JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Industry Message Forum Cue Sheet Neglect...

Tunesat stated, based on their studies, "that 80% of all music supervisors do not file cue sheets". That's frustrating.

Add to that the music libraries that don't register tracks with your PRO in a timely manner (in which I've lost royalties), and there's a sizable amount of lost royalties.

Wondering if anyone uses Tunesat here - and if they helped you recoup royalties?

John

John,

I'm about to find out. SESAC has a deal with Tunesat, in addition to working with BDS. So while I don't have a direct deal with Tunesat, I am in their system. But then I'm controlling my library I'm in and all my stuff is correctly registered.

I have done tracks for other libraries and have found that there have been errors with things getting registered to SESAC. Mostly due to the 'bulk' style registrations libraries can do. Fortunately I caught it in time and should not lose out on royalties due, but they are delayed.

Most composers and artists I talk to about this in the library world don't seem to care which is what libraries hope for. Cause when they screw up, they'll screw up in their favor.

I also did an administration deal for my publishing for all other countries aside from the US. Eventually if it gets to be too much I'll add the US as well. The benefit is that I won't have to wait as long for foreign royalties as the admin pub has deals in place for all other countries.

Jody

Thanks Jody! I'll be very interested in what you find out.

Best, John

Thanks for posting this topic, John... and thanks for your reply, Jody. When reading the "language" regarding cue sheets in most libraries' legal jargon, many imply that nothing will be sent to the client (in useable format) until the cue sheet is filled out properly and in their capable hands.

Looks like another area for composers and songwriters to worry about. We need a music czar... LOL!

Jody, I'm looking forward to hearing how satisfied you are with the "offshore management deal." Best of luck.

Regards,

Dave

Here's a sample cue sheet. http://www.ascap.com/music-career/articles-advice/cue-sheets/pdf/SampleCueSheet.pdf Easy to fill out. Some supervisors are just plum lazy.

John

It's possible to check some at sites like:

http://www.tunefind.com/
http://heardontv.com/all/recent
http://www.tunesonthetube.com/

Then you can report back to your publisher.

But, we can't check everything manually.

I was not aware of Tunesat before your post, John. Are you a member?

Are the codes they require the ISRC code we can put on the master if we self-publish our music? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Recording_Code

Or is it the ISWC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Musical_Work_Code ?

Or are Tunesat using GRid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Release_Identifier ?

Hey Magne,

You can read about Tunesat here:

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=3052

http://tunesat.com/

Also the Music Library Report have threads started on the subject.

John

Aaah, great article, John! It also covers my additional q's on fees ect.

Seems the re-titling practice then is the problem to solve..

I think each publisher can place their own unique watermark on their masters that would solve the issue of retitling. However, ASCAP doesn't seem to be open to anything other than digital fingerprinting.

John

I'm sure they would be happy to have free help processing the 10-20 million song registrations they get every year. The pure volume precludes being able to do very much on new songs, much less any retitling.

MAB

Hey Marc! Where ya been?

I think having individual publishers place their watermark on their masters would be best all around. ASCAP is getting geared for digital fingerprinting, but that won't differentiate the retitled tracks from the original (as I've been told).

As far as the writers go, there's no problem with digital fingerprinting. It will recognize their track regardless of the title. As long as all titles are registered the writer will get credit.

Another idea... Just eliminate the publishers PRO royalties and let the writer collect 100% of PRO royalties. The publisher still has upfront money and licensing fees he can negotiate with the writer.

It's going to be interesting...

John

I did a big post about the concept of retitles and why they're a bad idea somewhere here on JPF last year. SESAC using Tunesat and BDS are both based on digital fingerprinting. I don't think I've heard of a service using a watermark. The digital fingerprint is much more reliable - it doesn't mess with the file.

Here's the thread: http://www.jpfolks.com/forum/ubbthr...s&topic=0&Search=true#Post852060

To think a library would suddenly cut off it's back end and give it to the writer. It's not likely unless that library started their business model that way.

But I will reiterate that the idea of non-exclusive with re-title type libraries will see their business model disappear when digital fingerprinting gets perfected in the next few years. Why? Because major networks are already no longer going to such libraries for content, knowing that it could be a hassle with the license.

"But I will reiterate that the idea of non-exclusive with re-title type libraries will see their business model disappear when digital fingerprinting gets perfected in the next few years. Why? Because major networks are already no longer going to such libraries for content, knowing that it could be a hassle with the license" - Jody

I doubt the retitling libraries will disappear Jody. I think it's wishful thinking from the exclusive libraries. I know personally a couple exclusives that are having a difficult time competing with the non-exclusives. Though I think there's enough work for both business models.

