Should I Sign With A ReTitle Library?

310 thoughts on “Should I Sign With A ReTitle Library?”

1. Maybe, good media composers are just fabulous musicians with LOTS of good ideas who have the skill and talent to work really quickly. To say that if one prats about for a year and can only come out with ten tracks that one is happy with just makes one slow and lacking in ideas.
   Almost certainly such a person is not cut out to be a media composer. Just wait until they get a call from the director saying the the 10 minute scene you have just received needs the music by tomorrow. And if you think that the said director would be happy with MUSIC that is not “highly valuable”…and …”Artistic” then you really have not understood what “media music” is all about.
   Just saying!

   • You’re not taking into account people who have other jobs aswell as composing. I work a completely separate job 40 hours a week, have a small company of my own not related to music for 10-20 hours a week, and try to compose in my spare time aswell.

     This is because I’m saving up for my MA next year – to be honest, I really don’t know how people can survive as a composer starting out without at least a part time job to pay for rent. People who make a proper living off royalties and pure composing for media are few and far between now (most teach music lessons/play in bands for extra cash) – it takes years to get to that level, and the people at the bottom of the ladder like myself have to try and balance it with another job to pay the bills until we get lucky 🙂

   • for sure, you have all valid points, and I am talking in BLACK AND WHITE terms, in an area where generalisation is impossible.

     however, I still stick to my point, in that the majority of music made by “media composers” is (subjectively speaking), very low quality. They are concerned with volume, and applicability, rather than musical integrity. Sure there are great musicians in this game who are able to crank out excellent MUSIC for media – – but I think they are very rare.

     my point is that for those able to crank out a tune in 15 minutes, and put their name on that, then the retitling model is not such a bad thing. But if you take a lot of time and care with your music, it deserves better than re-titling.

     I am NOT saying that great music can not be made quickly. . . . but this is very rare. Sometimes the time factor is hidden – for example John Coltrane could crank out tons of great music in no time, but what we don’t see are the years of sweat and practice. So when a musician has put in the time and effort (in prior practice, or current composing), and the quality fo their music thus shines thru – then they deserve much better, than the jack of all genres, mediocre, 3000 track media composer.

     Black and white again — ooops!!

     The truth I think is that we all lie somewhere grey in between, and it is up to us as individuals to decide what is acceptable for us.

     • Yup agree with you completely. I’ve seen people pumping out 40-50 tracks a week – that works out at approximately one track an hour – don’t think you can create a quality track within 1 hour to be honest….

       Take a look at audiojungle.net and have a look at some of the top authors – they have hundreds of useless tracks. The term “garage band looper” comes to mind at times 🙂

       • exactly, so it is meaningless to lump garbage music together with quality music, and expect the same kind ot marketing and deals for both, right?

         • Yup, but thats quite a complex issue, and how exactly do you resolve it?

           A lot of the “good” libraries won’t accept garbage, and charge high prices for the music. The bottom end libraries accept most crap in general.

           Its also a matter of the opinion of the music reviewer then, as to what constitutes good or bad music. One persons bad music, could be good music to someone else 🙂

           Its a great discussion, but a tough issue to resolve correctly I think 🙂

         • Whoa — dangerous territory Eddi — likely to offend a great many composers here.
           One person’s garbage is another’s treasure. I’d be very careful to label something.

           Producing a large quantity of music does not necessarily mean that it is garbage. It may simply mean that the composer is highly skilled and efficient.

           Mozart “cranked out’ a lot of music. Was it garbage?

           • Nicely put Michael. I never comment on the quality that I perceive in other peoples music. If I dont like it I dont listen to it or in this case buy it. There are a lot of extremely talented composers who write for retitled libraries or write production music. It is a craft in itself and anyone who thinks that their music is somehow better than this will get a very hard shock down the road, if they are trying to license it, retitled or otherwise.

             • I agree with both points of view here, but you have to admit, there are composers out there in *certain* libraries, that feel if they create as much music as possible, regardless of quality, then the sheer quantity the produce will give them a greater chance of having their music found.

               Not trying to offend people and say people who can create music in 5 mins, must be making crap music, but you have to admit with the technology thats available nowadays, anyone can make “music” – the range in quality of music nowadays has a greater range of bad/good due to this.

               Not saying everyone that creates music quickly makes crap music, just that everyone knows there are people out there who just flood music libraries with stuff they made quickly so they show up in a lot of searches and get their stuff heard.

               • OK. Here’s a reality check from Mike Patti, one of the founders of Cinesamples. — Dramatic music in 9 minutes.

                 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvQBpoh1N6I&feature=related

                 Still think you can’t produce a quality track quickly?

                 Michael

                 • @ MichaelL You beat me to it, I couldn’t remember his name.

                   @Emmet I dont necessarily disagree with you, but even getting into this area of criticism can be seen as elitism by some. If there are some websites out there who sell “garageband loop” music for 2 dollars then so be it. Maybe its only worth 2 dollars to those who purchase it. Either way this is the price of technology and putting what were very expensive tools into the hands of the masses. I just accept it and move on.

                   • I give up lol. Looks like I should be composing bucket loads more music so 🙁

                   • Don’t give up Emmett. Some libraries still respect compositional skills and originality.

                     IMO, the video is a good showpiece for technology, but definitely not composing.

                     In the process shown in the video, I’m sure one could knock-off a dozen generic tracks a day. But will they end up being the best the composer can do? Will they end up being original? Will they show good compositional skills? Will they be memorable tracks that stand the test of time? I think not. These kind of tracks will be forgotten as quickly as they were made.

                     Composing is a tedious process with many decisions to consider in harmony, melody, counterpoint, orchestration, etc. Sure, these extra elements can be ignored in creating quick generic tracks – but I sure hope this isn’t going to be the beginning of the end for well thought out creative work.

                     I know there are many libraries that could give a hoot about quality of compositions as long as the production quality is present, but I also know at least two library owners that respect compositional skills and originality.

                     I love today’s technology. There are a lot of good tools to make the composers job easier. But let’s not forget about quality music in this high-tech process.

                   • After decades in this business I don’t feel qualified to critique others artistic output. Different strokes for different folks!

                   • Art,

                     I agree. The problem with stepping onto a high pedestal is that you run the risk of a long fall.

                     Some people judge genres that they don’t like as crap. To that I say try doing it, and see if you can cut it. I suspect that “crap” maybe harder to produce authentically than some might think.

                     Conversely, brilliant and labored over “art” may be too inaccessible, and have no commercial viability.

                     Geeze, clearly, I don’t want to work today.

                   • Me neither. I did get as far as turning my DAW computer on. LOL!

                   • Gandhi, when asked how he could be so patient with others who had so many faults and exhibited “bad” behaviour is said to have replied with something like ‘How can I find fault with others when I have so many of my own?’ (I don’t remember the exact quote and don’t have time to search it out, but the gist is there [lol])

                     I figure the same thing applies to music — I may not like a particular style of music, but can appreciate the talent and technique(s) used to achieve it. I may not like a painting, but someone at the museum had to have said “Behold! a great work of art!” in order for it to be hanging there. I’ve loathed films with multi-million-dollar box office revenues and loved others.

                     All art is subjective.

                     Whatever floats your boat.

                     That includes the licensing and library worlds.

