Stop mixing and matching different issues, such as sound recognition technology and what it means to the practice of re-titling. They are separate issues, at least for now, which can be dealt with when there actually is a sound recognition technology that becomes mainstream and standardized. Stop pointing to re-titling being a nightmare for overseas publishers, sub-publishers, and sub-sub-publishers. Stop pointing to re-titling as an inherent nuisance to music supervisors around the world. It is not any of these things.

Stop destroying the one remaining royalty stream for score composers in which they actually retain the copyright.

Stop doing the precise thing you complain about: the aggressive competitiveness that leads one composer to undermine another. You are toying with composers’ income, whatever is left of it. You are taking away composers’ rights under the guise of composers’ rights.

Lay off of re-titling. Focus on composers’ issues that actually matter, and there are tons of those.

Lay off of re-titling, please. Can you do that, for the sake of all of us?

Watermarking/fingerprinting is not in place because there is no will to accurately track anything.

I agree re-titling could be a huge legal issue for the composer……. the publisher of the retitled work will always point the finger [1st digit] at the composer.

BTW, how would a broadcast mechanical be paid to [whom] via retitled works overseas, might there be multiple sub-publishers/agents?
On the face of it one would assume the o/s PRO would follow the paper trail, but if the ‘work’ had a fingerprint, what then?

Les

Lecia just started to get to what I believe is the meat of the re-titling “controversy.” I’ve been to the AIMP and the PMA meetings and I detect an undermining of the re-titling practice by the big established publishers because … who wins if re-titling becomes “banned?” The established libraries- no one else. Certainly not composers and producers. Who supports the named organizations? The big libraries who in some cases are also the big publishers and are sometimes owned by the studios … is there a possible conflict of interest here? Unions are you listening?

Gael are you suggesting that composer/producers limit their income options voluntarily and that if they don’t they are “greedy?” Now they also have to be salespeople? Is that what they should be doing or should they be making music? Wow. And regarding unethical…did you say if you are submitted a track that is also submitted by a library you track down the composer and go direct to make a deal? I don’t think your rant should go unchecked here. I feel your a little like the shills the biggies put in the audiences of the large music organizations meetings spewing half-truths to manipulate the uninitiated and newbies. You put it out there and your refutations smack of a particular bias. You said you… “work hand in hand with the big libraries.”

You said keep it civil but you are advocating a game changing course of action that will send a lot of composer/producers back to waiting tables.

Though there are lot of words already on these subjects, and I could go on. I think it is important to read between the lines.

Gael,

By ending re-titling, you are closing the door on high dollar business revenues for writers and publishers alike. Re-titling is not a questionable practice. It allows a publisher to get paid for the work it does in promoting songs it has the rights to license. Without re-titling, the doors will be closed on many indie publishers. This will result in composers becoming dependent on only a few large publishing companies leaving composers few options. Just as the internet has taken power away from big recording companies and given the power to release music music back to the artists, re-titling songs keeps the power from belonging to only a few large publishers and makes sure it is retained by its composers/authors where it belongs. Re-titling also keeps publishers in check by preventing a monopoly on a particular work. Re-titling gives the composer/author the power over their own work. Don’t take that away.

It seems to me that Blue Arrow and other similar companies need to figure out how to differentiate between the alternate titles. Adjusting a computer program or technology seems to be a much easier solution than re-vamping the music industry, and ending the vast number of business opportunities and revenues available to composers and publishers which are afforded by re-titling.

Combining the technologies will provide accurate tracking and payment to all involved. Regardless of title

First one to market place that has both components with the network to track wins.

I’ve worked on some decently budgeted films & TV programs (and continue to do so periodically), but a lot of my current work is in the indie field — which means limited budgets — and they need music sups as much as the big boys, if not more so, for a myriad of reasons.

I have routinely negotiated and/or created composer agreements, and due (at least in part) to my intervention, have helped score composers negotiate agreements that have allowed them to retain at least a portion (if not all) of their publishing rights for the scores they’ve created for independent films.

I’ve negotiated and created thousands of licenses over the years encompassing all media (including those for my own music appearing in film).

I’ve also worked hand-in-hand with some of the largest music libraries in the world, and certainly see your/their point-of-view. I just happen to disagree with it. I see the contracts they put forth to and have assisted quite a few composers in retaining their publishing rights when negotiating their library deals — and without having to re-title their works.

I’ve not called into question anyone’s credentials or expertise — regardless of their anonymity or the opinions they put forth. I have merely stated my points of view based on my own experience. I expected others would respectfully do the same.

We’ll get back to re-titling in another article devoted exclusively to the practice and you can continue to rake me over the coals then.

Any more thoughts about the BlueArrow tech or the other sound recognition technology out there (I’ll be presenting a writeup of a number of others that were presented at the WCS in a future installment).

Let the discussion about the sound tech continue!

Cheers!
Gael

gael-in regard to your last paragraph about experience… clearly you have a lot of experience but it is also clearly skewed towards the somewhat limited angle of music supervision which is really not to be confused with the trials and tribulations a score composer trying to license their own music will usually face. nor should it be confused with the process the vast majority of broadcast television goes through which does not generally hire the services of a music supervisor and chooses to license directly from a library almost always without a go between such as yourself. of course there are many music sups steadily employed but as a percentage of total tv programming it’s really just a small fraction. albeit often the biggest films and shows enjoy the budget to hire someone such as yourself. having said that, from your writing, it is obvious that this part of music licensing, score composers looking to license work and production companies who deal directly with libraries, are clearly not a part of your expertise. and hence the reason i originally took issue with your comments. i would suggest getting additional info from these groups before condemning the practice of re-titling any further.

Mark Holden covered TuneSat quite adeptly in his article for Film Music Magazine (http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=3052).

Currently, neither TuneSat nor BlueArrow has enough coverage of the overall marketplace to make them what I’d call fully functional for comprehensive tracking. I suppose “affordability” is a relative term, but adding up all the associated costs beyond the initial expenditure, we may not be looking at practical dollars for the “little guy” just yet (at least not in my book).

No need to apologize for the length of your post or remaining anonymous (for whatever reasons). I’m glad to see the issues being discussed and dissected from both sides of the fence. The only way to effect change is to bring issues out in the open, debate them and have the ideas behind them tested.

To quote from copyright law: “…Publication of a work can affect the limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner that are set forth in the law…”

Kinda makes me lean toward a more cautionary approach and refrain from anything that has the potential to put the ownership of my music in jeopardy. Others may feel it’s no big deal. Ultimately, the decision is one’s own, and one must live with the consequences (good, bad or mediocre). My task here is to call ‘em as I see ‘em, which may differ greatly from the view on your side of the fence.

You said: “It’s a dramatically more complex music licensing world out there as compared to even 5 years ago, something which it sounds like the author is not completely aware of…”

I began working as an advocate for artist rights when I was a consultant for the Beverly Hills Bar Association/Committee for the Arts’ 2nd Symposium for Musicians, Singers and Songwriters. I’ve worked on almost fifty films & TV series doing music supervision, coordination & administration. I have been, and continue to be, intimately involved in the licensing process for film, TV, Internet and other media. I have seen the music licensing world change greatly over the years and have made it a point to grow and learn with it. Everyone can learn new things every day, and I’m no exception, but I do consider myself at the very least, relatively well-informed about new tech, business models and their implications in the music licensing world. I may just disagree with the efficacy or validity of said models and/or practices.

Thanks for your comments!