John

I think the re-title libraries will change their contracts, if the market start to use the exclusives. Some might afford it, but for now it seems a much sought after discount solution.. there's not much overhead in the tv/film business either.

Hypothetical...

Let's assume Jody's prediction that the major networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) won't use non-exclusive/retitling libraries in a few years. There are still near a thousand stations in the US that need music 24/7 (not to mention thousands of TV stations worldwide). Most of these music supervisors could give a hoot where the music comes from as long as it works in their projects.

The Internet has changed the Music Industry. It's no longer controlled by a hand full of people. Cable has done the same thing to TV. No, the non-exclusives/retitlers aren't going away. There are many other ball games in town besides the Majors.

The best business model for a new-coming TV composer today is to circulate their music 50/50 in both exclusive and non-exclusive libraries. Cover all the bases.

John

John,

I don't think you read that thread I linked to. I also don't think most artists/composers are seeing the big picture of what's going on with digital fingerprinting.

Tunesat, the very thing that started this thread, already 'red' flags music that has more than one title that relates to the same audio file. I will say that the non-exclusive, re-title type libraries are doing a "race to the bottom." Hoarding a lot of music and pricing it in the basement, below value. They have to in order to get any type of placement to look promising to unwitting artists.

I think my perspective is a little bit different being that I'm knee deep in what's going on - I own a library. I'm going to the meetings and conferences that deal with this stuff directly. When music supervisors talk about needing to license something effectively without the headache of another lawsuit - I'd heed that advice. When you have multiple sources for the same piece of music and something gets tagged in digital fingerprinting - it won't know which title it belongs to. Thus, some of those other libraries may wish to go and hunt down that use to make sure it they get paid. That's a headache that very few productions will want - especially when they thought they had licensed the music properly in the first place.

Understand where I'm going with this?

It's one of those areas where it's starting from the top down. As it should.

The best thing for new/up coming artists/composers today is to write quality music that people need and then value it. Oh and it helps to get a good head for the business of it.

So as more and more music is digitally fingerprinted, which is happening more and more now, the more likely it is to be flagged for multiple titles if it in multiple libraries. Therein lies your problem. If Tunesat finds a piece of your music that wasn't properly cue sheeted... The first company/person to register is the one likely to get credited with it. Now, if it wasn't the company that placed it - oops...

****

Case in point for me. I've got a movie placement that a co-writer got through a re-titler. Unfortunately it could now get very sticky for me because it was done in a way where it could be a problem being that this same song is part of several deals within my library. Add to the fact that I have the admin publishing deal for the rest of the world - where now I have to have them deal with a re-title which could prove bothersome based on similar companies like Tunesat that cover other countries. I constantly have to tell co-writers to stop doing those types of deals without coming to me and every time I turn them down because they want them in my library as well. But I don't do re-titles and won't continue to represent music in my library that has re-titles elsewhere.

****

All I'm doing is providing the word of the wise. Why even play with your career if it could mean getting blacklisted as a person attempting to game the system.

Interesting perspectives from both angles. The concept of "re-titling" always seemed like a "loose cannon" deal to me. I understand why some music libraries do it... but it still seems wrong headed.

The changes going on today in the music biz are mind boggling. Each day, I read about some new concept or agreement between the "biggies" on the ASCAP newsletter. Who knows what we are gonna see when the smoke clears. It looks like ASCAP's biggest focus right now is the battle against those who want to change copyright law as now written.

Thanks for your perspectives guys.

Dave

"When music supervisors talk about needing to license something effectively without the headache of another lawsuit - I'd heed that advice"

Yes, and for every supervisor you talk to there are probably dozens (maybe hundreds) that don't want the non-exclusives to go away. Everyone has their own agenda don't they?

"When music supervisors talk about needing to license something effectively without the headache of another lawsuit - I'd heed that advice. When you have multiple sources for the same piece of music and something gets tagged in digital fingerprinting - it won't know which title it belongs to. Thus, some of those other libraries may wish to go and hunt down that use to make sure it they get paid. That's a headache that very few productions will want - especially when they thought they had licensed the music properly in the first place."

I wouldn't think that would be a music supervisor's problem. That would be the PRO's responsibility to distribute the royalties appropriately. I would think their biggest worry about lawsuits would come from an exclusive library using music dishonestly tagged exclusive (regardless of the exclusive library's knowledge). Non-exclusive/ retitling libraries are upfront about their business model.

"Case in point for me. I've got a movie placement that a co-writer got through a re-titler. Unfortunately it could now get very sticky for me because it was done in a way where it could be a problem being that this same song is part of several deals within my library."