                   • Denis W,

                     We should have a beer!

                     Technology still seems pricey, but the quality of today’s stuff for the price is amazing.

                     I’m old enough to remember that that a Synclavier was 150K and a Fairlight was 75K.

                     No point in complaining.

                   • I remember shelling out $5K for one of the first Emulators. Then selling it for a few hundred dollars not too many years later. Technology moves so fast!

                   • I’ve still got mine. Have I got a deal for you…. 🙂

                   • Probably worth more today as a historical artifact!

                   • Serial Number 485, out of about 500.

                     Any bidders?

                   • @Art, Michael

                     I still have my Emulator 2 in storage complete with the external CD rom drive. I also used a Fairlight series 3 for many years, 55 K Sterling new .The biggest heap of c**p ever.
                     Ah those were the days. The only thing i kept from that era is a Korg Wavestation which I dont turn on at all !!! If you guys are ever in Ireland myself and Emmett will take you out. Us older ones can reminisce about how much money we wasted on gear, and how much we would have made if we invested that money in Apple stock !!

                   • GUINNESS and you’re on.

                     Thinking about turning my old emu into a floor lamp!

                   • Guinness is on us 🙂

                   • @ Denis W, @ Emmett

                     Now that would be so cool. So many folks I would love to visit over the pond. One of these days!

                   • @art @ Dennis @ Emmett

                     Yes, that would be very cool. Of course, if you all end up on the US east coast first, our local brew is on me.

                     Michael

                   • @MichaelL, Darn, just got back from 2 weeks in Connecticut. Where are you located?

2. Thanks everyone for your valuable feedback – I am learning a lot and this is fascinating!

   Can anyone tell me what this word “notwithstanding” actually means…? especially in THIS context (which is from the same contract):

   Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, Licensor shall retain
   all right, title and interest in and to the Works.

   • Eddi,

     In this context, the use of the word “notwithstanding” implies that something is true, even if there is an opposing condition. Basically, this particular paragraph seems to be saying that despite whatever else is said in the contract, the actual rights to the works remain with the Licensor (writer, whoever).

     • so…. I guess these dudes aren’t quite as “bad” as they looked at first. That can be the problem with taking bits of a contract out of context.

       there is a guy at SOCAN that I trust and respect – and after hearing what he had to say about the re-titling model, well….. seems the obvious thing to pass. ESPECIALLY since I am NOT the kind of artist that cranks out hundreds and hundreds of tracks. I create a very small number of works and each is the best I can absolutely do. So there is NO way I am taking any risks at all with my copyrights – even if that means they sit on the shelf my whole life.

       • I’ve been observing the retitling issue closely, with great interest. I’m a composer AND a “recovering attorney.” I haven’t decided yet whether to go try the retitle route.

         I’ve contacted the US Copyright Office for clarification. I’m may also consult with some attorney friends and a former law professor or two.

         My general opinion, and this should not be construed as legal advice, is that the retitling apocalypse. for a number of reasons, isn’t going to happen — at least not the legal Armageddon vision.

         There is are several reasons why this business model has been around for years without it becoming a Supreme Court case.

         First, the parties most likely to sue under the retitling model, would be libraries arguing over whose title of a particular copyrighted work is due PRO payments.
         The problem is that neither of those parties owns the copyright, so neither has standing to file suit for any issue relating to the underlying copyright. Only the copyright owner can do that. He/or she presumably doesn’t care which version of their track gets credited, as long as it gets credited. But, it seems that it would be easy enough to identify the source of the work. Moreover, what’s the basis of the cause of action –infringement? The retitlers don’t own anything that can be infringed upon.

         Next, and this is the biggee — MONEY. Copyright law falls under federal jurisdiction. You must file suit in federal court in a copyright infringement action. The lawyers that handle these claims typically charges hundreds of dollars per hour. They generally do not work on a contingency basis. The cost of filing, pre-trial motions and discovery, would in most cases far exceed the amount of money in question. Typically your talking about tens of thousands of dollars. $100,000.00 in legal fees would not be unheard of. The good news is that the winner can recover their legal fees.

         Speaking of the amount in controversy, if we’re not talking about $75,000.00 in damages you cannot get into federal court under diversity jurisdiction in the first place. How many retitled tracks earn $75,000.00 in PRO royalties? So unless there is now a copyright “small claims” court, as was proposed several years ago, you’ve got to have $75,000.00 in damages to get in the game.

         Next, the courts in our country generally like what is good for business, especially competition. The retitling model is competition for the traditional library model. The courts are not likely to see that as a bad thing. And that leads to potentially huge legal hurdles for the anti-retitle movement.

         There is a dangerous flip side to campaigning too vigorously against retitling. Several articles and postings have reported that some “major” entities are essentially blacklisting libraries that retitle. That is potentially a more clear cut violation of the law than retitling. The libraries that retitle are businesses. If a group of companies boycotts these businesses across the board, you stifle competition. Even if it’s an unspoken, but everybody knows about it rule, the blacklisting companies expose themselves to antitrust claims. Blacklisting is not a good idea.
         See United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. et al., 334 US 131 (1948).

         I Believe that retitling will evolve. Essentially, it is the commodification of music. Tracks are going into the marketplace at $35 a pop, like cans of soup in the grocery store. That, however, is a viable business model. The goods are tracked via bar code. The manufacturers know which cans of soup sold in store A versus Store B. They know what types of soup are popular and where. Technology now allows musicians to earn a living marketing their music in a similar manner. In theory, watermarking will eliminate the need for retitling. Library A could offer the same titles as Library B. The watermark will act like the bar code, and will identify the source of the license.

         We can debate whether the commodification of music is a good thing, but I think the horse is already out of the barn on that one. Some say that retitling devalues a composer’s work. Possibly it is creating a market for works that otherwise might not see the light of day. I see no value in the argument that a composer should let his or her work lay idle, rather than potentially earn income through retitling.

         The bottom line is that retitling is a well established business model that provides a form of employment for many people, and it encourages competition. These are two things that courts are likely to favor over abandoning the model. Legislation could modify copyright law to accommodate retitling.

         The wheels of justice turn slowly. It can take years for a case to wind its way through the courts. It is quite possible that technology will render the question moot before the law changes. And, the Supreme Court will not hear a case if the issue is moot.

         Only my opinion — not legal advice.

         Cheers,

         Michael

         • Hi Michael,

           Thanks for posting that. I am not an attorney but I have been saying basically the same thing for the last few of years. Though you have put it so much more eloquently!

           It seems to me that the “retitling” genie has been out of the bottle for far too long to have the massive meltdown that many have been predicting. I think, generally, technology will always be ahead of the law and the law will adapt accordingly.

           Art

           • Personally, (and I am a TOTAL newbie here), I think that the problem is because of the term “MUSIC”. We use that term assuming it means the same thing.

             This is not true. There is a huge difference in the nature of the “music” made by a true quality-based Artist that makes perhaps one album a year and puts everything into this – and the “music” of a musician who is simply trying to crank out as many cues as possible, in order to create a personal library of hundreds and hundreds of tracks in dozens of genres, in order to have sell this “music” for whatever TV show or whatever.

             I am NOT putting down the mass producer of music… all I am saying is that there is MUSIC, and there is music. There is a BIG difference.

