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
“Main advantage of working with non-exclusive libraries is to have more chance for licensing so that composers can have more revenue IMO.”
@JunL you cannot lump all non-exclusive libraries into the same category. Libraries, like Scorekeepers and libraries like MusicLoops are both non-exclusive, but both do not re-title…a major difference.
I am not convinced the placing music into multiple libraries that re-title actually provides a composer with any more opportunities to license their music, especially if multiple libraries send your music to the SAME client. It give the client multiple opportunities to regret the same track and to get pi**ed off that they’ve heard it four times under four different titles.
Do all non-exclusive retitle libraries really send their music to the same people? I have heard of this being a common complaint. But is the licensing world that small where MusicSupe X gets a hard drive full of music from libraries A to Z?
My thought is similar to the solution in criticism #2: “I offer a solution: You don’t need to rule out all non-exclusive libraries, you just need to rule out all but one.”
Choosing one non-exclusive library to work with makes sense for blanket placements. I really do not see the practical advantage of a Music Supe working with more than one non-exclusive anyway.
Just to clarify Scorekeepers do re-title, Music Loops don’t.
Hello.
Thanks for the information and advice.
Although I’m a newbie and don’t have many experience yet, I have some questions about working with non-exlusive libraries.
Actually I think that the advantage of working with non-exclusive libraries is not right perfectly(is right partially).
Main advantage of working with non-exclusive libraries is to have more chance for licensing so that composers can have more revenue IMO. But actually non-exclusive libraries have much more tracks than exclusive libraries.
Therefore, I think that it seems to be no big difference between having tracks sold in few exclusive libraries at the ratio of 1(my tracks) : 3000(other tracks) and having tracks sold in many non-exclusive libraries at the ratio of 1(my track) : 100000(other tracks). so it seems that the thing that influences the chance for licensing is other things such as how wide the tracks are spread(around the Earth) rather than non-exclusive VS exclusive library.
Second thing I guess is that if many many composers work with non-exclusive, that will make everyone hard.
I just thought the situation that many non-exclusive libraries have 10,000,000+ tracks individually. It’s not impossible IMHO with today’s and future’s composers with evolving computer music tools. In that situation, my(or your) tracks will be sold at the ratio of 1 : 10,000,000.
How do you think about this matter?
hope some advice,
Thanks!
JunL
@JunL: Please see https://musiclibraryreport.com/blog/newbie-info/
Hi euca,
That is an excellent question. There are many fundamental differences between the royalty free model and other library models. The largest differences are the client base and how the music gets used. Those differences can be over-simplified into broadcast and non-broadcast. I say over-simpified because the lines aren’t hard and fast. And, within broadcast, there is national, local, cable and internet.
Each potential client may be stratified, as well. For example, take pharmaceutical companies. If you watch any network evening news broadcast you notice that its saturated with big pharma ads (because of the demographic that watches the news). Those same companies also produce tons of non-broadcast videos to train employees, to introduce new meds to doctors and to update shareholders. They also have corporate sales meetings.
ALL of these things use music, BUT, the music is likely to come from different sources. Budgets for network ads are high. However, when you get down to the level of non-broadcast product and training videos, and local ads the budgets are very low, and the videos are often produced in-house. Budgets for corporate internet promotion are even lower. In addition, there are thousands of non-broadcast documentary and informational video and film producers that use music. Of course, there’s also the kid down the street making youtube videos.
But….to answer your question, I don’t see the majority royalty free companies following the exclusive model, especially if they’re not seeking broadcast clients. For one thing, the direction of the content flow is different. Customers search RF sites for what they want. They may find the same tracks on several sites, but that is very different than being PITCHED that same track by five different libraries. The annoyance factor isn’t there, and that is what the FMN job post was speaking to.
Cheers,
Michael
Thanks Michael, Once again great information!!
@Synth, I’m not predicting the end of retitling. I’m observing a shift in focus, among a number of libraries that is worth noting.
There is an important difference between then and now. The libraries that used to predict the downfall of retitling were EXCLUSIVE libraries that NEVER liked the non-exclusive model. Now, some non-exclusive libraries, for reasons mentioned in the FMN job post, are shifting their focus toward exclusive material. That’s a palpable change, which may have an effect on how much new material they sign, and how they promote their catalogs.
Obviously, the non-exclusive libraries are aware of something, if they are now building exclusive catalogs. The point of my post was not to predict the end of retitling, but to say this is a trend worth noticing, for several reasons. First, you may decide to continue doing what you’re doing…business as usual. OR, you may choose to take advantage of the exclusive option being provided by some “non-exclusive” libraries. It may well be that the latter option offers better opportunities for more lucrative placements.
