[Fmpro] FMPRO Digest, Vol 39, Issue 7 -- Retitling

[Gael MacGregor]

This practice is NOT to be confused with a REAL derivative copyright (which would be something like "Mockingbird" -- where a traditional piece is the basis for the creation of a new song/composition).

Retitling is simply fraud, and while widely practiced, it has NOT yet been tested in court. When it is, I believe that libraries such as Pump Audio will have to revise their practices -- and well they should, since the reason they're doing it is to secure back-end for themselves, to the detriment of the composer.

Renaming your song "Love is True" to "True is Love" is done only so a library can steal a part (or all) of your publishing. They retitle an existing piece and claim copyright and/or publishing on that "new" title, which is the same piece that exists under a different title for which you own the entire copyright. Some folks retitle the same song several times for different libraries, so there are a bunch of "songs" that are really the same composition, just holding different titles.

That's fraud. There's nothing "new" that has been composed... nothing "new" has been created... Retitling the piece doesn't change a note, just who can have a piece of the "new" pie.

If, however, a composer creates a piece for a library, is paid for composing that piece as a work-made-for-hire, and the library pays all the session costs. it can be argued that the library is entitled to the back-end that they have "paid" for in advance by compensating the composer at the outset and footing the session bill so that composition can be presented in a fully licensable form. What seems to be more suitable (and something some libraries are starting to do) is to work out a fair publishing split with the composer, who creates the piece for no (or, perhaps, small) advance monies, so it is NOT in the work-made-for-hire arena. Since the library is paying session costs, obviously, their percentage would be higher than the composer's (who is not fronting any money for his/her composition to be recorded), but at least a portion of the publishing would be retained by the composer for creating a work for which they have received no (or little)
 advance payment. Again, it can be argued that the library is paying for the master to be recorded and should not reflect on the composition, but in the world of production music, they generally walk hand-in-hand... it's not like the Beatles' "Yesterday" that's been recorded more often than any song in Billboard's history. It's more like, "Here's my 'Carmina Burana' knock-off because most productions can't afford to license the original composition or any famous recording of it -- with mine it's all-in."

I'm not even addressing the practice of allowing a library or individual to claim both writer & publishing ownership for a buyout fee (especially for such paltry sums as are often the case). Anyone who does that needs a brain transplant. Besides... can anyone honestly believe that Saban "created" over 1500 compositions all by his little lonesome in a single year? Piffle.

This "retitling" practice will eventually be tested in court, and it could be a really ugly battle. If someone wants to own the publishing (in whole or in part) on something you've created, they can dang well compensate you for it -- not steal it and lie about it on cue sheets.

Gael

=================================
Gael MacGregor
Music Supervisor
gaelmacgregor at yahoo.com
=================================
www.imdb.com/name/nm0532320
=================================

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 6 Jul 2008 10:42:46 -0700
From: LesHurdle <leshurdle at avradionet.com>
Subject: Re: [Fmpro] SOCAN, Sean Goble
To: d-dmusic at rogers.com, fmpro at nxport.com
Message-ID: <50D6524D-DD87-4749-9F2C-2535EB5726AA at avradionet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed

...Re Pump Audio, isn't this akin to the derivative copyright, and once  
that cat is out of the bag, what is to stop the folks in Outer  
Mongolia from re titling everything?

L