YouTube Content ID Program

x
Bookmark
GD Star Rating
loading...

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

245 thoughts on “YouTube Content ID Program

  1. Music Libraries no longer have to worry about selling music in YT’s CID
    “RADKey” http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2015/03/rumblefish-reveals-radkey-the-barcode-of-music-at-sxsw.html

  2. I have to say, until reading this thread I hadn’t really realised what a potential mess youtube content ID is..

    I actually received an email a while ago from someone who licensed my music from a non-exclusive library (I can’t recall which one, possibly Beatpick), only to then be told by youtube that the content was owned by Rumblefish – they were quite annoyed by this as they thought they’d licensed the track for unrestricted use..

    And I have to say, in my ignorance, I didn’t really understand what was going on as I assumed everything I was involved in was non-exclusive.

    Turns out I had opted in for CD Baby’s ‘sync licensing’ option (which is actually just CD Baby uploding your material to Youtube Content ID) under the understanding that it was non-exclusive (which is *kind-of* is, but in a way isn’t.. errr)

    I actually think that in general, a content ID system for web videos is a good idea, but until the gray areas are ironed out, I think I’m gonna take a step back from it.

    I only have two albums of material with non-exclusives at present and I think I might just place them into one library (which also does content ID) so there’s just one licensing source for those tracks.

    I was thinking about moving them over to Audiosparx as exclusive tracks (if they’ll have me) as people here seem to have good things to say about them – I did place a few tracks of my old band with them years & years ago and seem to remember Barbie being super helpful with meta-data etc.

    Are there any other libraries that have a clear opt-in to youtube content ID that I should consider?

    I’ve been thinking of pulling my tracks from some of the lower-paying libraries I’m in anyway and trying to concentrate my efforts with companies that can provide some better opportunities.

  3. To answer Scary_Bodega’s question- I can’t get into all the minutia here but one thing you can do is upload first the visuals you’re interested in. If there’s a copyright match and that video is still playable then that means the copyright owners are allowing use of their footage for a share of the ad rev….
    If there is no copyright match then you better be careful. Then you don’t know what the copyright owner is allowing and it’s best to ask permission or try to negotiate a deal with them.
    There’s other things too but I can’t write a novel here.
    I’ve met with composers on MLR for $50 hour long sessions on this, like I said if you’re interested hit me up.

  4. Thanks, Dhruva!

  5. If anyone in L.A. is interested, I do hour long sessions with musicians here, teaching them all the tricks I’ve learned over 4 years on how to make your vids go viral and how to leverage your assets. Normally, I charge $75 for an hour but for MLR members I’ll do $50. I meet clients at the Coffee Bean (or somewhere) by the promenade in Santa Monica. You can reach me via http://www.dhruvaaliman.com/p/contact.html

  6. Just to let everyone know DhruvaAliman did send me a copy of his accounting and it’s as he said. It was totally unnecessary as far as I was concerned. Call me naive but I tend to believe that long time visitors to MLR are not blowing smoke!

    • Having humble pie for breakfast.

      But still not joining rumblefish, sorry.

      • In my defense I doubted Mr Dhruva’s claim because I too have a popular youtube channel with 2,370,839 views
        https://www.youtube.com/user/MusicLoops/videos?sort=p&shelf_id=2&view=0
        These are monetized solely by turning on the monetize button for each video in my account, no third party agency like rumblefish taking a cut of my earnings.
        I have earned exactly $989.94 on these 2,370,839 views.

        Mr Druhva, seems to have hit on a magic formula somehow.
        Good going Dhruva.

        • Just for the sake of accuracy I earned $989.94 on 1,317,850 views (not 2,370,839) as I didn’t start monetization until 2011.

          About the same amount of views as Dhruva’s youtube channel and earning just a fraction of Dhruva’s payout even without sharing the revenue with rumblefish.

          Therein lied my skepticism of Dhruva’s statement but I now stand corrected.

          • Sorry, my bad again.
            From my earnings it looks like an average of $1000 for every 1,000,000 views from running ads on my videos.
            That would put Dhruva’s potential earnings at around $120,000 for 120,000,000 views. right?

            • Yes, that’s what I was thinking. Dhruva’s views are around 150,000,000 across all channels and even at $1/1000 views that should be about $150k.

              But I think that as he is sharing the revenue with the content holders of the visuals, it is less…

              I’m surprised Mark is getting under $1/1000 views. I’ve heard people getting up to $7/1000 views but I don’t know how.

            • It fluctuates, that’s the high end. But you don’t give RF a cut, so you’ll make more per view. I don’t mind giving RF a cut ’cause they can get my music on way more vids than I can do myself.

      • Nothing wrong with Humble Pie, Mark. It’s how Peter Frampton got his start. 😀

  7. Content ID is a scam. It is not licensing your music, I will NEVER do it again with libraries. I post my own videos of my own songs on my youtube channel and monetize them myself.

  8. “But then I left Rumblefish due to complaints from a music library. Today, I think the choice is still questionable. Because that specific music library has not yet even made me $350…

    Today I have 225 unique tracks, around 750 including variants. How much would I get from YouTube Content ID program today? One can only speculate…”

    The answer is pretty simple. Just create a separate catalog of cues for content ID. Use a pseudonym, if you have to.