             Retitling is great for those mass producers…. but if you have made MUSIC that you have honestly put your heart, soul, time, and tons of energy into, and come up with ten amazing tracks in one year. . . . then for this, it seems to me that the retitling model sucks big time. It would be a cheap and risky sell-out for highly valuable works of art. IMO

           • The real question might not be “should I?” –but rather “what should I?”

             Again, this is not legal advice, just an opinion.

             The legal issue often sited by those who oppose retitling is the potential confusion regarding which retitling library was the source of music in a given project. That sort of issue, is not a copyright issue, and could be fought in a state court. The parties would most likely seek an declaratory judgement as to the source, not ownership” of the music. Again the amount of money in question has to exceed the cost of the litigation, otherwise there’s little benefit to litigating. Unless A LOT of money is at issue, like 100K, people will sit down and figure out where the music came from before it get’s to that point.

             The significant thing is that this kind of litigation is a squabble between two parties that is not likely to lead to legislation resulting in a change in the copyright law, to close the alleged loophole, nor will it result in abandonment of the business model. If anything, legislation could accommodate and validate the “loophole,” by providing a proper procedure for retitling. This is not far fetched. Copyright law favors the rights of the copyright owner.

             It should be pointed out that retitling libraries often serve different markets than exclusive libraries. Again, globally, there are thousands of utilitarian uses for retitled music, ranging from TV and film production to music on hold, corporate meetings and environmental music. There are thousands of desktop video producers who use retitled and downloaded music, or buyout music, because digi-drops are not in their budget.

             These utilitarian uses have nothing to do with the narrow demographic of high- end film and television productions. The courts are not likely to overturn a business model the serves so many based upon the concerns of only one, fairly small (but powerful) group of consumers.

             This is not a monolithic business. There are many many layers of quality, and vastly different budgets, and many different purposes for licensing music.
             Both models should coexist, and composers should be free to market their music where appropriate. The key here, is “where appropriate.”

             I think that the answer to this question can also relate to Eddi’s question and the sub-thread going on here. There is a difference between art and commerce. Sometimes they overlap.

             The reality is that composing for music libraries IS, and if I could increase the font size, IS a business. Libraries do not exist to put “art” into the world. They exist to market music for a profit. Those of us who do this as a profession do so to make a profit — dare I say — to earn a living. Along the way, we might have some fun and create some art. Personally, I find the creative “all you can eat buffet” of writing in different genres to be interesting and fun. It’s also worth noting that some of us probably compose “serious” (concert) works too. I do.

             My question for you Eddi, would be: what do you consider an amazing track.? Do you think that John Williams only writes ten amazing tracks per year? A good pace for a working composer is about 2 minutes of music per day. With respect to heart and soul, I’ll paraphrase an oft used quote. This business is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration.

             Not to be harsh. I understand that you are an artist and not working in the trenches. I cannot comment on the specific deal that you were offered. You should have your lawyer do that. Generally, however, if you are convinced that you have ten amazing highly valuable tracks, and you would feel more secure with an exclusive library, submit your tracks to a number of exclusive libraries for consideration. You will find out very quickly if these libraries think that your amazing tracks have market value. If not, you can try the retitle/download route and consumers will decide.

             So — following Eddi’s question, perhaps we should ask “what should I retitle?” — not simply “should I retitle.”

             Perhaps we should look at our tracks as investments. Some investments are safe and some are risky. Some have higher yields than others. Deciding where you market your tracks is like deciding where to put your money. Conventional wisdom says to balance your investments across risk levels.
             So — if i were you Eddi – and I had ten amazing works of art, I might try to get the highest long term yield, which might be in an exclusive non-retitle deal. But, if I only have ten generic utilitarian tracks, I might consider an alternative.
             Also, I don’t know what kind of music you do Eddi, but if it’s a here today gone tomorrow style, it might be out of style before an exclusive library could get it out.

             I would closely evaluate arguments against retitling to see who benefits from the argument. Are they thwarting competition, and to what end? Why say I “can’t use your music,” but “I don’t you to have the power to market it another way?”

             Change and competition always create friction, especially in tough times.

             Michael

             • As a follow-up — I do recognize that not all retitling libraries use the low-end download model. There are certainly retitle libraries that rep their catalog to more upscale users.

               I reference the low-end download market just to illustrate the
               wide range between the exclusive libraries and non-exclusive libraries, and the potentially distinct niches that each business model fills.

               Michael

         • The most likely court scenario is actually from the broadcaster side.

           Why?

           Fees for blanket licenses from the PROs are partially based on the size of the catalogue (remember, with the PROs registration is on titles, NOT works). So the catalogues are grossly inflated due to the growing practice of re-titling. That’s fraud — whether intended or not. Broadcasters are already suing the PROs on a variety of issues, including overcharging, the right for expanded direct licensing, etc. Results are mixed, but the big boys ain’t happy and they’re taking the PROs to task. Class action suits are also being brought against the PROs. Again, mixed results and lots still pending, but the fight is on.

           I’ve gone ’round and ’round with this, talking with numerous entertainment attorneys (most of whom specialize in intellectual property and music). I’ve spoken with several folks at the U.S. Copyright Office, and as I said before, had a conversation with their General Counsel. While he said it would require a lot more research to determine exactly which practitioners are skating on thin ice, his admonition was to always err on the side of caution and protection of one’s copyright with clean, unencumbered registrations.

           Also, it should be noted that few outside of our industry have even heard of the practice. In fact, many IN music (but not in the library world) don’t have a clue. The head of one of the three major TV networks (yep, one of the Big Three) was completely flummoxed when I explained re-titling to her. She was both surprised and appalled. In recent conversations with some rather renown film and TV composers, they expressed THEIR surprise (which surprised ME). All their compositions consist of one title attached to one work (which is usually a work-made-for-hire) and re-titling isn’t a part of their world.

           At the WCS, as I spoke to reps from non-U.S. PROs, and there were two issues that particularly perplexed them: (1) the weighting of instrumental music at 80% less in monetary value than music with vocals as it pertained to performance rights royalties, and (2) the re-titling of unique works and recordings.

           Their take on (1) was (IMHO correctly) that music used in film, TV, advertising, etc. should be based on HOW the music is used, not WHAT music is used. As for (2) they uniformly looked askance at it. The president of one fledgling foreign PRO said bluntly, “Why would we want to do business with anyone engaged in such a thing? Why would we want to put ourselves at risk?”

           The genie may be out of the bottle, but it doesn’t mean that there’s a clear potential winner on either side. I just prefer to stick to the simple road: Unique titles for unique works, and all recordings reflecting those titles and works.

           Re-titling is a dirty little secret, even if many of us are completely aware of what’s going on. We tend to insulate ourselves and think that just because WE know about something that others do as well. That’s just not the case, but as more issues are brought forward, the higher the chances we’ll see this (and more) tested in court — and not by a composer or two, but by broadcasters that are tired of being held hostage by the PROs and their lack of transparency in exactly how they arrive at the prices they charge.

           Cheers!
           Gael

           • all of this discussion is very very interesting and highly educational!

             thanks all for taking the time to contribute.

           • Gael,

             You may be correct, I’m not saying that you aren’t — with respect to the broadcast and entertainment world. But, what you fail to address is that there is a vast world that exists outside the ivory towers of the broadcast world.

             There are thousands of small music users who produce everything from corporate meetings to wedding videos. These producers have low budgets their work is never broadcast and, as such, is outside the purview of the PROs. It is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT universe than the one the you do business in.

             These independent non-entertainment producers have been using royalty-free and buyout music for decades. Now they are downloading inexpensive music, most likely from retitlers.

             With respect to copyrights, this may come as a shock, many of the retitled works are never registered. I spoke with one composer who hasn’t registered anything in 30 years!

             As to whether the size retitlers catalogs constitutes fraud, that’s very gray. If you consider the grocery store / commodity analogy, It’s not fraud simply because many stores carry the exact same brands of soup. If there is a danger that the PROs are paying to much, then perhaps they need to adjust how they calculate payments to retitling libraries.

             Moreover, many of the web-based retitlers do not report to the PROs. They only pay license fees for downloads.

             To simplify my point, I don’t believe that you can, or should, throw out a business model that serves perhaps hundreds of thousands of musicians and media producers globally — individuals whose work and product has nothing to do whatsoever with the broadcast world and/or the PROs.

             The problem for all involved is that sometimes the two worlds collide. Five retitlers may annoy you by pitching you the same track with different titles. But, also perhaps, someone in your industry may look for a cheap download to save money.

             As a composer, and perhaps as a lawyer, I would prefer that my works destined for broadcast use not go through the retitle model. And, if I did sign with a retitler, I not sign the same work to another retitler if I new that the retitler in question was going to actively pitch my work to music supervisors.

             On the other hand, if we are talking about bread & butter generic work destined for use by non-broadcast producers, I would have no problems placing those tracks with passive web-based, search engine driven, retitling sellers.

             The point of my original post was 1) that either through negotiation, legislation, or simply technology, retitling is likely to be refined and legitimized in some fashion, and 2) there is a separate and distinct world of media production that exists outside of the realm of your concern, in which retitling works and does not involve the PROs.

             I do not know how to say this without possibly offending you. I do not mean to. If I do, I apologize.

             But please, recognize that there is whole world of production that exists outside the broadcast / entertainment / PRO world. A great many individuals derive their livelihood in that world — perhaps more than in the broadcast world.

             I’ve been fortunate, and had some modest success. I haven’t yet assigned anything to a retitler, nor have I signed with any web-based sellers.

             What bothers me is that 99.999% percent of media composers will never even breathe the same air as “renown film and TV composers.” Many of these composers will never ever see a PRO check. Wholesale abandonment of retitling, rather than refining the business model to a workable solution, would eliminate a valuable revenue stream that helps many composers, who will always remain outside your world, survive. Is that what you really want to accomplish? I don’t think so.

             For this reason I believe that there needs to be a workable solution, rather than simply eliminating retitling. My gut sense, legally, is that courts would, in the long run, look for a solution.

             Cheers,

             Michael

             • Gael,

               Just a footnote to clarify my post, and to emphasize that is not directed at you, and that I had no intentions of offending — if I did.

               As I said, I’ve been fortunate, and I am personally uncomfortable with retitling — with respect to the broadcast world.

               However, I have real empathy for the many many composers who struggle outside the broadcast / entertainment world.

               As such, I strongly advocate for a solution that does not destroy their livelihood.

               Cheers,

               Michael

               • so…………………….. M., you say;
                 “As a composer, and perhaps as a lawyer, I would prefer that my works destined for broadcast use not go through the retitle model. And, if I did sign with a retitler, I not sign the same work to another retitler if I new that the retitler in question was going to actively pitch my work to music supervisors.

                 On the other hand, if we are talking about bread & butter generic work destined for use by non-broadcast producers, I would have no problems placing those tracks with passive web-based, search engine driven, retitling sellers.”

                 So it seems even you will clearly also agree that re-titling is not good for broadcast – – – – hence, refering this back to the offer I got, since companyX clearly wants to market my stuff for broadcast – then you would also agree that it would be unwise to sign this contract?

                 • I assume that this is coming from Eddi,

                   To clarify:

                   1) For broadcast purposes, I would prefer to have my music represented by one company that has solid relationships with music supervisors, like Gael, and productions companies.

                   2) If, however, the company that I assign a particular track to is a retitler, I would not assign the same track to another retitler, so there could be no confusion down the road regarding its source.

                   The problem is that because some companies are engaging in a form of blacklisting against retitling libraries, you run the risk of having your track go nowhere if the library that you sign with does not have solid relationships with producers and supervisors that trust them.

                   I cannot tell you what to do. Clearly some doors are being shut to retitlers. Obviously, however, some are not, otherwise the practice would not continue.

                   Ask the library for references. Who uses their services? What’s their success rate? I wouldn’t tie my tracks up with someone who’s just blowing smoke your way.

                   The other half of your question deals with more generic, utilitarian music. I had a client who used to refer to this style of music as “forward motion” or “pallet movers.” That’s sort of over generalizing. There are many non-broadcast uses of music. For example most large corporations (Fortune 500) produce videos for training, marketing — whatever. The same companies sometimes have meetings and seminars where they use music to motivate their employees. In addition to these “industrial” users, producers sometimes use library music in educational films and documentary films. Then there’s music on hold, etc … the list goes on. There are many non-broadcast uses that exist outside the PRO world. Radio ads for the most part are outside the PRO world, even though they are broadcast.
                   The point is it’s not all film and television, ASCAP and BMI.

                   In contrast to the higher quality music that I would license for broadcast, I do not see a problem with distributing more utilitarian music to non-broadcast users through as many outlets as possible.
                   I’m speaking of search engine driven download distribution.

                   Depending upon where you are in your career, and what you want to accomplish, you need as many revenue streams as possible.

                   I probably didn’t give you the answer that you were looking for. I don’t think that anyone here is going to say “Eddi go sign that deal.”

                   Have you submitted your work to any other companies? You might try that first.

                   Michael

               • No offense taken, MichaelL.

                 You should know, however, that I do not breath the glorified air of the Alex Patsavas & Bonnie Greenbergs of the music supervision world. I work on mostly indie projects and have done a lot of cable films & TV.

                 I am also an artist and writer. I play eight instruments, can orchestrate and arrange and am a studio singer — made my living as a singer for decades. I’ve played dives and major arenas, sung backup for everyone and their dog (famous and non) and have a bead on the varied financial spectrum of our industry. I’ve repped artists and their work on many levels (kinda happened by default), and know how different the worlds of high- mid- and low-commerce can be.

                 I don’t, however, feel that my opinion of a practice should be dictated by how much (or little) money is to be made. There are ways to accommodate the often disparate worlds without compromising one’s ethics in the process.

                 While I completely understand what you’re saying, from my own experience I KNOW it is not that difficult to modify an existing composition and recording to make it a unique work and recording. You make enough melodic and sonic changes to qualify (at the very least) as a variation. This way you are providing unique recordings and works to each licensing portal. Simple. No worries, no hassles, other than a little time.

                 Yes, it takes a little effort, but who ever said this business was supposed to be easy? I think we (especially in the U.S.) have gotten into the mindset to simply throw whatever we have at the wall and see what sticks, and put as little effort into it as we can to make as much as we can.

                 I am not saying that is what you are personally advocating, but the business models certainly do.

