TheMusicSnob recently published a post which frowns upon PumpAudio’s changes to its standard licensing agreement, specifically the shift in the 50/50 split to 65/35 in favour of PumpAudio.  The post also highlights the practice of ‘Re-Title Publishing’ (also known as ‘Derivative Publishing’) where the song title is registered under an alternate title (e.g. Fields of Gold -> Gold Fields) on the cue sheet so that PumpAudio can collect a portion of the royalties.
 
PumpAudio was one of the first pre-cleared searchable music libraries that considered submissions from independent artists.  The company was acquired by Getty Images in 2007 for $42 million along with a catalogue of 20,000 independent artists.   Although the recent shift from 50/50 to 65/35 is bad news for the artist, it is a reflection of deflated upfront synchronization license fees in an increasingly competitive media landscape and down economy.

Re-Title Publishing is an accepted industry practice and serves two principle purposes:  It allows the broker to collect backend royalties in addition to frontend fees and protects the songwriter by ensuring that the broker only collects monies for the commercial use(s) he procures.  To combat any public confusion that this may cause and benefit the songwriter’s marketing efforts, many films and TV shows offer a “gratis” cue where the original song title is used as opposed to the derivative title in the screen credit roll or music soundtrack release.

Music licensing, a seemingly clandestine industry bisect, is a lucrative business for songwriters and PumpAudio was pivotal to lowering the barrier of entry for upstart and unsigned artists.  YouLicense followed suit with an ‘open’ music licensing marketplace and transparent business model.

Details on licensing music for TV and film.

Related Posts: SoundReef, Music Placement