JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Industry Message Forum What's the deal with "retitling" anyway?

Don't know if this question has been asked.. What's the deal with music libraries retitling songs? It seems to be a prevalent practice these days. Is there some legal reasoning behind it?

It's kind of frustrating when I get a royalty statement from BMI, and I don't know which one of my songs were used {I know, tough problem to HAVE!} They have the name of the show, running time of the song ect listed but not the song titles.

I think it has something to do with registering with a PRO. You register under your title, they register the same song under their title.

Hey Bob,

If several non-exclusive libraries have the same track, they'll re-title the track to funnel the publisher's PRO royalties to the publisher that placed the music. Otherwise the PRO wouldn't know which publisher is entitled to the royalties.

Most often they'll use a prefix ("Deadly Intent" to "EC-Deadly Intent"). Others like Pump Audio will use a series of numbers. Make sure each publisher registers their re-titling with your PRO.

I hope I explained it well.

Best, John

Bob,

Libraries that do re-titles do it for the reason to take/make more money from the artist. It's so that they can track a song that you have allowed them to use. Lots of people look at it like a great thing. Why? Because the artist retains the rights to the original work.

Up until now, and by now I mean a year or so ago, the idea of re-titling wasn't all that bad. However, now it's starting to become a major problem. Why? Digital fingerprinting.

Currently all broadcasters are looking into making the cue sheet process easier and more automatic. Which means your music is getting fingerprinted. Thus if you're putting your music into multiple libraries that do re-titles, that means there are multiple versions of the same song with the same digital fingerprint. The digital fingerprint can't distinguish which title is which. Uh oh.

What does this mean going forward?

Well, first off. There are broadcasters that are now blacklisting, or rather, no longer using libraries that are known for re-titling. Why? They don't want the headache of missing a license and then have multiple entities/libraries coming after them suing for that use - remember if it wasn't done right, the digital fingerprint doesn't know who sent it, it only knows what the song based on the audio.

Soon those peeps like the ones you've used will start losing their contracts. Their pool of where they can get licenses from will dry up because of the issue of re-title. In the long run it's going to be better for the artist and for the libraries/publishers that don't do re-titles. Less fragmentation of the industry.

The idea at this point is to make a decision. Continue to allow those re-titles and hope you'll continue to make money with it for a while and face possible blacklisting from broadcasters. Or start removing all the songs you have that do have re-titles and start searching for a new library or publisher that has a better business model going forward. And yes, digital fingerprinting is getting that good. In fact, most libraries now can find out if you're already fingerprinted when you submit. That can start to raise the red flags.

Understand?

I agree with Jody. Michael Laskow has been warning about this issue for several years already. Many studios only work with music that is exlusive even before watermarking was an issue. I remember being shown the power of watermarking back in 2002 or so when a friend used his cell phone to identify music playing on a radio when we were having dinner. Even with all the ambient noise it got it right 3 out of 5 times with only 2 seconds of audio. That was eons ago.

Exclusive is the way to go, as long as you have the right to pull your catalog if you are unhappy with service and go elsewhere.

There are audio tricks, however, than can be done to files to still make them unique fingerprints (slight variations in EQ etc.) that would be imperceptible to a listener but would get around the issue. But I'd still recommend exclusive with the rights to leave in writing.

Brian

By the way, one reason for renaming was so people couldn't find out who was behing the music so they couldn't circumvent the library.

Brian

It is SO HARD to get attention on anything, you are cutting your own head off if you re-title, or do anything that distracts from your original song. Just another reason to reject.

MAB

Thanks for the feedback guys, very enlightening indeed!

Although...

the non-exclusive/re-titling libraries are still licensing a heck of a lot of music. I think for the time being it would be wise to split your tracks between non-exclusive and exclusive libraries. I have about 1/3 with non-exclusive and 2/3 with exclusive.

Musicians have to use every resource to generate income from their music.

John

The whole thing with re-titles will come to bite musicians/composers in the butt. There are already composers getting blacklisted for doing what Brian has mentioned. One went even so far to reregister his compositions with different titles under his 5 year old son's name with a different PRO. He's no longer getting major work because of that stunt.

Gaming the system might work for a short period of time, but why screw yourself in the long run?

The opposing view is, don't re-title anything. There are non-exclusive libraries that don't re-title. Musician's don't have to use every resource, but they do need to be smart about the resources they do use.

"There are already composers getting blacklisted for doing what Brian has mentioned" - Jody

First off; I have great respect for what you've accomplished with your music and your own library. Big congratulations Jody!

I hear this quite often about the blacklisting. However, I've not seen any names listed. Maybe a scare tactic by the camp that opposes re-titling.

Also, I keep my music separated into categories. Some totally exclusive, some not. The exclusive publishers I work with have no problem with me working in both camps.