                 As for registrations with the PROs?

                 The libraries don’t register those new titles with the copyright office, because to do so would make the fraud official. They would need to note pre-existing registrations/titles of the work and be taking ownership in the copyright instead of ownership of certain revenue streams.

                 I’ve been advocating for the rights of composers and artists since the mid-1970s when I worked along-side Mark Halloran, Jordan Kerner and a number of other industry attorneys with the Beverly Hills Bar Association’s Committee for the Arts — in which we advocated that artists learn about the business side of the biz.

                 And about the aspect of a “boycott” — it is not that I (or other supervisors) are calling for an industry-wide boycott of re-titling libraries. We have simply made a choice (as a consumer) to not do business with those whose business models we find to be potentially detrimental to the fulfillment of OUR duties, or which we feel might compromise our own personal ethics. I don’t shop at Wal*Mart either, and am quite vocal about the reasons why. I have the RIGHT to choose the folks and companies with whom I do business.

                 I was once asked by a large film/TV company after securing licenses for one of their partnered TV movies if all the music being licensed had been “commercially exploited.” Alarm bells went off and I asked “Why do you ask?” Seems they wanted to OWN the recordings and publishing, so in case the film or any of the music hit big with the viewers that they’d (1) be in line for works “original” to the production for awards consideration and (2) they could make lots of money off recordings they had NOTHING to do with creating OR paying for.

                 Not cool.

                 I contacted the band I knew had sent me a new song, told them to make up six copies of a CD single and sell ’em to their grandmother if they had to and call me back in an hour to tell me they had “commercially exploited” their work. They did, and I could honestly go back to the company and say “Sorry — everything’s been commercially exploited, you can’t own any of it.”

                 So please know that when I say I’m concerned about the artist, I mean it, and I live it. I AM that same artist/writer, because my own music is licensed in film & TV, AND has been used in anniversary & wedding videos, etc. (the market you’ve described).

                 One of my litmus tests on a contract is “Would I sign it, or would any of my colleagues sign it for my/their own music?” I don’t care what the scenario it is — big project, film, TV, video game or wedding video — if I am uncomfortable with the terms or the business model of the company seeking MY work, then I am certainly not going to advocate anyone else sign on the dotted line.

                 So for composers who are straddling both worlds, I say create. Make the extra effort to ensure that all your works and recordings are unique to each marketplace. You can reap the financial rewards without putting yourself between the proverbial “rock and a hard place.”

                 Cheers!
                 Gael

                 • Excellent reply. Thank you. Sounds like you’ve been around as long as I have.

                   That said. Please see my next reply to Eddi.

                   If someone has good tracks , I’m speaking of instrumental, not songs, how do they pitch them for placement if the retitlers are being sidestepped?

                   You and others will have no way of knowing that a composer has only placed a particular track in one library, and that is unique, if that library happens to retitle and you bypass them.

                   I’m lucky. At the moment I have someone who’s willing to go the direct route for me on some cinematic stuff. But, I have another 1500 tracks that I could produce, vary and reproduce day and night for the next five years.

                   I like your litmus test. One of the benefits of being a recovering attorney is being able to tell how badly a contract is written against me.

                   Thanks,

                   Michael

                   • …fascinating

3. thanks guys…
   so I think I get it. . . . this deal is NOT the typical non-exclusive re-title deal talked about in the above articles . . . in that they are asking for the exclusive right to re-title and exploit my tunes? So they are perhaps trying to avoid future problems simply by not allowing me the possibility of sending the same tunes for re-titling by a bunch of other companies? Hence, the word “exclusive”?

   – – – here is the contract, from the very beginning up to the “exclusive” part:

   Placement/License Agreement
   Page 1 of 7

   MUSIC PLACEMENT/LICENSING AGREEMENT

   This agreement (“Agreement”) is made day of , 2010 by
   and between BAND MEMBERS NAMES o/b/o himself and the band known as
   BAND NAME (hereinafter referred to as “Licensor”) with an address at
   ARTIST CURRENT MAILING ADDRESS and companyX, a California
   corporation (hereinafter referred to as “companyX”) with an address at PO
   Box 592 Culver City, CA 90232 pursuant to which companyX shall be engaged
   to solicit and license commercial exploitations for certain music works and
   master recordings (collectively the “Works”). As used herein, the term
   “Work” or “Works” refers to the master sound recordings and the musical
   compositions embodied therein.

   WHEREAS, Licensor solely owns and controls all right, title and interest in
   and to the Works;

   WHEREAS, companyX is in the business of licensing musical works and master
   recordings to third parties for inclusion in films, television, video, and
   advertising (referred to herein as “Licenses”);

   WHEREAS, Licensor desires to engage companyX to license the Works, or any
   part of them, for exploitation, including but not limited to use in or in
   connection with films, television, video, and advertising (referred to herein
   as “Placements”) and Aperture desires to accept such engagement pursuant
   to the terms and conditions hereof;

   NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
   sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, companyX does hereby
   acknowledge and accept such engagement, and agrees to the following:

   1. TERM
   The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the full execution hereof,
   and may be terminated by either party subject to sixty (60) days written
   notice to the non-terminating party (the “Term”). Notwithstanding anything
   to the contrary contained herein, companyX shall be entitled to its share of
   revenue, royalties and/or fees due following the termination of this
   Agreement with regard to any and all Licenses or Placements made or
   substantially negotiated during the term of this Agreement, renewals and
   extensions of same, and licenses issued following the term for the same
   Work in connection with related projects, such as sequels, prequels or spinoffs.

   Placement/License Agreement

   Page 2 of 7

   2. EXCLUSIVE ENGAGEMENT and TERRITORY
   During the Term, Licensor hereby grants to companyX the exclusive right to
   solicit, negotiate and enter into non-exclusive license agreements with third
   parties providing for the exploitation of the Works, or any part thereof,
   including but not limited to use of the Works in or in connection with
   soundtracks, audiovisual projects, theatrical motion pictures, videos and
   television programs as provided herein. The territory covered by this
   agreement is the World.

   • Eddi,

     Good choice to pass this one up. I wouldn’t sign this agreement — ever.

4. Hi Everybody…. I have been a musician and composer for ages but never before licensed my stuff. I was very recently contacted by a RE-TITLING company who wants to pitch my stuff (they found me on CDBABY).

   After finding out more about RETITLING I declined their offer.

   But still I am very curious about a few things – for example, here is one paragraph of their contract. I am confused by this word EXCLUSIVE. I though retitling companies were non-exclusive – so WHY is this company asking for exclusivity — or am I just missing the point???

   2. EXCLUSIVE ENGAGEMENT and TERRITORY
   During the Term, Licensor hereby grants to companyX the exclusive right to
   solicit, negotiate and enter into non-exclusive license agreements with third
   parties providing for the exploitation of the Works, or any part thereof,
   including but not limited to use of the Works in or in connection with
   soundtracks, audiovisual projects, theatrical motion pictures, videos and
   television programs as provided herein. The territory covered by this
   agreement is the World.

   • That is strange, but it’s hard to say for sure what it means out of context. Perhaps the word ‘exclusive’ means they don’t have to run everything by you every time they make want to make a deal?