This is a waste of time.
That is a good observation Michael.
Hey Michael,
Not a waste of time! Very good post I thought. Do you think RF libraries will follow the exclusive model as well? Or do you think it would effect more of the TV placement type model?
Hard to know what to think of this trend. On the one hand I can see the library’s point of view, they are driven by market conditions. On the other there’s probably more than a better chance that many of those songs, that have been signed exclusively, will sit without a placement and will be tied up for a number of years. The argument can be made that one great placement will more than make up for those just sitting. It’s not been the case in my experience with exclusives and some here have had the same experience. Maybe I’m just too much of a control freak!
Hi Art,
I think that there is a middle ground…a limited term exclusive agreement. Let a library have a track exclusively for a few years. If nothing happens, remove it and put it somewhere else. However, if you think of it, if that track was in five different libraries and all of those libraries pitched that track for the same job (which is the complaint) and the track wasn’t selected…it’s the track, not the library, that isn’t working.
I recently had a conversation with a non-eclusive library owner. I determined that his core client base is somewhat different than some of the other non-exclusives, and more appropriate for what I write. So, rather than waste my time submitting 100 tracks to the other library, only to have 99 rejected, I’d be willing to give him exclusivity on some tracks.
Remember this kind of exclusive is different. It is exclusive representation not exclusive ownership.
My 2 cents.
Michael
PS. hope the unpacking is going well!
Hi Michael,
You are right, of course, about the limited term exclusive agreement. It’s the best way to go and I neglected to mention that the exclusives that I do have, are of that type. My experience with those exclusives (and there have been placements) tend to still leave me in the non-exclusive camp, at least for now.
Unpacking is going well. Last room to do is the studio, which I will tackle today. Time to start hanging the Real Traps!
……and untangling the wiring and trying to find that connector you knew you put in a special place , but now cant remember. There is a certain Zen like frame of mind you nedd when it comes to installing studios LOL
Yes, I’m putting it off as we speak. So many boxes and so many excuses I can come up with! I also forgot how challenging installing Real Traps can be with one person.
Okay here I go, diving in!
Here’s some more evidence of changing sentiment regarding retitling. This is part of job listing that was posted on FMN today.
“Music that we accept into our library is ours to license exclusively. The reason we require exclusivity, is because the market is now flooded with libraries that take music on a non-exclusive basis and re-title those compositions. The market to which we sell, can potentially hear the same song offered by several libraries with different song titles at different prices. We want our clients to know that when their dealing with us their getting a unique original product and the only place they can get it, is from us. That’s our business model. People don’t want to hear the same old same old from everywhere.”
Gael McGregor used to scream that retitling would devalue your music.
So, here it is in black & white from another library. It’s simple supply and demand economics. Not only is there too much music in the marketplace, there is too much of the SAME music in too many places. The customers / clients/ buyers are now hip to that fact and they are tired of it. Anyone who has collected anything..coins, stamps, antiques baseball cards knows that the more limited the quantity, rare or unique that something is the more valuable it is.
Customer dissatisfaction will potentially do more immediate harm to the practice than any long drawn out legal challenges.
I don’t know who the library is. It’s a blind posting, so I don’t know where they fit in the food chain.
Libraries have been prophesizing the downfall of non-exclusive retitle libraries for years now. In the meantime, I keep signing songs to non-exclusive retitle libraries and keep making money.
I would love to get my music into a good exclusive library. But most are just too slow to review my music. Most never even give a rejection. One exclusive library that did want me to sign took months to approve my music. I had already had those songs signed to another library and had a placement.
I have thrown in the towel in regards to exclusive libraries with the exception of one. This library is small and actually assigns song ideas for me to write to. This library is promising. The only exclusive library that I dream of getting music into is the Universal Music library. All of the other guys are not worth the hassle.
Hi Michael, how have ya been? I saw that post today. What I took from it was that clients could “potentially” hear the same song offered by several libraries. Not that it is happening. I’ve also read in the past (maybe Gael posted it?) that supervisors don’t have the time or inclination to shop multiple libraries. They have one or two “go to ” places they trust and that’s it. Just an observation…
Hi Michael,
Doing fine. Thanks for asking. You? Really busy. I need to set up a “production schedule” to get it all done. I’m writing for the shows and starting to rework my catalog one track at a time. Only 1500 to go. 😆
You’re reading of the FMN post is valid. It doesn’t say that they have experienced that scenario. The inference is that they are hearing comments from clients along those lines. The statement is far less strident than Geal’s posts, but nonetheless reflects, even if vaguely, a palpable attitude, or at least their perception of the situation. As they say in advertising, perception is reality.