Sounds like a dishonest composer or a library's negligence . How did the song get in your library if it was with a retitle publisher? The World is full of dishonest people. Eliminating the non-exclusive publishers won't change that. Again, this situation could only happen through an exclusive library.

"All I'm doing is providing the word of the wise. Why even play with your career if it could mean getting blacklisted as a person attempting to game the system"

Don't give me that blacklisted crapola Jody. Sounds like a threat similar to McCarthyism and the Hollywood Blacklist.

The marketplace thrives on competition. Your agenda initiates from a group of people that want to form a monopoly in the music library business.

I have music in both non-exclusive and exclusive libraries. Anything I sign to an exclusive library will remain solely in that library - exclusively. And that's what it boils down to - honesty (both on the part of the composer and library).

John

Hey Dave,

Most re-titling libraries keep the original title and add their prefix or suffix to it. Like "Love From A Stranger" becomes "PLT Love From A Stranger".

Pump Audio uses numbers. I never know what track "2356643" is when it gets placed.

Best, John

Part 1: Those that don't want the non-exclusives to go way = those that want rock bottom prices for music. That's the race to the bottom I'm talking about.

Part 2: Actually it's the production's headache, and the goto person is the music supervisor. It's their job to clear things properly. If something comes back saying it wasn't licensed correctly... It's not the PROs job to figure out if something is licensed properly - where did that idea come from? Remember, this isn't watermarking, it's fingerprinting - big difference. Fingerprinting doesn't know what the title is, it only knows the audio file.

Part 3: I'm not giving you McCarthyism John. I'm merely repeating words that came out the mouths of heads of music at major networks - I was there, it was very clear and it was reiterated. They now have very specific libraries and composers they will not use because of this very thing I'm passing along to you and JPF.

Part 3: The marketplace isn't thriving on competition, it's eating it for dessert as a side note - again, the race to the bottom for getting music as cheaply as possible. I value my music and I do this for a living without a side gig. That's not a monopoly. I'm competing against the big boys. I'm also paying attention to the technology that's coming on to the field. It will change the game whether we like it or not.

To add a little more about another recent library that a co-writer wanted me to allow one of our songs into. I was against this particular non-exclusive, re-title library by the 3rd page of the agreement. There were so many things wrong with it, that I had to break it down for him to understand.

This morning he called to say that another co-writer he was trying to also bring into the agreement mentioned something on a later page, which I never got to. But it had to do with granting rights to a 3rd party to allow editing of music, to alter it, then allow that altered version to be re-titled yet again, finger printed and or watermarked.

Wow. In addition, there was an earlier clause that said the composer grants this library the right to wave fees to the PROs and determine if they should pay the composer.

That's a library that is claiming to be a haven for over 1800 artists - none of whom I've ever heard of. Seriously, that's a lot of artists getting duped into allowing free use of their work and allowing someone else to fingerprint it to collect on anything. That instantly makes that library's non-exclusive idea a load of BS.

Every non-exclusive library contract I've ever read has very similar terms. Some more than others, but the reality is, it's not smart business from the artist/composer's side.

Another composer I've co-written with once got a "major" Nashville library production house interested in a song we had written. The co-writer was desperate for a placement in a commercial. Which is what they promised. When I read the contract I nearly fell on the floor laughing. I called the co-writer back and said no way. They wanted to take all the publishing and a share of the writing. They wanted 75% of the upfront license fees. They wanted 75% of any sales from release of the song. Those were some of the terms that I remember off the top of my head and there were more that were equally as bad. When I contacted them and asked if there was room for negotiation, they said sure. When I came at them with fair terms that would make both parties money, they said nothing and never got back to us. Obviously they knew at that point they weren't going to be able to rip us off.

I realize this isn't going to change the minds of people that are dead set on re-titles. But they are bad business.

And to add additional insult to injury...

Another co-writer and I had written a really great and quirky song. They twisted my arm so hard to get it into an exclusive representation, that I relented. They claimed they'd gotten some great placements with them. A fantastic opportunity came up to license that song. I really wanted to do it myself, but couldn't due to the deal. So I called the place and told them about it. They dropped the ball and failed.

I'm still waiting for the reversion so I can get that song back and represent it.

I agree, businesses always try to eliminate competition by partnering up. That's the nature of things, so it's neccesary to watch out constantly.

These libraries would mean very poor business. Would you be willing to share that list, Jody? Like if I PM'ed you?

"Actually it's the production's headache, and the goto person is the music supervisor. It's their job to clear things properly. If something comes back saying it wasn't licensed correctly... It's not the PROs job to figure out if something is licensed properly - where did that idea come from?"

