There is a lot of controversy about the practice of retitling music by music libraries that offer non-exclusive deals. Retitling allows the composer to place their music with many companies thus widening the opportunities for getting their music heard and thus sold. Some think this “de-values” ones music while others think it’s unethical or possibly illegal.
151 thoughts on “Retitling”
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
😉
I hear ya ABOUT RE-TITLING!!! It’s almost like it’s destiny!!! lol
Thanks for the insight on what composers can possibly look at negotiating with some libraries out there. I totally agree…You don’t want to overdo it, or else you can be a turn-off to the library. There was a library in particular that sent me a couple of emails, saying he is totally open to questions, comments, or concerns with their agreement. Even on their site, it says “we want composers to be completely comfortable with the agreement”. So at least with them, I think I can negotiate a few things.
Me personally, I have had a couple of placements…not many. I’m a recording artist and producer, and had stopped producing for a few years (being an artist, husband, father, manager, studio engineer, among other things, can take it’s toll…so I had to leave the producing alone for awhile. But I’ve just gotten back into producing, so I have a lot of instrumentals I’m looking to license (in addition to my songs). 🙂
Hi Floe
We have to stop meeting like this. 😉
I agree we should never pay money to submit tracks to a library. Reviewing music is their business. That’s why I’m not big on Sonicbids or Broadjam. They listing parties take part of the submission fee and I’ve seen cases where it appears that’s all they were in it for.
Taxi is different there, BTW, because the listing parties do not share in the fees so they have no motivation to run up the listings.
Regarding negotiating contracts, most of the time there is no room for negotiation on the financial side. Most libraries, except maybe very small startups, can’t have diffferent contract terms for different composers and have to manage who has what.
What you ***sometimes*** can negotiate are some minor wording changes or additional words. For example, you might be able to get a contract term can be cut back such as from 5 years to 3 years and/or change the exact wording on how you can terminate with notice… Or that the library will send you copies of cue sheets… Maybe you want an exception that your music won’t be used in porn or snuff films. A good entertainment attorney can tell you what the most important things to ask about are. It’s important not to overdo it– ask about only major things that might concern you. If you want the deal, you don’t want to be a pain to them.
A number of libraries, like Crucial, make it clear that their contract is non-negotiable.
All of us have to find a comfortable balance between protecting ourselves and making no career progress.
Floe, can I ask if you have any library deals or placements in film/TV?
🙂
Thanks Art!!! Keep up the great work!!!
And thanks again ABOUT RE-TITLING! The more we discuss this, the more I understand your point about giving libraries half of the publisher’s share. Giving the amount of work and effort most libraries engage in, it does make sense to offer some kind of compensation for their efforts, on top of their share of the licensing fee. I would think, if anything, splitting the publisher’s share is fair. But as I said in an earlier post, I don’t agree with a library receiving ALL of the publisher’s share…I still think that’s extreme. Your average co-publishing or administration deal would grant a publisher half of the publisher’s share, so I guess granting the same to a library (especially a library that is working HARD for their composers) would be ok.
It seems like there must be a better way to do this, though, without engaging in re-titling. Because as I’ve said before, I just see potential for a lot of headache down the road if you have a lot of re-titling deals, with duplicate titles being sent to music supervisors…even if you do choose to cancel the deals. Libraries would continue to be paid forever for a mirror image of a song that a publisher may eventually own, if you engage in a co-publishing deal, for example. The publisher surely would not be happy with that!!!
In the end, my initial goal is working with those who don’t partake in taking any back-end royalties. Then, as a next step, CAREFULLY consider SOME libraries who re-title. This site is giving us very valuable information to help weed out the weak libraries out there.
Composers should empower themselves and put their foot down when discussing deals with libraries. For example, me personally, I refuse to deal with any library that charge any upfront fee to submit tracks. That’s ridiculous to me!!! This is one example of how composers should empower themselves. Because in the end, this is still OUR music we’re offering to libraries. Composers should understand the value in their music, and not let anyone gain access to their work, just because they’ve received “the green light”.
I wonder how much negotiation some of these libraries are willing to engage in with composers? I guess it wouldn’t hurt to give that a shot. Negotiation should always be involved when contracts are involved, and it seems there should be no exception for libraries that re-title.
Thanks again for the input. Truly appreciate the healthy conversation!!!
Floe
You don’t suck, LOL! 🙂 We are all helpless without spell checkers and post editing these days!
