# Music library track records (and the exclusive vs non-exclusive question)



## jaredcowing (Jul 3, 2013)

A question for those who've dealt with music libraries:

I'm discussing exclusive vs non-exclusive with a library owner, and hearing some things from him that seem to not be in line with what I've read so far on the exclusive vs non-exclusive debate.

I was making the point that because I don't yet have a feel for which libraries have a better track record than others at getting placements, I'd like to at first try a few libraries non-exclusively before unknowingly committing to a library that might not have as good a track record.

His contention was that, at least among the top-level libraries, all the libraries get bundled together through the same few distributors, all get delivered to the same music supervisors and so it doesn't matter as much which library you sign with.

I've been digging through Music Library Report to answer some of my newbie questions, and I'm hearing stories from composers who sign with multiple libraries and have wildly different success rates depending on the library. So, is this claim to be believed and the top-level libraries work very differently from the others?


----------



## Daryl (Jul 3, 2013)

It's not quite as simple as that. The top libraries will only do exclusive. You won't get a choice. They don't just accept any old track that gets sent to them. They have producers, briefing meetings, feedback from sub-publishers, and often pay for musicians as well. There are also production companies that won't do deals with libraries that don't have exclusive rights to the music, due to having had bad experiences with duplicate tracks in the past.

Now, the question is, how much of this rings true with the library owner that you're talking to? There is no point in talking about top libraries, if this one is not in the same league.

D


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jul 3, 2013)

Daryl is right, in my very limited experience, the top libraries want exclusive stuff because its the real high end stuff.

I did some music for another composer's private library in LA recently. And it was all licensed for a TV show. He asked if I could do at least a US exclusive contract.

Obviously, its important for the producers of the show that the music be unique and even for the reputation of the library.

I agreed and it all worked out nicely.

But, chances of working with high end libraries is very minute because your music really has to be that good!

Now, lets get back to work!


Tanuj.


----------



## jaredcowing (Jul 3, 2013)

Daryl @ Wed Jul 03 said:


> Now, the question is, how much of this rings true with the library owner that you're talking to? There is no point in talking about top libraries, if this one is not in the same league.
> 
> D



Yes indeed- I must be careful to tell the difference between the exclusive libraries that are top of the game, and the exclusive libraries that just effectively lock up your tracks without making you any money.

Thanks!


----------



## Cruciform (Jul 3, 2013)

Well, it's true that some top level libraries end up having the same distributor in a given country or region. But that doesn't necessarily mean they will still all be used the same. A music editor may simply prefer a given catalogue because they find it fits their needs best. So just because, say, APM, distributes libraries X, Y and Z - X may still get more use in general. Also, X, Y and Z may have subtly different contracts that could sway a composer one way or another. 

As has been said, at the top level there is only exclusive. You won't have a choice. It's the low to mid tier stuff typically aimed at tv where the confusion reigns. You have to decide whether you're comfortable assigning exclusivity to a particular library. MLR can help somewhat in that respect. And in the corner of so-called royalty free libraries (which are more often simply market places, rather than true publishers), you may as well go non-exclusive because it's a different market - typically non-broadcast, low budget stuff though occasionally a gem of a placement can be had through them.


----------



## sluggo (Jul 4, 2013)

I just had this conversation with another writer I met and learned something I need to share. Apparently, there has been some sort of 'crackdown' on non-exclusive licensing. When you think about it, it's kinda bogus, I mean... I can take 1 piece of music and let 3 different distributors put their own name on the track, then they own 100% of the publishing royalty and then license it out. I'm not sure it's legal but after total saturation of tracks into multiple libraries, you can see how PRO's would get a little concerned and clients get confused should they hear the same music they licensed used elsewhere ad nauseam.

The thing about non-exclusive licensing though is that it makes it easy for a composer who owns his/her tracks to 'give away' their music to a library company. After all, we still own the right to let anyone else license it. Why not just open up the world of possibilities?

So now, I not only hear about this on VI Control, but am currently involved with a library company who wants my music EXCLUSIVELY. I'm nervous about it but what gets me is this...they don't want to pay me anything up front for it. I'll be entitled to 50% of license fees and my writer's share of royalties (totally fair), but am I crazy in thinking that we are back to a more simple business model and I should not give away something for nothing here?

I believe they are a top library company as discussed earlier in this thread which would imply that my music certainly has value. I don't want to take my ball and go home. But c'mon, I should get something up front right? For EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP!


----------



## Madrigal (Jul 4, 2013)

This is a very difficult situation. I've been trying to get involved with some libraries that have a good placement and composer relationship record. They all ask for exclusive now and I understand why. From a library standpoint, it's hard to sell yourself as "high-quality" if you're mostly involved in non-exclusive deals with your composers. Rarity makes for greater value or perceived value. 

IMHO (and please correct me if I'm wrong, I hope I am actually), is that the music library world and the internet as a whole, is very close to threshold. It's becoming a huge garbage bin and the need for filters is soon going to be indispensable. 

I think an outcome for a composer could be to write some "low-quality" content that you feed to various non-exclusive libraries. In parallel, you produce some high quality music that you feed to one of the exclusive high quality libraries with a good track record. Try to make it so that you can terminate the contract after a short period of time if the partnership doesn't pay off. 

I'd love it if more of the veteran library makers would chime in on this matter!


----------



## jaredcowing (Jul 5, 2013)

It is tricky, and I hear conflicting things- some say the practice of re-titling is illegal, and other say it's completely legit. Which is the case seems to depend on what country you're talking about.

It does seem like if re-titling was cracked down on, composers' incomes would become even less than they are now- seems like it would only work if libraries in turn were willing to pay up front for exclusive rights to tracks, or at least do better than just locking the tracks up in their catalog with no promise of any sort of compensation.


----------