     Agreements with libraries usually spell out the nature of the deal in the first one or two sections (either right at the top or in a section called ‘License’). It will usually say something like “Composer grants Company…the non-exclusive right…during the Term to exploit, market etc etc”.

     • I have/had a similar deal with a commercially released CD a few years back. The library retitled the cuts so that they could collect publishing royalties from their PRO under those titles. I was still free to market the CD, but just couldn’t license the tracks to or through another library. That’s how it was exclusive AND retitled. I wouldn’t do it again, given the opportunity.

       Michael

   • Eddi,

     The biggest problem is that the contract refers to the WORKS, not titles. As such, this agreement could be construed as giving the company the rights to the works themselves, not an interest (via contract) in the proceeds from specific titles and attached to the company’s revenue-generating acts.

     Remember, a COPYRIGHT is a bundle of rights to a particular WORK. To assign, give, transfer or contractually obligate oneself in such a way as to put your rights to that work in jeopardy is a big no-no if you want to continue to own that work.

     Cheers!
     Gael

     • Hi Gael,

       The substance of what you are saying is correct. But, I’m not sure whether you’ve ever mentioned being an attorney. I am.

       Sharing general copyright info, may be OK, but contract interpretation is best left to Eddi’s attorney.

       No matter how correct your advice. If someone relies upon it to their detriment, even if it’s misunderstood, it could haunt you.

       That said, Eddi, if it smells bad, it’s best to stay away.

       Cheers,

       Michael

       • Michael,

         Operative word in my post was “could.”

         Actually, the info I passed along was from the General Counsel of the U.S. Copyright Office.

         In a conversation last year at the World Copyright Summit in D.C. he told me that the concept of re-titling was ethically shaky at best, and its practice could easily put composers at risk for losing the rights to their own works once it is eventually tested in court. I figure he knows what he’s talking about. 🙂

         My take is that if he wasn’t 100% sure of all the potential ownership ramifications, then I’d hazard a guess that a music library’s attorney wouldn’t have a crystal ball either. As such, I’d rather make choices that ensure the ownership of my works remains clean and uncluttered. I advise others to do the same for their own protection.

         Although I suppose I should put the same caveat in my posts that I put at the bottom of all my articles:

         “And a reminder (from my attorney): All statements above are my opinions and not intended as legal advice or counsel. No warranty or representation is made as to the accuracy of these statements. You should hire an attorney before entering into any agreement or contract. So there!”

         Cheers!
         Gael

         • Gael,

           Your attorney is right. It is a good practice to use the disclaimer.

           Feel free to keep sharing your wisdom and experience. It’s just better to practice “safe advice.”

           Cheers,

           Michael

     • Hi Gael…. so from what you are saying, in pointing out that the contract refers to the WORKS rather than the TITLE, it seems like in fact this could be a trick to potentially steal the artists’ copyrights (or at least, have a contract that would be strongly worded in their favour which would help them if anything ever came down to a court case).

       • Eddi,

         I’m not saying they are necessarily purposely misleading folks, but the potential for cloudy ownership down-the-line is there because of contract language (same caveats as above apply here — my opinion, based on info received from the Copyright Office, including that of their General Counsel).

         But yes, any contract that is worded in favor of the company over that of the writer/artist could be used as leverage in any potential court case.

         I applaud you on your restraint and listening to your “gut” instinct instead of just jumping on an offer.

         Cheers!
         Gael

5. Hey guys, just saw an interesting press release about non-exclusive re-titling libraries. It’s written by the owner of Megatrax (a big exclusive / pay upfront type of library), so keep that in mind:
   From:
   http://app.e2ma.net/campaign/27456.af55d60b404c79870d1c9931918a94fc

   SHOULD YOU SIGN WITH A NON-EXCLUSIVE RETITLED LIBRARY?
   Get the facts before you decide.

   Many composers and songwriters are lately being offered what seems like a deal too good to pass up: get film/TV placements of their music and a share of sync fees from non-exclusive distributors while retaining 100% of their copyrights. While this may appear to be an irresistible bargain on the surface, it is essential that writers fully understand the ramifications of this business model in order to make an informed decision.

   What Is Non-Exclusive Retitling?

   First, let’s clarify what is meant by the term “retitled libraries”. This term does not refer to libraries that exclusively own the rights to their works and for whatever reason decide to re-release the works under alternate titles; it is a library’s prerogative to re-release or repurpose tracks in such a manner. Rather, for the purposes of this article, this term shall refer to libraries that engage in the practice of retitling tracks without obtaining exclusive rights to the works. For these libraries, retitling is simply a way to market and license non-exclusive content and collect performance revenues by registering existing works under different titles.

   How Does It Work?

   Retitled libraries solicit content from composers or songwriters promising that they will “retain ownership” in the works and simply license their tracks on a “non-exclusive” basis. They offer to retitle the works and share publishing revenue generated from their placements of the retitled tracks. (There is generally no upfront cost involved for the writer, although a few retitled libraries have been known to retain all or part of the writers share of performance royalties- a definite “red flag”). This sort of arrangement can obviously be appealing to a writer who might have dozens of songs, scores, demos and other unused musical material just “sitting on the shelf” gathering dust. Why not monetize these tracks to generate some extra revenue? For that matter, why not sign the same tracks with as many retitling services as possible to maximize income? Before signing away your tracks, let’s delve a little deeper and explore some of the repercussions of these deals.

   One Song, Many Titles

   The most obvious drawback with this model is apparent on the client side of the equation. With more and more companies dumping retitled content onto the market, situations are starting to arise where multiple parties are claiming ownership in the same work. In fact, several top Hollywood music supervisors are now refusing to accept material from retitled libraries after being pitched the same song from different sources under different titles (and at different rates!). The potential for confusion has led at least one major studio to issue an edict stating that they will only work with music companies that represent their content exclusively.

   Similarly, for broadcasters or other library clients who are often highly sensitive about market exclusivity, it could be devastating to sign a deal with library X only to hear the same tracks used by a competing station who signed a deal with library Y. Such a scenario could easily happen if both libraries are offering retitled music.

   On an industry level, it is hard to argue that the industry will benefit from situations where multiple parties are claiming rights to the same song and bidding against each other for the same placement. This practice only serves to further erode sync fees and devalue music in an already hypercompetitive marketplace, as well as feed cynicism and mistrust towards the production music industry in general. There is, after all, a certain aspect of duplicity surrounding the notion of the same piece of music having multiple title aliases depending on the situation or vendor. Such confusion, if unabated, will just encourage more unreported music uses and piracy due to the lack of publishers’ ability to effectively monitor and police their works. Furthermore, at a time when music rights are under siege by legislators, broadcasters and technology companies alike, it is safe to say that adding more confusion and uncertainty to the music rights landscape is probably not a sanguine development for the industry.

   Identical Fingerprints

   It is widely accepted in the music community that fingerprinting [1], in one form or another, holds the key to performance monitoring in the years ahead. ASCAP and BMI have already tested and implemented fingerprinting technology on a limited basis (Mediaguide and Landmark, respectively), and a more extensive rollout of these technologies is planned in the near future. Since every piece of audio contains a unique “fingerprint”, the day will soon come when digital algorithms will automatically detect each piece of music and (ideally) every performance will be tracked and paid- without the hassle of cue sheets or the burden of physically watermarking every track. Most libraries consider fingerprinting to be a critical step towards improving the fairness and accuracy of PRO distributions. In addition to performance tracking, fingerprinting systems are also being increasingly used by libraries to monitor sync uses of their catalog and by broadcasters to automatically generate cue sheets.

