# Not another music library thread!



## gsilbers (Mar 28, 2011)

http://www.megatraxblog.com/2010/10/04/should-you-sign-with-a-non-exclusive-retitled-library-get-the-facts-before-you-decide/ (http://www.megatraxblog.com/2010/10/04/ ... ou-decide/)


----------



## midphase (Mar 28, 2011)

Well...no wonder the founder of Megatrax opposes the practice!

In my opinion, a non-exclusive library agreement is exactly that, and if a composer wants to seek additional non-exclusive deals, it is in his best interest to do so.

It is also my strong opinion that there can be no exclusivity if a library does not compensate the composer with some up front money.


----------



## videohlper (Mar 30, 2011)

(Hey, Kays!) Look, guys, speaking as another library owner (not Megatrax, as evidenced by my screen name), I can easily say that it does little to no harm to a company like Megatrax if outside composers decide to release their music to these non-exclusives. As a matter of fact, it'd be a benefit to Megatrax if the music were released non-exclusively. 

Why? Simple: as composers, I doubt many of you get to sit in on meetings with Network TV Music Supervisors and heads of music licensing departments on a regular basis. The heads of libraries do.

And during the past year, you know what every single one of these people has mentioned to me (us)? Almost all of the networks are limiting or completely halting their use of non-exclusives. Because suddenly, not only are there twenty different versions of the same cut out there, but when it gets used by a network, they get calls from twenty different non-exclusive libraries claiming it's their cut. And there have been some pretty big legal battles. 

[Or (another true story) -- the creatives are frustrated that search results from their internal search engine turn up 16 results -- and 14 of those results are the same exact cut from 14 different libraries -- all with different names!]

- So if you think about it, if you have a great song and you release it to non-exclusive, it's no longer a threat to a company like Megatrax because it no longer competes for licensing dollars.

- Not, of course, that you'll SEE those licensing dollars as a composer. Many of these companies sign crappy blanket agreements with networks that give the clients full, unlimited use of the library, for say, $10k a year (which is higher than some non-Exes are charging, sadly). Now -- if that library has 20,000 cuts (entirely possible -- check out some of the larger, not-shall-be-named non exclusives out there). And let's say you split that licensing with the non-exclusive 50/50. That gets you a whopping 25 cents for unlimited use of that cut for a year. Niiiiiice. Ironically, some non-exclusives don't pay you a % of licensing at all if it's under, say, $150, anyway. 

- "But wait," you say. "I get performance!" You do. And, should your cut get used in a show, you could see some money. Or not. You see, you're depending on that client reporting the use (which is kind of a crap-shoot, sometimes). Or, another non-ex with the same cut claiming it's theirs and locking the PRO payment in limbo. 

OR, you might not get paid at all if the PROs start paying royalties based on fingerprinting. How will company A's version of your cut differ sonically from company B's? It won't. And the PRO will toss that track into the magical limbo they call "NO ID"s -- or cuts they can't identify or just don't have the power to sort out. Once a cut is there, the use will disappear along with any money you may have earned.

OR, worse still, it could be used on one of the many networks that's paying extra blanket fees for a buy-out, which entitles the end user (a cable network, for example) to completely bypass the PROs completely -- thus bypassing your composer part of the performance royalties. But don't worry -- your licensing fee will be doubled. Enjoy that 50 cents (if it's above the minimum amount to merit a check being written, that is).

And there are more, but I think I've ranted enough. It's late -- so forgive the lack of proofreading.

But as a big piece of unsolicited advice, I think all of you pros and novices have to make sure that EVERY library job has AT LEAST these things delineated in its contract:

- You get paid an upfront fee for the written piece ("work for hire")
- That the piece is exclusively represented by that library
- That you get to keep 100% of the composer's fee from your PRO 

Bare minimum. And, some libraries also offer a % of the licensing fee. Great! If you can get that, more power to you, Brother/Sister! Just make sure it doesn't sneak something in like "...as long as the licensing fee is more than $500" like some asshats in the business sneak into their agreements. 

[Another true story: Honestly, one non-ex library charged a network - A MAJOR BIG-THREE NETWORK - $499 for a full-year blanket just so they could avoid paying their composers a % of that money, because of their contractually stated $500 minimum. REALLY? People suck.]

So -- do you think that I, as an exclusive library owner, am lamenting the fact that non-exs are "stealing" talent or money away from me? Um -- no. As a Machiavellian businessman, I hope all of you who are talented and possible competition for my library sign with non-exclusives. Immediately. And while you're at it, you might want to look into Extreme Bull Neutering, Angry Elephant Proctology and the little-appreciated sport of Javelin Catching.

As a human being and someone who tries to give good advice when I can -- I suggest everyone look long and hard before signing with a non-ex. 

