Why Retitling Library Deals Can Be Good For Composers
There has been a lot of discussion on industry forums and discussion lists about “retitling” deals with music libraries, where a composer will license a musical work to a library which retitles the work and collects publishing royalties on placements of the work that the library generates.
The writer still gets writers performance royalties from these placements, but far more importantly, the writer retains the copyright to the music. That, to me, is a very important factor that can make retitling a far better option for composers than other deals where the composer is forced to give up copyright for life, hoping that the music library will generate placements.
While traditional library deals where the library purchases copyright offer some amount of up-front payment, the lifetime royalty earnings are usually far more important than whatever up-front money is paid initially to purchase the copyright. If a composer retains copyright, he or she has the ability to place that music in any number of different productions or libraries depending on who is best suited to market that particular type of music.
Composers who give up copyright end up with no legal rights to the music they write, and must “trust” whoever the music is sold to when it comes to accounting for placements, cue sheets, and more. In these deals, the library holds all the cards and the composer often has no ability to audit or check the library’s accounting, leaving the composer with little or no ability to verify if what he’s being paid is even correct, since client contact information is rarely disclosed on composer royalty statements from libraries. And why should it be disclosed anyway? The libraries consider these people and companies to be “their” customers, not the composer’s customers. The last thing any library wants is a composer calling up a client, checking on whether cue sheets have been filed, etc.
As we watch the digital landscape being reshaped and negotiated when it comes to music rights, one thing becomes clear: If you don’t own copyright, you don’t have a “seat at the table” when it comes to participating in how the future of music royalties will evolve. And financially speaking, retaining control over a lifetime of potential royalty and sync earnings makes owning copyright a no-brainer.
Bill Gates became one of the world’s richest men and built Microsoft, all based on a single smart decision he made decades ago to license rather than sell the copyright to his software to IBM for the first PC. Retaining copyright worked for Gates, and it will work for composers.
Absolutely correct Mark.
I can speak of success with experience on both sides of the discussion. As a composer: If you retain your copyright, there is simply no reason to NOT have your music out there generating money, exposure and credits. Even when there is no upfront fee (which is unfortunately common these days), the back end payment is a valid incentive.
From the library side: There is a lot more work than the composer would imagine going into placing their music. The relationships and contacts that the library has are invaluable and often cultivated carefully over years and years. Reputation and track record – I can’t tell you how much energy, time and money is spent in this area. As well, there is a vast amount of administration involved in placing even one piece of licensed music.
In my view and experience, this sort of deal is a win-win for all.
I’ve just been approached by a re-titling company so my research brought me here. I remain confused because I also ended up here http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=3314 where Gael MacGregor states;
“The way I see re-titling in today’s marketplace? It makes NO good business sense. At the very least, it has always stood on shaky ethical grounds…”
He also argues that a copyright is for the “work” and NOT the “title”. The precedent has yet to be set whether composers are setting themselves up for tragedy in the years to come.
The pro – con debate leaves me sitting here staring at my contract and not knowing whether to sign it or not.
Maybe a distinction should be made between composers who write pop/rock and composers who write for picture?
Hi Robert -
Gael (she, FYI) is correct – the copyright is on the work, not the title. A retitled work is not a re-copyrighted work – only the original work can be copyrighted in these scenarios, unless the retitles are filed with the copyright office as additional titles for the original, copyrighted work.
To me, it doesn’t matter what genre of music you write, the deal is what it is. I disagree with Gael that retitling makes “no good business sense”, but respect her opinion – she’s very knowledgeable about the industry and libraries – we simply disagree on this issue.
It is true that retitling has not been challenged in court yet, as far as I know. If/when that happens, the result could be precedent-setting, and could certainly have an impact on retitling libraries. But the bottom line remains that if you sell the copyright to your music to a library, your rights in that music are eliminated, other than what you are able to reserve in your contract with the library. And even then, your contractual rights are only as strong as your ability to hold the library or other entity to the terms of the contract. Despite the questions and untested legal waters of retitling libraries, I still believe that retaining ownership of copyright puts composers of any genre of music in far better standing than giving that copyright up to a library whose contracts usually contain no audit clauses and “hoping” that the library does right by the composer. In that scenario, the composer has lost virtually all leverage and can only stand by while the library does or doesn’t honor the contract, with no leverage to compel the library to do much of anything and no visibility to the library’s clients – the actual music users and what they are paying for the usage of that music.
now that BMI are using BLUE ARROW, and there are other audio watermarking technologies on the horizon about to be unleashed, this is a tricky time to plump for the re-titling scenario. Even more so if you have a lot of music (500 tracks plus), simply cause its like a lottery style gamble, as to when the legalities are pushed to change.