   All of these scenarios present an obvious conundrum for retitled music companies: since their audio files are not unique, each detection can no longer be linked to a unique title record, making accurate performance identification virtually impossible. Clearly, the practice of retitling only serves to stymie these important initiatives and therefore runs counter to the best interests of the industry.

   Legal Challenges Loom

   It is only a matter of time before legal challenges arise from these practices. Whose title of a song was ultimately used in a film or TV show if multiple versions were pitched? Which title and which master are being referenced in a composer contract? Is anyone vetting these tracks for rights clearances or potential infringement issues? Do these companies even have the legal right to license these tracks, considering that copyrights are based not on title (titles are not copyrightable) but on the underlying composition and sound recording? How many non-exclusive catalogs have unwittingly entered into exclusive overseas subpublishing deals? Only time will tell how these issues will play out on the legal front.

   The Artist Perspective

   Industry considerations aside, what’s in it for the artist? The argument is often made that this model “helps artists” by allowing them to “retain control” while giving them “exposure” and generating “additional income”. To some extent, this may be true; a writer can sign a track with a retitled library while still releasing it on an album or otherwise exploiting it themselves. But often overlooked is the downside: once a writer signs a non-exclusive deal, that basically preempts any future possibility of signing an exclusive deal with another library or label. No reputable exclusive library is going to acquire or distribute a track that already exists in other permutations in the marketplace, and such exclusive libraries represent the majority of library music use in film and television. What may seem like a great deal is actually a dead end.

   Writers also tend to overlook the fact that non-exclusive libraries are less likely to actively promote or pitch their tracks since they have less incentive to do so. These companies know that the same recordings might be available on other services, so often the tracks are just dumped on a drive or server and forgotten.

   Another little known but critically important fact is that non-exclusive retitled catalogs miss out on significant revenue streams related to international distribution. Since libraries are generally represented by territory on an exclusive basis, retitled libraries technically cannot enter into these deals (to the extent that they do anyway, they are in breach of their contract). To drill down further, in many foreign territories music licensing is strictly controlled by mechanical copyright societies such as MCPS (UK), SDRM (France) and AMCOS (Australia). These societies, who are responsible for the vast majority of licensing in their respective territories, set the rates for music licenses as well as collect and distribute payments to composer and publisher members. In order for works to be represented by these societies, they must be the exclusive agents for their territory. Since non-exclusive content is often made available on websites or drives without regard to international borders, these catalogs do not qualify for registration and consequently their international income potential is severely limited. In the event a publisher or website representing non-exclusive content does attempt to register tracks with one of these mechanical societies, both the writer and the publisher will be in a potential breach of contract situation.

   Last but not least is the new title itself: is it as effective and appropriate as the original title? Song titles should not be randomly generated or done in bulk fashion; they are more important than ever as they play a critical role in determining which songs get selected and auditioned by clients. It is not an obvious thing to effectively retitle a song with lyrics; by way of example, can you think of an alternate title for any of these hit songs: “Beat It”, ‘Like A Virgin”, “Hard Day’s Night” or “Are You Lonesome Tonight”? In lieu of donning a new title, some retitling services have resorted to simply adding a catalog number to precede the original title, i.e. “xyz001-My Love”, “xy002-My Love”, etc. It is hard to imagine how this scheme will accomplish anything except raise the amount of confusion among writers, clients and PROs to a whole new level.

   Ultimately, writers need to weigh the perceived benefits of retitling against the potential pitfalls:

   * Devalues your music
   * Potential licensing disputes
   * Potential legal challenges
   * Risk of being blacklisted by film/TV clients
   * Can create confusion around your catalog
   * Can attach inferior titles to your songs
   * Limited potential for international income
   * Performances not tracked by fingerprinting
   * No possibility of exclusive deals
   * Limited potential for infringement claims with non-exclusive representation

   A Song Is Still A Song

   In conclusion, the practice of retitling does not pose a problem if the same entity, or combination of entities, controls the rights to all title variations of the same track; however it is very much a problem when multiple entitles lay claim to the same work non-exclusively based solely on title permutations.

   Amidst all the technological change and upheaval buffeting the music industry over the past several years, some things still haven’t changed: a song is still a song and should not have multiple aliases depending on the situation or “who got the placement.” Clearly, the best strategy for composers and songwriters is to take the time to craft original, high quality music and develop a solid relationship with a reputable library that can represent their tracks exclusively and invest the necessary time and resources to properly tag, organize, promote and pitch their tracks. Integrity still counts, especially in the digital age.

   -Ron Mendelsohn
   April 26, 2010

   Ron Mendelsohn is President and CEO of Megatrax and a founding member of the PMA

   • I should add that I don’t think it’s smart to put your tracks in non-exclusive libraries that compete with each other for the same business (some libraries are semi-exclusive, for this very reason). I try to make sure that if I give my tracks to one library that primarily deals with performance royalties (getting stuff on TV shows), I don’t give the same tracks to a similar business. Of course, there are other outlets to give the same tracks to – license fee based libraries (who target advertising agencies and promo departments), and royalty free libraries. It probably doesn’t matter as much to give the same tracks to various royalty free libraries, the only consideration is that customers might shop around and find the same tracks in a cheaper site… more reason to avoid low ball bargain basement sites like audiomicro.com etc.

     • I agree. I was in the business for a long time and got out for about 10 years. I went back school and became an attorney. BUT — law ain’t music, and it was certainly not my first love.

       That said. The retitle thing makes me a little uneasy. Id’ rather determine which libraries perform well, match the music to the library, and treat even the low end guys as if they’re exclusive.

       Michael

       • One additional comments on Mr. Mendelsohn’s piece.

         The online/retitling libraries offer a bit more of a level playing field for both the writers who can’t get a foot in the exclusive library door, and for small producers who can’t afford expensive needle-drop fees.

         The world is full of little guys who produce corporate videos, power points, meetings, etc., for whom the royalty-free libraries are a good and appropriate source for music.

         There is room for both business models in the light of differing clientele.

   • I’ve written articles about this and singing this song to an almost deaf audience since 1999 — that re-titling is ethically shaky at best, and will eventually become a big monster court case because of its fraudulent nature. As sound recognition technology has evolved, more people are starting to listen, and many supervisors have come around — and will never knowingly accept or license a retitled work.

     Why not?

     (1) It can create MORE work for us. I personally had to go through every CD submitted on a project after it was aired because someone contacted us, claiming that we’d not licensed the work/recording — which we HAD… Turns out that it was a retitled track — same recording, same composition, but different titles — which meant we had to listen to everything all over again instead of just checking the titles — and it had been submitted by not two, but THREE different libraries. We couldn’t even search for the piece by a title, but had to listen to everything all over again. We’d gone with the first CD that crossed our desks, so the other two submissions weren’t even heard by us. It took a HUGE amount of time to track down all the who, what & where from data so we could clear things up. Now, this was over 10 years ago, when retitling had not yet become the tsunami that is now swallowing up the exclusive library deals. The more I saw of the practice the less I liked it, the more I researched copyright and contracts — and the more certain I was that it was going to become a huge issue as technology continued to quickly evolve.