If you have questions, feel free to write me.

Stew Winter
VideoHelper.com


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Apr 2, 2011)

I don't know. Of all the libraries I've done business with, including some exclusives that paid up front, the non-exclusive ones were way, way way better. Typically, if you're getting paid up front for the piece, you're not getting more than $1k. Total, ever (eg. no sync fees), though you might get PRO royalties. On the other hand, a non-exclusive piece could be on an album selling on iTunes, in 5 libraries earning sync + PRO fees, etc.

I've written about 3 full-length albums (so 35+ pieces) for exclusive libraries, getting paid up front for all of them. But to date, the album that has done the VERY best for me was one I only licensed non-exclusively. Sync fees alone from PumpAudio have now eclipsed any buyout fee I got from exclusive libraries, and I get so much money from iTunes and other digital sales that unless I were getting an unheard-of $1500-2000 per track (or maybe more), it simply would not be worth it.

Libraries like PumpAudio are just amazing. A friend of mine with less than 12 pieces in their library last year got a high-four figure placement (might have been into the five figures, I forget) for a national ad campaign. And this is a guy who isn't even a full time composer. His YouTube videos and album sales are also doing quite well now.


----------



## MichaelL (Apr 4, 2011)

@Stew

All of your points are well taken -- the reason why I am yet to participate in the non-exclusice re-title model. AND if I do, I will be very selective, and I will treat the non-exclusice library as if it is exclusive.

However, there are a ton of writers producing library tracks, but relatively few exclusive opportunities. Would you have composers working day gigs, letting cues gather dust, while they wait for a coveted invitation from Mt. Olympus?

I read a recent VH post on the MLR, in which VH described how brutal and picky it is regarding new composers. That's fine. But, as a result, writers will go where they perceive opportunity, not a one-in-a million shot.

I'm not suggesting that you change your business model. But, don't fault composers who choose the open door rather than doing nothing.

Cheers,

Michael

PS. You may pm my invitation to submit to VH. ::


----------



## qwerty101 (Apr 6, 2011)

Wonderful to hear both sides of the story, from the library owner to the composer. 
One thing I dont understand: 

If a song is retitled by the library, how with the PRO pay the composer if that title is not registered with the PRO? 

Example: I place song "A" with a non-exclusive library, register song "A" with ASCAP, the music library retitles it song "B". When the cue sheet is filled out, I am listed as the composer of song "B", but ASCAP cannot find song "B", therefore no paycheck. 

Perhaps this is Naive, but do you have to register each song with the respective PRO in order to get performance royalties?


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Apr 6, 2011)

If the library retitles your cut to "B", then they will register it with a PRO with themselves as the publisher for "B". Meanwhile, if you independently place "A" (the same song), you get everything, since you are listed as thh publisher for "A".


----------



## midphase (Apr 7, 2011)

videohlper @ Wed Mar 30 said:


> As a human being and someone who tries to give good advice when I can -- I suggest everyone look long and hard before signing with a non-ex.
> 
> If you have questions, feel free to write me.
> 
> ...



Hello Stew,

Unless I'm completely misreading your post, it sounds like nobody should ever contribute tracks to music libraries period (unless the upfront is particularly appealing)...exclusive vs. non-exclusive don't really seem to matter according to the bleak scenarios that you very thoroughly described (and I know that many of the "exclusive" libraries sign those crappy blanket agreements as well. In essence, it sounds like all the gettin' that was there to be gotten is gone...the money train left the station and due to the overcrowded music libraries market, everyone has undercut each other to the point where nobody is really pulling in much.

Perhaps your situation is different since I know you guys have some loyal long time customers...bò D   Ðwø D   Ðx D   Ðzi D   Ðzw D   ÐO D   Ð• D   Ð‹Ë D   ÐŒ( D   Ð‘í D   Ð’H D   Ð/ D   Ðž. D   Ð°


----------



## videohlper (Apr 21, 2011)

Sorry. I've been traveling and forgot to reply.

MICHAEL L: You should do whatever you feel is best. If the cuts are "gathering dust" in your closet, then you should try them out in a library, non-exclusive or not. 

What worries me are the people that work hard to produce cuts specifically for a non-exclusive only to find that because of the legalities, the music will only get heard by wedding videographers and animal porn editors because the "legitimate" media outlets are wary of the legal implications of non-exclusives. 

You're right to choose carefully, but bear in mind that when non-exclusives get tarred with a brush, no matter what library it might be and how selective they are, just being associated with that model (and having multiple titles/publishers for the same cuts of music) might mire your works in legal red tape and prevent you from doing anything else with it for quite a while. That's what bothers me. 

