Pump Audio’s Re-Titling of Songs for Publishing

October 6th, 2008 | by brian |

A reader sent me an email recently asking: 

When you/I sign a contract with e.g. Pump Audio, does this “re-title publishing” come automatically with this deal or do they send some other deal to sign?

Does this “re-title publishing” end at the same time after the year or so as the normal contract ends, and what happens with the publishing deal info they’ve made with e.g. ASCAP?

My response was:

“I am not a lawyer, but the way I interpret the Pump Audio deal is that the re-title publishing is included automatically in their contract. They do not explicitly elaborate on it, which is no doubt intentional.
 
The publishing registration with the performing rights organization (ASCAP) is indefinite, because publishing royalties are generated not from the sale of a license but from the use of the music in a public context. By registering your songs under different titles, they are staking a claim to a percentage of future earnings that may occur if your music is used down the road by those who purchased the licenses. Most other organizations only take a piece of the initial license, in which case you receive all the publishing royalties.”
Here’s a screenshot of Pump Audio’s licensing agreement:
As it states, you are giving them permission to register your songs with performing rights organizations (PROs). Since most musicians will already have done this themselves, this means Pump changes the titles of your songs as registers them as new songs, with Pump as the publisher. They don’t mention the word “re-title”, though. 
 
Also, the agreement states that they will “pay over to you your share of any resultant performance monies…”
 
“Your share” is quite a nice phrase, as that could mean just about anything. Including ZERO, I suppose. 
 
Oh well. Enough about Pump. I’ve brought this up several times now, but I’m not sure how much it really matters. To most of us, a small percentage of something is better than a large percentage of nothing. 
 
If anyone from Pump Audio wants to response, please do!

Related posts:

  1. Music Licensing and Re-Title Publishing, Pump Audio… Who is this man?! Why is he on this site?!...
  2. Re-Title Publishing - Update Last week I wrote a post about "re-title publishing", and...
  3. Review of Online Music Licensing Services To date we've reviewed several web-based services that help artists...
  4. Using Online Services to License Your Music As CD sales continue to dry up, music licensing has...
  5. Re-Title Publishing - Is it Legitimate? I recently submitted music to a licensing opportunity via Sonicbids,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

  1. 3 Responses to “Pump Audio’s Re-Titling of Songs for Publishing”

  2. By Stan on Oct 8, 2008 | Reply

    Well, I think it matters.
    The cornelian dilemma of either dealing with Pump or, let’s say Rumblefish, is hard to solve.
    Should I/anyone better try my luck with Pump which has a massive selling power through gettyimages film stock among others, and be screwed a fair share of publishing rights or go for the ethical, honest way of not be screwed and deal with Rumblefish?

    I’ve been asking myself this question for the past week and am really hesitating. So thanks for today’s post, it didn’t offer a solution but confirmed it’s worth thinking more than twice.

    Any suggestiont/philosophical reactions?

    Best,

    Stan

  3. By brian on Oct 9, 2008 | Reply

    Wow, a “cornelian dilemma” indeed. First time I’ve encountered that phrase, which is appropriate for a snobbish site…

    One music licensing pro suggested to me that you use places like Pump Audio, but just don’t tell anyone! Hahahaha. His point was that Pump’s model really commoditizes and cheapens music. They do a huge volume by offering vast libraries at very low prices.

    His suggestion was that, yeah, you might be able to make a few extra bucks with them, but if you tell people you’ve gotten licensed through it, they will know that your music can be obtained cheaply, and you will lose prestige and leverage in the unlikely case that an actual music supervisor wants to negotiate a license for one of your tracks someday.

    The same thing can be said for publicizing your placements…According to him, lots of bands publicize placements on MTV, which obtains music from Pump Audio for next-to-nothing. If a supervisor sees that you’ve licensed a song they want to MTV, then they will know that it can be gotten very cheaply.

    Food for thought…

  4. By Foreigner on Nov 28, 2008 | Reply

    I also think it does matters.

Post a Comment