes, failures, and lessons matter even more than mine does. The broader community of composers has the right to not be exploited. Most composers work hard and search to find ways to succeed. Hopefully, some bad deals will not stop people from moving forward and attaining their dreams and goals.
“I just remember all of the hype about having more opportunities for placements with major networks, placements for commercials, more opportunities for sync fees, more participation for more backend deals. A few years later, most of us get the same backend placements on cable shows. The PRO royalties per placement are about the same as the non-exclusive cues were. Synce fees are not increasing. Direct licenses are still being made.”
Really the heart of the matter. I remember an ad for PMP that was in ASCAP’s magazine years ago, or maybe it was on their website. It was an artist testimonial in which the composer said that she made enough money from PMP to use as a “downpayment on a house.”
It doesn’t get any more pie n the sky than that!
It’s true about the house, Michael… In fact, here is a picture of the composer, his wife, and the house… ;)http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tqB4IFSDY4Q/maxresdefault.jpg
Sorry, but this guy is a hypocrite. He wrote something similar on a different site a couple years ago bashing exclusive libraries that don’t pay upfront money. Now scorekeepers does exactly that.
Wake up composers. Why in the hell would you write exclusively for a library that does blanket licenses and you only receive royalties? This is the perfect example of feeding a corrupt industry.
Yes, I was stupid and have written some sk music. But I quickly learned it was a race to the bottom
I am with you.
I am in the process of removing music from libraries that switched from non-ex to exclusive. I am looking at my PRO statements and see no huge increase in royalties. I am not get I g my music placed on more large network shows. The sync fees are non-existent as well.
It is easy to get frustrated but hard to get smart. I decided to get smart and take back control of my music. That will mean less songs in the marketplace. But I already feel as if adding more and more songs results in less and less benefits.
The promise of big backend royalties is easy for libraries to promise. Companies get the music for free, collect blanket license fees, provide direct licenses, and have the opportunity to make half of the royalties for all placements. Writers get a chance to collect a few pennies for their efforts.
You are not stupid by the way. You were deceived as I was by certain companies. But now that we know more, we can make smarter decisions. Learning a lesson like this puts composers in power. There is no need to feel bad, as we gain more opportunities by walking away from bad deals.
“This is an old post from a year or two back I believe. Funny how their stance has changed.”
True, their stance has changed, but the business has changed, as well.
“If this is true, then why is SKM not reviewing any non-exclusive submissions anymore?”
I’ve been told, by a friend who writes a fair amount of music for SK, that they simply have enough non-exclusive material. They don’t need, or want any more.
That makes complete sense. When libraries like, SK and JP were new, they needed content, and they didn’t have money to pay for it. So, they dangled the non-exclusive carrot out there. Now that they have track records, and tons of content, they can afford to be be choosy.
“That makes complete sense. When libraries like, SK and JP were new, they needed content, and they didn’t have money to pay for it. So, they dangled the non-exclusive carrot out there. Now that they have track records, and tons of content, they can afford to be be choosy.”
SK and JP still aren’t paying for exclusive music from non-staff or the very few WFH composers.
“SK and JP still aren’t paying for exclusive music from non-staff or the very few WFH composers.”
I know. I didn’t mean to suggest that they were now paying for content. The point is that they believe that they have enough non-exclusive content.
This is an old post from a year or two back I believe. Funny how their stance has changed.
If this is true, then why is SKM not reviewing any non-exclusive submissions anymore?
I am not sure. Hopefully someone from the company can respond here.
SK now has tracks exclusively. Has Vaughn’s stance changed?
Watch these guys……they listed themselves as writers on my material in spite of our clear agreement. Still trying to undo that one.