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.
@mort shuman – well why dont you just register the new titles ?
You must register the titles with PRS .. they will get ur dosh from their counterparts on other territories , ie the States ..
FWIW – The only time I sign exclusivity away – is when the Library PAYS UP FRONT with an advance or preferably non-recoup able production fees.
If they dont want to pay – then no – they sure as hell can’t own exclusivity on my hard work.
Ok, so let me get this straight here.
Lets say im in the UK, and have regsitered all my work with PRS. Now lets say thati sign a 50:50 deal with a retitle library (so i gethalf of all the backend) . Now what happens if i DONT register the retitles with PRS in the UK…do i still get paid from USA useage via BMI or ASCAP?
can someone clear this up once and for all please, cause a lot of busy libraries in the states offer this on a regular basis. The onyl probem i can see, is there is no way, other than to ring BMI or ASCAP and check wether if after signing to such a library, your work has actually been registered with the new joint writer publisher split.
Interesting discussion. I’ve had several placements with a Library using the re-title model and live in the UK so it’s even muddier over here. They look to take 100% of my publishing and split the performance royalty 50/50. I would imagine if the track were to create $ 1000 then I’d essentially get 25% as they’d get 50% of the pie as a publisher and then the other 50% would be split with me at 25% so for every $1000 the track made I’d get $250. Or maybe I’m not fully understanding the process…
Thanks John!
Usually the library registers the new title with your PRO. Unless you have the exact re-titling you won’t get paid.
Hope this is in-line still – do we actually re-register the work with our PRO if it was re-titled by the music library or can we just use the AKA on the original registration of works, with our PRO?
I wonder if anyone visiting this site has heard of this before, because it’s something I’ve only heard of recently: a library requesting that a composer use an alias, to have some kind of exclusivity to the name. Occasionally composers will create an alias to promote a commercial release, e.g. E S Posthumus (Pfeifer Brothers). However, that’s a different situation to a music library who simply want to separate themselves from other libraries that have hired the same composer in the past.
In case you’re wondering, it’s a big trailer music company, probably in the top 10.
One of the comments from Floe was the horror of giving up all publishing. I haven’t seen it that way. The contract I sign allow them to claim the publishing share of the performance rights for their placement. I can still (as my own publisher) flog the rights to the song, as long as I am clear that it is already in use on a nonexclusive basis. If you have a song with a full publisher, and all they do is a placement, they get the publishing share. There is no significant administrative work being done their either. And if you get a placement under an exclusive publishing deal–the publisher still gets their share of the PRO money, whereas with retitling, you can get it.
Tis a crazy world out there.
Just to add, Dansen
Although I also agree that the whole thing may be shaky on a legal basis, I feel like I sometimes read contradictions from composers. Some will complain about re-titling, looking down at re-titling libaries, while at the same time declaring they would never sign an exclusive with a library. I think these POVs are at odds.
(Note: By “re-titling library” I mean one that re-titles solely to differentiate usage with PROs. Lots of libraries change titles for marketing purposes- to indicate the type of sound the track has)
Like you, I like re-titling because it is helping me get music signed and placed. Am I being selfish and ignoring some bigger picture? I don’t know.
Assuming no legal ruling suddenly shakes up the industry, things will settle in their place based on the laws of supply and demand.
🙂
I have to say that I agree with everything ABOUT RE-TITLING has said in this thread.
In addition to that, my experience has been that although I have a few tracks with different titles in a few different libraries, it is only one library at any given time that is placing a track. In other words, I have never – on a practical level – seen any of my tracks licensed out by more than one library, re-titling or not. In essence, it’s like having several agents working on your behalf and whoever gets a gig (i.e., gets a track placed) makes some money along with you.
Truth is, I’m getting nervous about this new resistance to re-titling from COMPOSERS!. It’s a good deal and one of the few remaining sources of revenue for film/TV composers. Don’t blow it by making this model go away…times are tough enough as it is.