XTREEMMAK
New member
Ok guys,
After an exhausting amount of reading and searching through Google, this site, and other places, I think I may have an answer to my problem but would like to run it by you guys to see what you think.
I'll go through some back story but if you want, just go to the section labeled as [SKIP TO...].
So I was considerably close to putting the finishing touches on my beat store where initially I wanted to sell tracks under a non-exclusive agreement and an exclusive agreement, when a couple problems hit me.
1. Based on my agreements, will I be making any royalties from either?
2. Will PRO's track performances made even with these licenses?
3. If someone buys a track from me exclusively, is that the same as buying out the rights to the track?
4. If a large publisher wants to license the track and I've already sold the exclusive rights but still own the copyright/publishing, what actions can I take?
5. How do I track if the client is abiding by the agreement if anyone is allowed to buy either the non-exclusive, or exclusive tracks?
6. If you deliver tracks separately, people can use those breakout tracks as part of a new work!
What I ended up with is hours of research, arguments on here on people being pro exclusive, pro non exclusive, pro working with producer directly, etc etc etc....in short, a lot of noise. In the end I figured it's a matter of preference and that it seems to make more sense to utilize the avenue of leasing and doing tracks exclusively, selectively.
So some of my conclusions were:
1. Generally no unless stipulated by your agreement. In a non-exclusive realm it's not as important than in the exclusive realm considering I'm already limiting the number of sales arbitrated by that agreement anyway.
2. Still up in the air, but again not as important with non-exclusive. So far I've found the answer to be no in regards to self publishers like myself.
3. From what I've found, no it is not. In a book I was reading (and yes I can source it if asked), the exclusive agreement is almost related to a Quasi-Sale which you retain your copyright, but give up your producer royalty (depending on your agreement). When you buy out, it's an Outright Sale where you relinquish your ownership including your copyright (for me, this will probably never be an option lol).
4. Ironically this still hasn't been fully answered, but for the most part you're stuck. What I think happens is that you become a joint owner of the copyright and I think some weirdness happens with partnerships and stuff idk.
5. Based on that same book, it states while it's possible, it's an administrative nightmare; especially when you have a lot of clients. You're telling me that you're going to track x amount of users in x territories, to see if they've been abiding by your contract and pursue x amount of people if they aren't....by yourself?!....Yeah good luck with that...
6. If you track them out, people can use the individual tracks as samples.
A. So f*kin what?! They've paid for a non exclusive license to utilize the track in a way set by the agreement. If they make $1million off the non-exclusive (which they probably wont), then I have a right to chase them. If they break it up and use it in another production, sure it breaks my contract and if I can prove that they did I'll fight for it, but it if I can't or it's not worth the time, why bother?
[SKIP TO]
So here's what I came up with. How about I go about the store solution like I was doing originally, and offer all tracks on there under non-exclusive agreements (even the hot ones with no buyers). If the client wants exclusivity or needs to purchase an additional license due to over sale or just because of modulated intent, then I can handle the contract individually with an artist/producer contract, accessing the intent and scope. In this way, I'm not locked into relinquishing my royalty potential (if any) unintentionally. Users still get the tracked out session, as well if available.
If you need to see the agreement, I can post that as well.
Thanks everyone!
After an exhausting amount of reading and searching through Google, this site, and other places, I think I may have an answer to my problem but would like to run it by you guys to see what you think.
I'll go through some back story but if you want, just go to the section labeled as [SKIP TO...].
So I was considerably close to putting the finishing touches on my beat store where initially I wanted to sell tracks under a non-exclusive agreement and an exclusive agreement, when a couple problems hit me.
1. Based on my agreements, will I be making any royalties from either?
2. Will PRO's track performances made even with these licenses?
3. If someone buys a track from me exclusively, is that the same as buying out the rights to the track?
4. If a large publisher wants to license the track and I've already sold the exclusive rights but still own the copyright/publishing, what actions can I take?
5. How do I track if the client is abiding by the agreement if anyone is allowed to buy either the non-exclusive, or exclusive tracks?
6. If you deliver tracks separately, people can use those breakout tracks as part of a new work!
What I ended up with is hours of research, arguments on here on people being pro exclusive, pro non exclusive, pro working with producer directly, etc etc etc....in short, a lot of noise. In the end I figured it's a matter of preference and that it seems to make more sense to utilize the avenue of leasing and doing tracks exclusively, selectively.
So some of my conclusions were:
1. Generally no unless stipulated by your agreement. In a non-exclusive realm it's not as important than in the exclusive realm considering I'm already limiting the number of sales arbitrated by that agreement anyway.
2. Still up in the air, but again not as important with non-exclusive. So far I've found the answer to be no in regards to self publishers like myself.
3. From what I've found, no it is not. In a book I was reading (and yes I can source it if asked), the exclusive agreement is almost related to a Quasi-Sale which you retain your copyright, but give up your producer royalty (depending on your agreement). When you buy out, it's an Outright Sale where you relinquish your ownership including your copyright (for me, this will probably never be an option lol).
4. Ironically this still hasn't been fully answered, but for the most part you're stuck. What I think happens is that you become a joint owner of the copyright and I think some weirdness happens with partnerships and stuff idk.
5. Based on that same book, it states while it's possible, it's an administrative nightmare; especially when you have a lot of clients. You're telling me that you're going to track x amount of users in x territories, to see if they've been abiding by your contract and pursue x amount of people if they aren't....by yourself?!....Yeah good luck with that...
6. If you track them out, people can use the individual tracks as samples.
A. So f*kin what?! They've paid for a non exclusive license to utilize the track in a way set by the agreement. If they make $1million off the non-exclusive (which they probably wont), then I have a right to chase them. If they break it up and use it in another production, sure it breaks my contract and if I can prove that they did I'll fight for it, but it if I can't or it's not worth the time, why bother?
[SKIP TO]
So here's what I came up with. How about I go about the store solution like I was doing originally, and offer all tracks on there under non-exclusive agreements (even the hot ones with no buyers). If the client wants exclusivity or needs to purchase an additional license due to over sale or just because of modulated intent, then I can handle the contract individually with an artist/producer contract, accessing the intent and scope. In this way, I'm not locked into relinquishing my royalty potential (if any) unintentionally. Users still get the tracked out session, as well if available.
If you need to see the agreement, I can post that as well.
Thanks everyone!
Last edited: