Overview
When you shift a track from an exclusive to a non-exclusive model, it significantly affects how sync royalties are collected, the timing of payments, and how reporting is handled. This article walks through the key differences and provides practical guidance for managing that transition effectively—especially within platforms like ThatPitch.
1. What Does “Exclusive” vs. “Non-Exclusive” Mean?
-
Exclusive: The track is licensed to and represented by only one library. That library handles metadata, PRO registrations, and royalty reporting.
-
Non-Exclusive: The same track can be licensed and distributed to multiple libraries simultaneously—maximizing exposure but increasing complexity.
ThatPitch currently uses a non-exclusive model for uploads by defaultVi-Control.
2. Royalty-Collection Flow
-
Exclusive: Royalties are centralized. One library handles metadata, cue sheet submissions, fingerprinting with collectors like Soundmouse/BMAT, and sends consolidated payments.
-
Non-Exclusive: This may result in multiple libraries submitting metadata separately. Royalties might be fragmented across different sources and tracking systems, requiring consolidation on your end.
3. Collection Windows
-
Exclusive: Royalties typically follow a single, predictable payment schedule from that one partner—simplifying reconciliation.
-
Non-Exclusive: Each library often reports and pays on its own rhythm, leading to staggered and potentially unpredictable payout timelines.
4. Split Rules & Metadata Consistency
-
With exclusive licensing, there’s usually a single metadata version and one set of ownership splits—leading to cleaner synchronization and PRO tracking.
-
In non-exclusive scenarios, inconsistencies (like different titles or metadata formats submitted by various libraries) can cause reporting confusion, misallocation of royalties, or delayed payments.
5. Best Practices for Managing Non-Exclusive Licensing
| Tip | Description |
|---|---|
| Maintain a Metadata Tracker | Keep a spreadsheet listing each library, the metadata used, and submission status to compare variants and ensure consistency. |
| Standardize Metadata Upfront | Submit uniform metadata—titles, ISRCs, composer/ownership splits—across all platforms. |
| Monitor Fingerprinting Entries | Use one standard version for tracking systems like BMAT or Soundmouse to reduce confusion. |
| Track Payment Sources | Log incoming royalty payments by source, date, and amount to reconcile against expected earnings. |
| Clarify Contract Terms | Understand how each library handles PRO registration, sync fees, and royalty splits ahead of submission. |
6. Summary of Key Differences
| Feature | Exclusive | Non-Exclusive |
|---|---|---|
| Metadata Control | Centralized, consistent | Decentralized; risk of variation |
| Reporting Complexity | Simple, unified | Complex, multi-source |
| Payments | Predictable, single | Multiple, staggered |
| Exposure Potential | Limited to one library | Broader reach across multiple catalogs |
Why ThatPitch’s Non-Exclusive Model Matters
ThatPitch’s non-exclusive framework—upload once and distribute your audio to 100+ sync libraries—offers powerful reach for independent artiststrolley.com+13That Pitch Blog+13musiclibraryreport.com+13youtube.com+2musiclibraryreport.com+2musiclibraryreport.comyoutube.com+2blog.songtrust.com+2. However, wider distribution increases the importance of disciplined metadata and royalty tracking.
Bottom Line
Switching from exclusive to non-exclusive sync licensing can expand your reach significantly but also introduces complexity into royalty collection and reporting. Prioritize metadata consistency, vigilant tracking of payments, and clear documentation of licensing partners. With the right systems in place, non-exclusivity can be a strategic advantage.