If the day comes when re-titled music bites the dust, I'll cease to work within that realm. From my modest experience, clients are mainly concerned that I own 100% of the copyright. If the music fills their need, they don't seem to care about much else. But then my experience thus far is only in background music - not high profile music.

I always have plenty of exclusive tracks for those clients that require them.

Just my humble take on the issue of re-titling. Whether the "sky is falling " or not, will probably materialize in the next decade. In which case, I may be retired from Earth by that time.

Best, John:)

Another perspective:

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=5899

John

It's not a matter of the sky falling. I've been going to the inside meetings on this stuff. I'm not at liberty to passing along names of people. But when I'm hearing straight from the mouth of the presidents of music at major networks - I'm not about to doubt them. I'm in the midst of dealing with the fingerprinting right now for my entire library and getting the additional data that is required once it's fingerprinted.

I'm seeing this as a top down situation. The big guns are already making the move. It's a matter of time before it filters down. I think once broadcasters/filmmakers/production houses see the ease of all of this stuff, they'll make that jump too. I believe it will take way less than a decade. So don't retire to quickly.

Everyone has a niche. I wouldn't have an issue with a composer doing different types of music either. So long as they're not re-titling themselves and passing it around.

I'm merely pointing out that it's something one should consider heavily at this point with the way the industry is changing.

O.K, so this begs a question.. Should I pull myself from Pump Audio {frankly, the ONLY library that has done anything for me financially} and go exclusively with non-retitling libraries, and forego my {modest as they may be} checks every 6 months for a couple of hundred bucks a pop?

This is a pretty picture from someone that isn't likely understanding the digital fingerprinting process and the headaches it will cause his business model for the end user. For him to say broadcasters don't care where the music came from is irresponsible. He's likely made a good living doing what he's done with re-titles. That doesn't mean it will continue, technology will change that reality. For him to say that exclusive libraries don't have the same breadth of catalog that non-exclusive, re-titling libraries have is in a word - ignorant. APM is the largest library in the world, entirely exclusive - no one else comes close to their depth and quality. There is a rebuttal in the comments section by someone who is part of the PMA (Production Music Association) and whom is very knowledgable on this subject.


The only person that can truly answer that question Bob is you. Do you value your work? Do you know what it's really worth for use?

"For him to say that exclusive libraries don't have the same breadth of catalog that non-exclusive, re-titling libraries have is in a word - ignorant. APM is the largest library in the world" - Jody

Yes, I agree with you on that point Jody. There are good and bad (honest & dishonest) libraries in both non-exclusive and exclusive.

"But when I'm hearing straight from the mouth of the presidents of music at major networks" - Jody

Sure, I can believe that. It will make their job easier. They'll be able to lay-off thousands of data entry personnel. I feel more comfortable with cue sheets.

BTW, APM is a front to many different libraries (that's why it's so large). You can't submit tracks directly to APM. You have to go through one of their many partners. Reverb Nation is one of their affiliates. West One Music is another.

As far as being blackballed, with the massive list of cable and satellite networks broadcasting (all needing a lot of music), there will always be plenty of work for everyone, even the blackballed ones.

As far as re-titling goes, it will be just as easy to do electronic re-titling by altering masters (changing a few parameters). Also what will stop dishonest composers to re-title same tracks and change a few parameters?

In closing; I'd wager a bet that the days of turning in cue sheets are far from over. I'll check back on this thread in 10 years and either eat crow or say "I told you so".

The bottom-line in choosing music libraries is finding an honest one and whether they can get you a lot of placements (tall order).

Cue sheets won't go away, no need to check in 10 years. The process of how they get done is going automated 'n' digital and getting very close to 100% accurate. That's the crux of the issue, the automated, digital aspect.

There's nothing to stop anyone from attempting to game the system. But it's usually those people who are gaming it that don't have the quality of material to get a large number of licenses in the first place.

As for APM, they actually do have their own catalog and they do hire composers and pay them very well for creating music. I'm friends with several people that have worked at APM, work at APM or worked with APM. Yes, they also represent a large number of other libraries as well.

"As for APM, they actually do have their own catalog and they do hire composers and pay them very well for creating music" - Jody

I'm sure they do, but they don't accept submissions from the average joe. The average joe has to go through one of they're many outside libraries.

"Cue sheets won't go away, no need to check in 10 years"

I'm speaking of traditional cue sheets. So I will check back in 10 years.

John

I will say audio tracking services like Tunesat are good working tools for composers to keep an eye on clients to make sure cue sheets are being turned in. And digital fingerprinting makes a good supplementary tool for filling in the cracks - but not for replacing traditional cue sheets.

If nothing else I'm glad I brought up a topic that has stirred some debate.

Yep, nothing like a good healthy debate to ignite the senses.

John