I disagree with you about libraries taking the publisher’s share. In most ways they are doing the same job as a standard music publisher in promoting your music. They have the same expenses for offices, phones, CD’s, employees, subscriptions to professional lead sources, internet sites, etc, etc. The 50/50 split with the publisher has been industry practice for many years and seems fair. I don’t see why you would give 50% to a “publisher” but not a library when they successfully market your music.
We can agree to disagree, no sweat.
I mentioned that I ran a very small library for a while and learned a lot about what it’s like on the other side. It’s very hard work and expensive. It wasn’t my F/T job and with so many libraries popping up, I gave it up. Without F/T effort to build the right personal relationships and having to be one of 100 guys sending tracks out for the same opp, I realized it wasn’t worth it.
Even had I never done that, I’d rather pay 50% to the library who does the job for me, then sit with a contract that has me keep all PRO royalties but effectively is just a piece of paper. 😉
Just added the ability to edit comments for anonymous users. Now to find a spell check plug in!
Art
Geez…I suck 🙂
With this quesiton I MEANT to say: Is it me, or does anyone else feel taking ALL of the publisher’s share for a LICENSING company’s “efforts” is extreme?!?!?!
I guess, to some extent, this is a good question for publishing companies also, but obviously, the discussion is directly related to licensing companies.
Art…I’m assuming a comment cannot be edited/deleted, since the comments are anonymous…?
Sorry, I’ll proofread a couple of more times with all future comments!
*my comment above…sorry for the typos…replace “scare” with “scarce”. My brain was doing some heavy churning as I was typing, even after the proofread 🙂
Hi ABOUT RE-TITLING,
Thanks for your comments. I truly appreciate your view of this concept, and you’ve made some great points.
Your second point is very important, because as you said, some re-titling contracts may ask for a portion of copyright or “assign all rights”, etc. Being an artist, I’ve even seen some standard record contracts with a co-publishing section, which is a big no-no in my opinion, especially if the record company isn’t actively pursuing placements for the artist.
But back to the subject, I read a previous comment in which someone said that a licensing company should indeed have a portion of the back-end royalties, because the licensing fees are getting more scare, or non-existent in some cases. That may be true, but from a composer’s standpoint, SO WHAT! That is no excuse for a licensing company to receive back-end royalties via re-titling. As it says in most the these agreements, it is agreed the licensing fee is split (in most cases) 50/50. If there is a case where there is no licensing fee, or a very small one, then SO BE IT!!! It doesn’t change the fact that a licensing fee is still split between the composer and the licensing company!!!
On top of that, if licensing fees are so scarce, then why do companies like Pump Audio SUDDENLY choose to take even a LARGER portion of the licensing fee (now 65% instead of 50%)??? I understand they were bought recently by Getty Images, but still…I would assume licensing fees are still pretty decent nowadays, especially for an independent artist!
Me personally, I am totally ok with signing an exclusive deal with a publishing company (actually have an administration deal at this time). But if it’s a co-pub deal, and I’m giving a portion of the copyright and publishing to someone, there’s definitely going to be some serious negotiation.
And I’m kind of stuck in the middle about licensing companies receiving any back-end royalties. I’m more of the opposing side, due to the re-titling thing. I just don’t like how some companies plaster on their site “You keep all of your writer’s share” or “everything is fairly split 50/50”, as if they are being totally straightforward with composers. OF COURSE I get to keep all of the writer’s share, because it’s SUPPOSED TO BE OFF LIMITS TO BEGIN WITH!!! 🙂 And some companies who scream “everything is fairly split 50/50” look to take ALL of the publisher’s share! Is it me, or does anyone else feel taking ALL of the publisher’s share for a publishing company’s “efforts” is extreme?!?!?! So I think the reason why some composers are afraid to sign anything is because either (a) they don’t understand what they’re signing and refuse to find a lawyer…or (b) they are turned off by some of the misleading wordplay that some licensing companies use.
Keep the comments coming, because this is important! Thanks Art for this site!!!! I’ve learned a LOT in such a short period of time!!! 🙂
Hi Floe
The article in that link brings up excellent points. Will there one day be a legal challenge that rules out this practice?
A couple of notes to composers to help avoid problems.
(1) If you sign any non-exclusive deals for a track, you cannot also sign an exclusive deal such as a publishing one for the same track. If you want to accept an exclusive offer you have to terminate (if possible) those other contracts. Signing an exclusive while having other deals out there is putting your signature on a lie. It could cause big legal grief for you and the licensee. However, when you sign a contract you almost always assume all liability for claims. Causing grief for end-users hurts all of us.
