copyright

Home » copyright

How Much For Your Copyright?

x
Bookmark

I’ve always felt that owning the copyrights to your own music was golden as there are many advantages and the payoff can be substantial. As an example: If you have success as a composer and years down the road you want to “cash out” and sell to a larger company, owning a catalog of your copyrights can potentially mean a big pay day. BTW this is done all the time.

Recently I was offered an exclusive deal with a three year term, 50/50 sync fee, 50/50 PRO income and a reversion clause IF the earned income did not exceed $300 in PRO money and/or sync fees. If that threshold was crossed, the library would own the song/cue in perpetuity. In essence they would own the copyright forever.

Read more

Home » copyright

LinkedIn Music Library Scams?

x
Bookmark

Reader AP recently sent me this email about music libraries looking for cues on LinkedIn. Anyone else have experience with calls for music over there?
—————————–
Hi Art:

Are you aware of any information about the music “libraries” looking for cues through LinkedIn? Most of these appear to be scams, as they prefer music that’s neither copyrighted or published. The contract terms are nebulous at best, and no composer with business chops has ever had anything other than how “great your music sounds” emails.

Read more

Home » copyright

What’s fair about “Fair Use”?

x
Bookmark

Robin had an idea for a post about “Fair Use” in the copyright law. There are many ways that people do not want to pay for the music that we create and this is one of them. Some of the fair use exceptions make sense but the definition gets stretched beyond it’s original intent. I do take exception to “news reporting”. It’s a for profit activity so how do they get a free pass?

Here’s an extreme example: A YouTube video of some idiot an ill-informed individual trying to use “Fair Use” to get around copyright infringement claims from the YouTube Content ID program.

Read more

Home » copyright

TuneSat Announces Low-Price Service for Small Publishers

x
Bookmark

I got this press release from the folks at Tunesat and thought some of you might be interested. Full disclosure: They are an advertiser on MLR but I was (and still am) a client, long before they became an advertiser here.

————————
TuneSat, an audio monitoring service aiding music copyright holders track song use on television, has put together a low-price offer for smaller publishers.

Read more

Home » copyright

YouTube Content ID Program

x
Bookmark

Thought I would revive this conversation. One of our readers e-mailed me and mentioned that YouTube no longer pulls videos for copyright infringement if music a client purchased elsewhere, is used on a YouTube video but YouTube has the rights to the same music via a 3rd party deal. In this case our reader has a deal with Rumblefish and states that the video producer will simply get a letter stating that Rumblefish has the rights to the music and that would be the end of it.

Anyone else know about this? Has YouTube changed their position? I was under the impression that YouTube was pulling videos for copyright infringement if the music conflicted with their third party deals.

Here’s a link to the previous thread and it’s worth reading the comments. GoDigital Thread

[Update 01-18-2012]

This was recently posted by Lee from Audiosparx and seems to answer the exclusivity question. Until Rumblefish or YouTube specifically answers some of these questions we will all be a bit in the dark.

Lee said:

YouTube’s stated requirement is that only holders of exclusive content can submit such content to their Content ID program.

By requiring exclusive content, this avoids the scenarios where Rumblefish earns money from music licenses sold by other libraries, and gives an affected client a clear path of who to communicate with if they receive an email notification that their video may have content that is owned or licensed by XYZ (e.g. the company they licensed the music track from).

In other words, YouTube is saying that the Library XYZ must be the ONLY licensing source for a track if they are submitting that track to YouTube’s Content ID program, not that the track is available for license at multiple libraries and Library XYZ happens to be the only library submitting the track to YouTube’s Content ID program.
——————–
[Update 08-12-2013]

FYI – The following companies are known to be involved with the YouTube Content ID Program:

AudioMicro
AudioSocket
AudioSparx “Internet royalties” program
CDBaby “Sync licensing” program
Crucial Music
Fine Tune Music
GoDigital & Social Media Holdings
IODA: Independent Online Distribution Alliance
Kontor New Media
Magnatune
Music Beyond
Music for Productions
The Orchard
The Music Bed
Rumblefish
SourceAudio

X

Forgot Password?

Join Us