[Fmpro] Retitling

[Josh Silver]

> 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.

Gael,
I agree with you regarding the practice of Saban and other companies  
that actually take the writers share when they didn't do any writing  
because it's straight up unethical, but I see non-exclusive libraries  
that re-title as a good thing as long as you have the option of  
pulling out of the deal if you want after a term and revert all the  
rights back to you.  I don't see how it can be fraud if both parties  
involved are ok with the situation.  It's merely a way to keep the  
royalty streams separate so that licenses made by different parties  
can be kept independent from each other and paid out with different  
splits.  Even though I temporarily give up the publishers share of  
royalties for the re-titles I keep the full publishing on the original  
and I can always terminate any of these library deals at my discretion  
after the term.  I think it's a good way to keep my music non  
exclusive so that I can send my music to multiple libraries and have  
them all pushing my music.  It has been a great source of income and  
it's great to be able to forge relationships with multiple libraries  
which has been a descent source of my income.

Before the trend of re-titling started I used to do more exclusive  
deals with libraries and pretty much once those deals are made, the  
tracks involved are completely in the hands of that one company  
forever and I cannot ever do anything with them again.  That could be  
a good thing if the company is getting placements for me, but if they  
aren't then those tracks are sitting on the shelf doing nothing for me.

Because of the non \-exclusivity of re-titling, I don't have to put  
all my eggs in one basket since many libraries are duds.  I can send  
the same songs to a ton of libraries and have a lot more out there.  I  
always make sure that the re-titling libraries have a clause that  
allows me to pull out after a specified term and that all the rights  
granted in the contract revert back to me if I choose to terminate the  
contract after the term is up.  I have sent my music to tons of  
libraries, and there has been a ton that I chose not to go with  
because of their contracts, but there are a lot that have done some  
good things with my music and those are the ones that I stay with and  
repeatedly send my music to.

I have been contracted by some big exclusive library companies when I  
first started my career and been completely ripped off.  Of course  
this was my own fault because I did not have the knowledge of how bad  
of a deal that I was getting myself into and I was so broke that I  
needed anything I could get, but pretty much they paid $50 per track  
for me to write for them on an exclusive basis and they would take 50%  
of the writers share and 100% of the publisher's share and completely  
own the tracks...  So there are rip-off artists in all kinds of  
libraries whether they are re-titling, exclusive, non-exclusive etc.   
it's up to us to weed these out, but the good ones can be a big help  
in our industry where composer fees are going down and down...

just my opinion...

josh

On Jul 7, 2008, at 2:45 PM, Gael MacGregor wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>