(2) Read contract language very carefully– consult with a **qualified entertainment** attorney. I’ve seen some horribly written non-exclusive re-title contracts which looked like someone just hacked up a standard publishing contract. A non-exclusive library contract should not have wording like “assigns copyright”, “assigns all rights” in the way publishing deals do. You are (in a nutshell) only assigning them the right to re-title and collect their share of royalties.
Item 2 is important for a lot of obvious reasons but in the event of a conflict where 2 libraries make a claim on a submission and show their contracts, it can be really ugly. One actually claims to own the copyright!
I am not a lawyer- the big disclaimer here.
Floe, you said:
** I still don’t understand how it makes sense for a licensing company to take a portion (in some cases I’ve seen, ALL) of the publisher’s share, without truly owning the publishing of the SONG to begin with! **
There are 2 ways of looking at what you said. It sounds like you think it’s bad for libraries to take some or all of the publisher’s share. **I may have read that wrong and, if so, sorry.** Libraries need to make money too or they wouldn’t be in business. For their hard work in actually making placements, from my perspective, they are very welcome to 1/2 of the PRO revenue. But on the other hand, very often composers are unwilling to sign a full publishing contract which would make taking the publisher’s share undoubtably legal. So, is there a contradiction here?
I ran a start-up library for a while and made a few placements. As a new kid on the block, I could barely get composers to sign my non-exclusive (and very friendly!) contract, let alone an exclusive one. They were scared to death of signing anything. As composers, if we are concerned about re-titling, how willing would we be to sign exclusive deals?
It’s all food for thought.
Re-titling is a loophole, plain and simple. I’m not knocking the fact that placements can, and will, be made with re-titling. That’s the whole point as far as the licensing company is concerned.
I still don’t understand how it makes sense for a licensing company to take a portion (in some cases I’ve seen, ALL) of the publisher’s share, without truly owning the publishing of the SONG to begin with! Someone recognized the fact that the PROs don’t truly track an actual SONG, but the song TITLE…So licensing companies can claim publishing on a TITLE (not the copyrighted SONG), FOREVER?!?!? When did a title of a song become something to negotiate exclusively, in a non-exclusive agreement (???), for the sake of making money??? As someone pointed out earlier, eventually, music supervisors are going to get sick of getting tons of duplicates of the same song.
This blog asks some of the same questions about re-titling that I ask:
http://songwritergotchas.blogspot.com/2006/10/non-exclusive-re-titling-deals-boon-to.html
Who knows if I’ll eventually work with a licensing company that engages in re-titling…I think I probably will, just because it seems to be the norm nowadays. But artists need to truly understand both sides of this concept, because I see years down the road, re-titling is going to cause a MESS for copyright holders!
Re-titling, and least for the past 5-10 years and near future has opened up tons of doors for libraries and composers. When the demand for film/TV (a lot was cable shows) grew like wild, many new libraries jumped into the business. But there was no way many songwriters and composers would sign exclusive deals with them. So, this method allowed them to have music to pitch. And since there was both increased demand and a big supply of music, many libraries became successful.
I don’t think anyone has truly challenged this in the courts regarding copyright law so I’m not sure if it’s true that just because this is done, it is compatible with those laws. But a lot of people– composers, libaries, and PRO’s are happy with it. (I am happy with it!)
Re-titling is primarily used so libraries can collect back end royalties only on their specific uses of music, while not affecting royalties for other uses. A large percentage of libraries take the publisher’s share of PRO royalties (50% of the pie).
I thought I read some comments that libraries shouldn’t have to take any back end money since they get 50% of the up-front license fees. There are a lot of variables there and a library having a business model that keeps them operating and effective is important too. In many cases, with license fees so small these days, if they took no back-end they’d have to close shop. For example, if a library serves mainly cable TV networks like MTV, their only real source of income would be back end. In other markets like advertising jingles, big time films, etc there may be much more in the way of license fees.
With a number of libraries who don’t take back-end, I do scratch my head as to how they will stay in business. (I’m sure there are quite a few with sound biz models).
I don’t see any reason to look down on re-titling libraries. What matters is if they have a sound business and can make placements. As with libraries that pay no license fee up-front, you have to look at where you are in your career and the entire picture. I’ve seen folks who never placed a thing, stand on principle while their CD’s gathered dust bunnies on their shelves.
The bad part of this whole re-titling thing is music supervisors are getting bombarded by way too many libraries, thousands of tracks, and many duplicates. There may come a point where they get frustrated and start shifting to only work with exclusive libraries. They don’t have a lot of time and don’t need any hassles. Knowing a library truly has a song under contract is one less issue for them. I expect some weeding out over the next few years.
I have tracks in a number of re-titling libaries, one of which has made TV placements for me.