When you're talking PRO royalties it is the PRO's responsibility. The improper licensing issue can happen whether it be an exclusive or non-exclusive library. Again, it depends on the integrity of the library. You seem to think the non-exclusive gang are the only culprits.

"Wow. In addition, there was an earlier clause that said the composer grants this library the right to wave fees to the PROs and determine if they should pay the composer"

Yep, I wouldn't sign that be it a non-exclusive or an exclusive library. Though contractual agreements are another issue.

"I'm not giving you McCarthyism John. I'm merely repeating words that came out the mouths of heads of music at major networks - I was there, it was very clear and it was reiterated"

Being top heads doesn't necessarily equate to being right (or speaking for the majority). Using such power to kill the free market is just plain wrong. Non-exclusive/re-title libraries are just as legitimate as the exclusives (and have a right to exist). I've seen good and bad in both models. BTW, the top heads of the McCarthyism head-hunters weren't right either. Power and money breeds corruption.

"I realize this isn't going to change the minds of people that are dead set on re-titles. But they are bad business"

A matter of opinion. However the non-exclusives and the Internet have opened-up many opportunities for the independents that was never available in the past. And that's a good thing.

We're never going to see eye to eye on this issue Jody. I reckon I'm just more free-market oriented. I believe there's room for both business models. Some exclusionists want to eliminate their competition. The exclusionists weapon of choice - digital fingerprinting.

John

I was talking about the headache of licensing - not the PROs royalties. I agree improper licensing can happen in any event, it's not even exclusive to the library world. However, putting the same music into multiple non-exclusive libraries opens up that possibility of headaches way more than any other route.

That model may have opened up things for a while. I'm not saying it was altogether bad. However, the landscape is changing - as it always does. And that model will experience issues going forward. Technology has always led to writers/publishers being dragged into the future kicking and screaming about things.

Nope, we won't see eye to eye on it. I don't view re-titles as a good thing. Never did. It's not an exclutionist mentality. It's a sense of knowing what I value in my creations and not wanting it to go to the lowest bidder. Whether we like it or not, digital fingerprinting is here and will become the norm. The big boon for it is, catching every thing that has been used and eventually getting the money to the proper writer/publisher.

By John's definition I'm an exclusionist and not into free market, though I'm small potatoes competing against the bigger players. In my eyes, I'm an advocate for technological advancements that help me gain any kind of edge. I prefer to be in the know on how these things are changing and working. I'm also part of the group that is helping push this change along. Then again, I've always worked on pushing the tech envelope in music things. Whether it's digital fingerprinting now or having helped create the pathway to digital distribution for all non-signed artists in the past.

p.s. - isn't it ironic that the very thing that will help the lazy cue sheet thing is also the thing that is being debated for it's alternate capabilities?

Yes, it is a bit ironic Jody. Though I look at digital fingerprinting as an added tool for the composer and publisher to help keep tabs on the music supervisors that are too lazy (or just don't care) to turn in cue sheets. I wouldn't want to eliminate the conventional cue sheets all together.

I'm sure we're not as far apart in our beliefs as we both seem to think.

I enjoyed the debate Jody. Can I submit some music to your library?

Best, John

John, I will open the library to other writers/composers that I don't co-write with as soon as I can afford the E&O Insurance that is required by major networks. Insurance that is required because of lawsuits over the stuff we're debating.

I'll also hint that my "deal" will be the best library deal you can get.

I can only imagine the insurance premiums for that kind of insurance.

Best, John

The co-writer I've been having to deny in an earlier part of this thread, called me the other day to continue asking for my advice on this. He apparently contacted said company and got a response from the woman in charge. Simply put, her reply unfortunately made her sound like a moron. She crossed her definitions of fingerprinting and watermarking. Essentially making it very clear her company is not well versed in the matter.

The problem is, he's now been talking to his other co-writers who spent more time on the contract than I did and found other problems with their deal. Yet he still, still, still, wants to get someone on board to sign up for this garbage.

Simple reality is, fingerprinting will work and is already proving to work without altering the audio files. Watermarking requires an alteration of the file to embed information and then requires special software to read/hear it. Plus as the woman put it in her response - they would have to have a minimum of 30 seconds and either the head or end of the song to track it with watermarking. Well that's not gonna work very well in reality. Fingerprinting doesn't need a specific part of the song, it just needs to listen and determine the DNA.

He's learning. Slowly but surely that his co-writers are not keen on this stuff of retitles.

Is this a second discussion on Fingerprinting audio? Isn't one enough?

Brian