     (2) In conversations with several folks from the U.S. Copyright Office (including general counsel at last year’s World Copyright Summit in D.C.), their opinions were the same: that the practice of retitling is ethically shaky at best, and could, in many cases, actually put the composer in jeopardy of losing the actual copyright to their work. Oh yeah… and that this is a loophole in the laws that will eventually have to be tested in court due to the practice’s exponential growth.

     (3) The audio recognition technology is a big factor. Also at last year’s WCS I was given the first public demo of Blue Arrow, and the re-titling issue was part of my first question as I saw the titles popping up. I wrote an article about it that appeared in “Film Music Magazine” describing it in detail. Chris’ comments in his article reflect my own opinions about how technology is affecting the practice and the legal challenges to come. Since the tech recognizes the unique work, not the title, there’s no way to find out who should be receiving the revenue from any given use without a huge amount of digging. Let’s see… my song “Blue Love” has been re-titled six times and each title has popped up with respect to that premium cable airing… just which library actually licensed the track, and to whom? Or is someone using it without a license? Hmm…

     (4) Think of “The Producers” and how they sold off percentages in their shows: You can’t “give 110%” folks. You can’t sell off or loan out more than 100% of anything. PERIOD. A 12″ pizza is still a 12″ pizza and when the last piece is eaten there is 0% left. A copyright for a composition/song is a bundle of rights attached to 100% of a SINGLE WORK. The copyright to a recording is a bundle of rights attached to 100% of a SINGLE RECORDING of the work. If you’re contractually obligating more than a hundred percent of the work and/or recording of it to various libraries, you are, in essence, a party to the fraud. The libraries do NOT record any of these new “works” with the Copyright office because to do so would be OFFICIAL fraud, since they’re not new works, merely a retitling of an existing work under copyright. Now call me a goody two-shoes, but official or unofficial, I don’t want any part of it.

     As a supervisor I don’t want the potential hassles associated with the dog fights over one bone and all the work it takes to clear things up when more than one party claims to have placed “their” composition/track in a film or TV program on which I’m working. I don’t care if I get a piece from several sources, as long as the title is the same, so if there are any hassles later, it’s quickly researched, and simply a matter of “Library A’s track crossed my desk before Library B’s did, so that’s who got the license.”

     As a writer and artist I don’t want there to be ANY discrepancy as to who owns the rights to MY work and/or recording of it. I have one title for each composition, and whether I choose to have it repped exclusively by one source, or non-exclusively by several, the title and the publisher info will always be the same.

     • Gael,

       I agree, for the most part. As a composer and a lawyer, in that order, retitling makes me uneasy. I’ve not yet submitted anything to a retitling library. AND, I’m very hesitant to do so.

       But — what about the thousands of productions that exist outside the rarified world of music supervisors? What about the corporate videos being produced basement studios with Final Cut? Those producers and their projects, which probably have budgets equivalent to .001%, or less, of a Hollywood production, need music too.

       Why deny a struggling composer, who may have no other way to market their work, the opportunity to do so? Why force a mom and pop video producer to license music they cannot afford?

       I have many tracks that deserve to be in your world. My library music has been used on ABC, CBS, Bravo, the Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, and PBS, etc. I’ve had four themes running in syndication for nearly tens years.

       But — I also have a catalog of useful tracks, that are meant for non entertainment producers. Should I let those works sit on the shelf and pass on the potential income from downloads?

       I would really appreciate your input, because I’m at a loss. I’m working on some tracks for an exclusive as we speak. But what about the other material, the “everyday” stuff?

       Michael

     • Well Said Gail!!!

6. Hello All,

   First, let me say, Art, this is a great site. There’s a lot of wisdom being shared very generously here (thank you Matt). I’ve been lurking for a few weeks. Now seems like a good time to say hello, and to seek general advice.

   I was in the business for a long time, scoring documentary films, writing production tracks, did some sound design, wrote a few TV themes and had a CD on the charts. About ten years ago, i “dropped out,” went to law school and became a lawyer. That, it turns out, is a pretty dismal way to live. So, here I am. At least I can tell how badly they’re trying to screw me when I read a contract.

   My current setup is fairly good on the sonic front. I have about 2000 tracks in all many styles that I’ve accumulated over the years, e.g., drama, comedy, romance, kid music, cartoon music, jazz, new age, corporate, sports. I’d like to rearrange, recut are market these tracks.

   As a lawyer retitling makes me a little uncomfortable. On the other hand it seems to be working for some of you.

   One thing about Chris’s piece that concerns me is this quote:
   “None of these arguments apply to composers that are unaware of their music’s failure to meet the creative and technical requirements to be broadcast in the 21st century.”
   Well it WAS the 20th century when I was active.

   If anyone can elaborate on 21st Century requirements, and getting in the game, it would be greatly appreciated.

   Thank you.

   Michael

   Oh yeah –the answer to the obvious — 99% of my previous clients are retired, deceased, or out of the business. I was able to find an open door at two libraries still operating.
   One foot in front of the other!

   • Hey Michael,

     Drop me an email, I may be able to help get your cues licensed out. I’m currently slangin’ tracks to 40 shows direct to the supes/editors..

     John[at]JohnFulfordMusic.com

     • Get ‘Em John 🙂

       • Thanks John — and Christian.

         Done.

         Michael

   • I think what Chris was implying was that music needs to stay current – stylistically and in terms of production quality. If you have live recordings of classic genres like rock, blues and jazz, then your tracks are probably fine. It’s the sample / synth based tracks that age fast and might be considered cheesy by today’s standards.

     • Matt

       Thanks for your reply. I’m definitely in the VI world –LASS, Symphobia, EW, etc.
       I try to avoid cheese on the tracks.

       Michael

       • Awesome, I bet your stuff sounds great with all those new sounds.

         • Yes, it’s pretty amazing. Fortunately, I’ve been able to reconnect with a few exclusive libraries that I wrote for previously. But, I’ve got a catalog of about 2000 tracks that I want to recut and license. I think that the online royalty-free guys would be a good place for some of it.

           Thanks for all of your insight.

           Michael

7. Just listed “Lights Cameras Music Publishing” and moved the comments from here to there. Link at: https://musiclibraryreport.com/music-libraries-h-to-l/lights-cameras-music-publishing/

8. Hey “tryin to get a break”, you sound like this guy named Yadgyu….

   Re-titling is a bad idea. It all but ruins your personal brand. Several TV networks are putting policies in place that are instructing them NEVER to do business with re-titled copyrights. Is that something that you want to be associated with?

9. Well, from all the research I have done, for someone like myself who is trying to establish a name for themselves, I really see no down side to a re-titling library. All I want to do is get my music out there right now as I try to establish myself. If I can have one or more of my songs in several different libraries under different names I am more than happy with that. As your article suggests, it definitely is not doing anything sitting on my hard drive. I have to trust my PRO that when I update my track with the different names it will find them and collect for me.

   I can see once I get established and hopefully start getting requests for compositions for specific projects, I will be more selective about where my songs end up. And hopefully if I work on a project big enough I would not want those songs anywhere else except in that project.

   My thoughts….would love to hear from others.

10. NAB roll call!

Comments are closed.