TQnJiL , [url=http://lyuquggylmxw.com/]lyuquggylmxw[/url], [link=http://hzoyosjaojhy.com/]hzoyosjaojhy[/link], http://oqwmaebrfvjr.com/
|
| yTbwhyqeG - 2013-03-30 22:35:27 |
lwpyzf@zdwobr.com |
G2zzRI , [url=http://hlpmmxcgduhj.com/]hlpmmxcgduhj[/url], [link=http://roqftlbuekzc.com/]roqftlbuekzc[/link], http://peamyliuzlvi.com/
|
| rVZERcQT - 2013-03-28 01:33:57 |
fgaqyd@yzwejl.com |
Eddi,To some folks re-titling is perceived as a peefcrtly ethical practice. The mindset is It's my property [the copyright] and I can do with it what I want. Others feel the entire concept is ethically flawed [I consider myself in this group].As with most arguments that involve commerce, some find their opinions changing along with wherever the money leads.You have to decide what you feel is right for YOU, since this is a practice that has yet to have its day in court (so to speak).Personally, I feel that if I create a WORK [in this case, a composition], I am obliged to treat that work as a unique creation and market it accordingly. Any recording I make of that creation is a unique sound representation of the work, and is equally unique in its treatment of the work. As such, for me to consider re-titling either the composition OR any recording so a company that had nothing to do with the creation of the work or the recording, paid no money to me to have it created, recorded, mixed or anything else and then expects to have all or a piece of the publishing to that title and recording of it IN PERPETUITY (as in forever) is pretty cheeky. Place it in something and split the upfront license fee with me (whether it's $9.95 or $9,500) and leave your grubby mitts of my back-end (pun intended).These libraries exist with such success because they rake in the back-end bucks for works they did NOTHING and paid NOTHING to have created. The money some of these libraries make is obscene, when you think of how much of that money is made on the backs of the composers whose works and recordings they have commandeered in these non-exclusive deals.And make no mistake: Many who say they are non-exclusive really are NOT. They put conditions on that non-exclusivity in different ways, including saying you cannot license the same work/track to another library. Uhm and that is NON-exclusive HOW? Oh, yeah you're allowed to plug your own stuff yourself, but not avail yourself of any other avenues out there that might compete with the particular library wanting to wrap up your works/recordings into THEIR stable? I don't think so, Tim.Friends of mine who write for magazines are completely baffled at re-titling in the music world. None of them re-title articles to re-purpose them for another periodical or website. If it is reprinted elsewhere, it's reprinted, and so noted; otherwise, their take is I can always write another article. Cheers!Gael
|
| wYyLOHffiR - 2013-03-26 23:30:01 |
reduktor@peterstar.ru |
je to krute ... konecne neco jineho nez ten klasicky no money beat ...
Sylar ... kluci nehrodte ty serialy :)
|
| anonym - 2008-03-27 19:47:49 |
|
Mocný:)
|
| Dan.B. - 2007-12-13 22:42:45 |
|
|