And your comment about my library being "brutal" when selecting composers/cuts: We are. Completely. We're irritating. We applaud good work, but that doesn't mean we have to buy all of it. Why? My library is small. We have 4,200 cuts. Our competition? Each of them has more than 250,000 cuts. And some of them, in their zeal to be big, forgot quality control along the way. And now a large percentage of those 250,000 cuts suck donkey buttocks -- and their clients spend each day trudging through 1000's of search engine results trying to find the cuts they can stomach.

AND -- here it comes -- that's also the reason why the non-exclusives are having problems, too. They all spent so much time trying to get BIG, that not enough of them spent that time trying to get GOOD.

Good luck, Michael. If you'd like to submit stuff, I'd definitely take a listen. I promise I'll be gentle. 

KAYS: No, you're not misreading my post. I just completely miswrote it. I must've been tired.

The exclusive library biz is doing fine. Better than fine. 

What I was trying to say is that the non-exes are practically giving the music away. And when it comes to getting paid, the non-exes can't give you % of sync, because there's hardly any after they make some of their blanket deals and now that some are giving away performance rights -- you run a good chance of seeing nothing. I hope this makes sense.

And yes, some of the more moronic exclusive libraries are busy undercutting sync and giving away rights as well -- but it seems like some of the lamer, bottom-feeding libraries are losing market share as clients start abandoning them for better-sounding, less "one-size-fits-all" libraries. 

And we are slowly starting to see a rush of new clientele that used to used non-exclusives that are no longer allowed to use them. 

So I didn't mean to sound bleak. The library business is healthy (especially in a down economy). Slowly but surely the larger libraries are being forced to re-examine their quality/standards and that's what accounts for the sudden drop in interest in accepting as many cuts as they used to. They're busy trying to clean house and re-justify their positions in the marketplace. They'll probably start accepting more soon (as soon as some companies merge and others sort out who owns who) -- but bear in mind: the level of quality for submissions will have to be higher.

QUOTE: "Perhaps your situation is different since I know you guys have some loyal long time customers...but all it takes is a change in management to put any past relationship in jeopardy. "

You're SO right. But call me an optimist, but as I said before, I think quality still wins out over convenience/short-term economics.

EXAMPLE: We just had a situation that fits this entirely. Short version: A large station group who used our music dropped us like a plate of cold noodles when our contact expired. Apparently, a MUCH larger, more established library underbid us by a large amount. It happens. Three months pass. Then we get a call from one station asking if they can possibly get our library back. Then another. A month after, the entire station group is now using our music again -- all because they hated the large (and CHEAPER) library. 

This gives me hope -- and should give everyone who writes music for a living hope -- that maybe, even in a down economy, quality is what actually matters. That "if we write it, they will come." 

Again, if there are questions (aside from "who are the crappy libraries?" which I can't and won't answer) feel free to contact me.

Stew


----------



## Ah_dziz (May 7, 2011)

If you give a library the publisher's share of you performance royalties and allow them to register the song via their publishing company then you have in fact entered into a publishing deal with that company and anyone else registering that same piece of music and claiming they deserve publisher income from a PRO is SOL. I have spoken to the head of licensing of one of the largest production studios in the world about this at great length. She told me that they go out of their way to only license music from exclusive owners of music such as exclusive licensing companies/ publishing companies which are essentially the same thing.

Further more, at least in the case of ASCAP, if you give up any cut of your writer's share of performance rights you have violated the agreement you made when you signed on with them and they do not appreciate this sort of thing.

I have acted as a middle man in some licensing deals in the past and also licensed my own music independently and when working with music by others I always insist that they have published the music via their own publishing company and registered the title at their PRO before any paper is signed.

What I'm trying to say is that once you have assigned a piece of the publisher, or writer share of your PRO registration along with giving away the right to sell, license, or utilize your work you have entered into very murky water legally speaking as what you have in fact entered into is a poorly defined publishing deal.

As far as I'm concerned Licensing companies should make their money from licensing fees.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Sep 7, 2017)

videohlper said:


> (Hey, Kays!) Look, guys, speaking as another library owner (not Megatrax, as evidenced by my screen name), I can easily say that it does little to no harm to a company like Megatrax if outside composers decide to release their music to these non-exclusives. As a matter of fact, it'd be a benefit to Megatrax if the music were released non-exclusively.
> 
> Why? Simple: as composers, I doubt many of you get to sit in on meetings with Network TV Music Supervisors and heads of music licensing departments on a regular basis. The heads of libraries do.
> 
> ...




Thank you. You have helped me immensely with this post. 

Knowledge is power.


----------



## dannymc (Sep 8, 2017)

interesting find. and this post was back in 2011 so even then networks were moving away from using non-exclusive tracks imagine what its like today. 

Danny


----------

