# Having the same track with different names on different libraries - no problem?



## gsilbers (Jan 17, 2013)

non exlcusive deal with several music libraries and have the track retitled. 

is it posible?? 

legally >?


----------



## windshore (Jan 17, 2013)

You can run into problems. They use software to identify tracks so credit and publishing can go to the wrong library if it's identified as a different title.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 17, 2013)

yeah. but its non exclusive and publishing its on the music library companies end. 
so still legal right?


----------



## sluggo (Jan 17, 2013)

I am not a lawyer.
Yes it is legal.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 18, 2013)

so why everyone here keeps saying dont do it?


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 18, 2013)

gsilbers @ Fri Jan 18 said:


> so why everyone here keeps saying dont do it?



Who says dont do it?


----------



## doctornine (Jan 18, 2013)

I have a bunch of cues with several , er, non-exclusive libraries.

Can't say I've run into a problem so far. Though the idea does strike me as utterly bizarre.
To be honest it makes peanuts anyway.

I'm used to working exclusive. Much safer territory :wink:


----------



## rgames (Jan 18, 2013)

It's perfectly legal if your contracts are non-exclusive and you retain the ownership of the music. In that case you have every right to distribute the track through as many channels as you want.

The vast majority of them don't actually change the title, they just add some descriptive text that identifies their publishing entity and maybe a track number specific to their catalog. So, from a PRO bookkeeping standpoint, it's a different title but from your standpoint it's the same title with a different publisher.

rgames


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 18, 2013)

RiffWraith @ Fri Jan 18 said:


> gsilbers @ Fri Jan 18 said:
> 
> 
> > so why everyone here keeps saying dont do it?
> ...



there was several threada about it here. seemed the consecus was to not do it. 

one of the libraries i submit said to not have it on other libraries. (retitlting) 
cause of tunesat. 

i guess its because of the publishing royalties could go to the other company. 
but above, i read that , the library companies can submit with a discitpion or extra name so its differenciated once the PROS see it. 

ive had ocasions were some cable shows want to buy publising and im glad i dont retitle.


----------



## Ed (Jan 18, 2013)

rgames @ Fri Jan 18 said:


> The vast majority of them don't actually change the title, they just add some descriptive text that identifies their publishing entity and maybe a track number specific to their catalog. So, from a PRO bookkeeping standpoint, it's a different title but from your standpoint it's the same title with a different publisher.



So what you're saying is its fine for the writers, but the publishers are the ones that should be worried?


----------



## rgames (Jan 18, 2013)

Ed @ Fri Jan 18 said:


> rgames @ Fri Jan 18 said:
> 
> 
> > The vast majority of them don't actually change the title, they just add some descriptive text that identifies their publishing entity and maybe a track number specific to their catalog. So, from a PRO bookkeeping standpoint, it's a different title but from your standpoint it's the same title with a different publisher.
> ...


Yeah, I guess that's one way to look at it.

Here's an example: I write a track called "I Love Green Beans". I then register that track with my PRO as "I Love Green Beans". The title "I Love Green Beans" is then registered to me as BOTH writer AND publisher.

I then submit that track to Crucial Music. They then re-title the track and register it with the title "I Love Green Beans CMP XXXXXX" where XXXXXX is some number that identifies the track in their catalog. That title is then registered to me as writer but to Crucial as publisher.

So, the track "I Love Green Beans" then has two registrations and two titles: one registration/title with me as publisher, one registration/title with Crucial as publisher. In both instances, however, I am listed as the writer. So regardless of which one gets listed on a cue sheet, I get the writer's share.

As I said above, not all libraries do it that way, but the ones I've worked with tend to do some form of it (many do not have the XXXXXX catalog number, only a publisher identity). Some do, in fact, completely change the title, but I've not come across many that do.

I've seen some folks say re-titling is a bad idea but I don't know why. If it's a non-exclusive track, I'm not sure what the issue is. The re-titling process does nothing more than assign ownership to the appropriate publishing entity, which is what's supposed to happen. So I don't know why people have an issue with it.

rgames


----------



## videohlper (Jan 21, 2013)

Why is re-titling (same song but different registrations) bad? 

Start by reading this article: 

http://pmamusic.com/pma/?p=222 

And although I've said it before, I personally don't recommend it. Most network TV are staying FAR away from it and libraries associated with it (because there are several instances where a non-exclusive track has resulted in numerous legal claims from various libraries over WHOSE version of a same track was used). 

Most importantly, should you want to be paid by a PRO, say ASCAP/BMI, you're going to find that they've announced that they're going to start relying on fingerprinting to identify performances in the coming years. If there are seven tracks with the exact same fingerprint (regardless of how the song is labelled), the track will most likely go into an "UNID" file (unidentified track) and will require an actual person to try and sort out which of the seven copyright holders gets the performance. Since ASCAP and BMI have been thinning out the actual numbers of humans in their ranks, that person might not even exist. 

Fingerprinting is already in effect in countries like the Netherlands where BUMA/STEMRA pays performance and sync based primarily on TuneSat/SoundHound/Whoever's technology they're using. 

So -- the decision is up to you (and you should read the article listed above -- it's quite informative and MUCH better written and persuasive than this response), but I think going non-exclusive is a horrible idea. 

Good luck. 

Stew


----------



## Markus S (Jan 22, 2013)

Good point, Stew, and good read.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 22, 2013)

videohlper @ Tue Jan 22 said:


> Why is re-titling (same song but different registrations) bad?
> 
> Start by reading this article:
> 
> http://pmamusic.com/pma/?p=222



They represent production music libraries.

Their stated goal:

*Working with performing rights organizations, legislators, legal counsel and broadcasters in the aim of improving the reporting, monitoring, collection and distribution of performance fees and royalties for PMA members.*

As they have an agenda, I wouldn't take what they say to heart.

It is NOT a horrible idea to go the non-ex retitle route. My eight ASCAP checks per year are probably quadruple what they would be if all of those tracks were with one lib. That is not true of everyone of course, but I am sure I am the rule rather then the exception.

Cheers.


----------



## Jaredf920 (Feb 26, 2013)

Hey! 
I work at NBCUniversal - in the Television Music Services office.

DO NOT retitled songs/cues!
I have seen a couple composers get blacklisted for this --- don't take that risk. 

Example:
you have a non-exclusive deal with Library A & Library B--
You put your song titled "Stroll Around Town" in Library A, then you title it "A Night Out" and put it in Library B. 

Say it gets picked up for a TV Show - the network licensed it from Library B (lets say that the network has a blanket deal with Library A & B)... 
A couple months later - the network gets a claim from Library A: "You used our track entitled "Stroll Around Town" in your show "Real Housewives" we were not aware of this use, nor did we get compensated for it. 
The network company then goes and searches the records - "We used "A Night Out" from Library B..." -- then they listen to both songs... same song... 

The Network will then notify both Library A & Library B and they have to work it out... 


I have seen this situation go down a few times. I have seen a few composers get blacklisted from the Music Library world & also flagged/blacklisted for future Television Music work. 
It can ruin your reputation and ultimately your career!


Currently - NBCUniversal ONLY deals with Exclusive music libraries. 
Hope this helps!

Cheers
-Jared


----------



## givemenoughrope (Feb 26, 2013)

Thanks, Jared
I thought that was the case with the network libraries. I write for one and I know they'd never go for that ever. 


I did a track for a library that is known around town when I was just starting out. They needed it really fast for a movie ad, "there'll be loads more work for you", etc. Fast forward years later, I've never heard from them again but it's been retitled by their sub- and sister- libraries a dozen times. It's like a scar on my ASCAP catalog. Very annoying/disheartening.


----------