I’ve spent a lot of time with editors over the past year. With respect to the people that I’m working with, you are correct. They had been relying on one, maybe two exclusive libraries to score all of their shows.
Cheers,
Michael
Good luck getting your cues done! Production schedule is the way to do it. Back when I had a bunch of custom writing work for Macmillan Educational Publishing I made them up all the time. Never missed a deadline!
Thanks Michael. The TV stuff will be a 5 to 10-year process of library building. The 1500 tracks is my back catalog that I’m reworking simultaneously. No horrendous deadlines, on either end, but I’d like to get my catalog out faster.
I wouldn’t exactly call this a non-exclusive agreement:
“Free to place on own but not with another library”
“To me it looks like the only thing that has really changed is that they are only doing “direct pitches” to specific shows etc. with the exclusive/custom cue tracks… ”
That makes sense. It’s the best way to avoid being one of five libraries pitching the same track.
That also comports with what I heard.
Thanks Steve.
Michael
“we only accept high quality cues that are sonically and compositionally useful in television underscore. We champion quantity when it’s quality.”
HMM…
ScoreKeepers denied all my tracks.
Another library picked them up.
I been making placements since then..
with the same tracks. (upfronts & backends royalties)
One person opinion means nothing to me
That’s the way it works in this world. Initially (a few years ago) they took much of what I submitted. Lately they have taken very little though those same tracks are getting picked up and placed by other libraries.
true…
Hi Vaughn,
I just re-read your FM article, posted above. I was wondering if your perspective has changed since you wrote that article.
I seems that more libraries are going exclusive, or offering that option. What do you think the status of re-titling is today, and where do you see it going?
Thank you for your valuable opinion.
Michael
Art: if Vaughn doesn’t see this, maybe you could ask him for a follow-up.
Hey Michael, I just sent an e-mail to Vaughn.
Yeah, I’d love to see a follow-up on this subject.
Thanks Art.
I’m just curious. I’ve heard rumblings which perhaps suggest a change of approach
at Scorekeepers.
Always looking to the future.
Cheers,
Michael
I get that vibe also.
Yes, Scorekeepers is only taking exclusive tracks now. Though they’re keeping the non-exclusive tracks. But I get the feeling from an Scorekeeper’s email that they won’t be promoting the non-exclusive tracks they already have (unless you make them exclusive, by signing their new agreement).
Times are always changing, aren’t they?
“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.” – Charles Darwin
Is this a new thing? I just signed a non-exclusive with them less than 2 weeks ago.
Was that your first signing with Scorekeepers Euca? I was told that all deals forward will have to be exclusive. Make sure you read the contract carefully.
Yes it was the first. Ryan sent me a contract for non-exclusive and also the custom cues.
From the email I got from Ryan, ScoreKeepers is still working their non-exclusive catalog. They are simply providing clients the option of either purchasing songs exclusively or non-exclusive.
They are giving writers the following options:
1) change all existing tracks you have with them from non-exclusive to exclusive.
2) leave all existing tracks as non-exclusive
3) Only place any new tracks you submit to them as exclusive.
“3) Only place any new tracks you submit to them as exclusive” – Ryan
Which tells me the non-exclusive tracks are being placed on the back-burner and they aren’t accepting anymore non-exclusive tracks.
They are still taking non-exclusive tracks and still placing cues that are signed non-exclusively. I signed a number of tracks non-exclusively to them about a month or so ago and most of my placements (including the most recent ones) are tracks that I have signed non-exclusively.
To me it looks like the only thing that has really changed is that they are only doing “direct pitches” to specific shows etc. with the exclusive/custom cue tracks… or maybe just for certain requests that come in that can’t be satisfied with their existing library. So if you want to write for a specific show through them, its going to have to be exclusive. But that doesn’t mean none of your non-exclusives will get used. I remember a show that they sent out a custom cue request for… I didn’t submit anything but that show still ended up using a couple of my tracks that I had signed non-exclusively with Scorekeepers.
-Steve
Thanks Steve. That is pretty much how Ryan presented it to me. He did say that when uploading cues, exclusives move to the front of the line.
Strange. I’ve been uploading non-exclusive tracks every other week as recently as last week. Never got any communication from him about any changes.
Hi Vaughn,
I’ve been with your library about a year and have begun to see some backend…great! Thanks for your article, it really eases my increasing concern about whether I should only be pursuing exclusive deals going forward. I recently wrote a few tracks for an exclusive library, but I feel comfortable leaving my existing tracks with non-exclusives such as yours. It seems like you can do a little of both as long as you keep writing.
Colin