    • Would they have be tracks that are not in any other library as content ID probably works on fingerprinting technology and the title track/composer is not what they are picking up or identifying.

      • @Musicmatters. It would have to be tracks that aren’t in any other library.

        This is NOT something that I have done. But, if you want to do contentID . IT mud be exclusive content.

  9. I made over $36,000 last year from content ID. Rumblefish rocks, especially if you like to create your own videos and not wait around for someone to license your songs. LICENSE YOUR OWN SONGS and put them on YT.

    • That is really impressive, congratulations !!! This stuff is really confusing, almost every library will discourage Adrev/Content ID but then the results speak for themselves. Do you have music in other libraries, or a separate content ID library. How many tracks do you have on YT ? Thanks Dhruva

      • Right, if you actually believe that Dhruva made $36,000 via rumblefish.
        Solely on his own videos that he posted to youtube?

        CrazeMusic sounds like he has a great music catalog, I checked out his website and I can’t believe he is not making $350 a month let alone in 6 months via licensing his music. To think that he is considering pulling all of his music and going with contentID is a shame because he has actual talent.

        It is really disappointing that people are just saying whatever nonsense they want on this forum without backing it up.
        Dhruva, like in The Wolf of Wall Street, if you show me your pay stub for $36,000 I will quit my job of licensing high quality music right now and join rumblefish.

        Crazemusic, if you are not a member of musicloops.com please send me a submission.

        • On another note , for the second time in as many months a non- exclusive library has entered my tracks with them into the Youtube content id program.

          https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en

          Its a fairly simple criteria to adhere to and written in very plain English.

          There are to conclusions I can make at this point

          1. This library and others are too stupid and illiterate to actually read the TOS

          or

          2. They actually do this, knowing they are in breach and assume we ( the composers ) are too stupid to cop on to them.

          Sorry for the rant but this is getting very tiresome.

          • Dhruva.. this is just too good to miss. Please get that pay stub out, seriously.

            • Do I really have to take a pic of my pay stub and post it somewhere or is the fact that I have over 120 million views across 3 of my channels evidence enough? Look guys, I make compilations but I also slap my song on anything I can shoot with my iPhone. You have edit more videos than actually make songs but it can be done. You have to think of a theme that gets you subscribers, I get about 100 a day.

              You know the show Portlandia- “Put a bird on it” well for youtube vids – Put a song on it 🙂

              My 3 top earning channels
              https://www.youtube.com/user/seekerland
              https://www.youtube.com/user/dhruvaalimanmusic
              https://www.youtube.com/manandbeastvideos

              • So…

                “Dhruva, like in The Wolf of Wall Street, if you show me your pay stub for $36,000 I will quit my job of licensing high quality music right now and join rumblefish.”

                What do you reckon?

                • A) I think you should still make the highest quality music you can
                  B) If you’re gonna do that, you better like making videos

                  I think Art is gonna come visit me in Santa Monica. He can confirm it for you 🙂

              • “Do I really have to take a pic of my pay stub and post it somewhere or is the fact that I have over 120 million views across 3 of my channels evidence enough?”

                Not to be a jerk, but yes, take a pic of your pay stub!!!

                I would like to see if Mr. Lewis holds true to his statement and quits his job of licensing high quality music right now and joins rumblefish.

                What’s the worst that can happen from showing your pay stub? At least send it to Mr. Lewis to see what his response is. I am waiting…..

                • Yeesh, the hard copy is with my accountant, but I can take screen shots of my quarterly earnings from the rumblefish back end and paypal notices if you guys are gonna be that much of a pain in the arse about…I’ll email them to Art. You’ll believe him, right? How can you not. When you look at his face, he’s got trustworthy written all over it.

                  • Good enough. Make it happen.

                  • Hah, such a trusting face!

                    I’m going to set up a meeting with Dhruva. Not so much to vouch for his trustworthiness but I’d like to see what he’s doing first hand. It’s a fast changing world and who knows. I’m all for keeping an open mind!

              • If you are making money well done, I think the point is being lost here a bit, Dhruva makes money by generating his own content and then putting his music on it. I don’t see 120 million views there but there is no doubt that his channels get millions of views.
                What he is doing is very different from a composer putting their music on Rumblefish and hoping for the best. He admits himself he edits more videos than songs. Not so much about content id but how to be a successful Youtuber

                I admire his attitude for playing both sides of the coin and obviously being successful, however this is not what an “everyday” Rumblefish composer does.

                As a matter of interest most of your videos are not your video content, but edits of other peoples work. How does that work ? Surely they must have a cut in this too.

                • They do woodsdenis. YT sets aside money for both copyright holders of music and visuals. Content ID matches both audio and visuals. If you make compilations using visuals that copyright holders want you to use because you are making them money, then you don’t have to ask permission to use them. Just like people don’t have to ask permission to use my songs.

                  • “If you make compilations using visuals that copyright holders want you to use because you are making them money, then you don’t have to ask permission to use them. ”

                    Dhruva, I’m curious about the legal/permission mechanics of this, of making compilation videos using existing YT content. How does that work? How do you know ahead of time which users want people to use their content? Do you need to be a YT partner or sign a contract with a Multi Channel Network? Been doing some research on this today but I can’t quite nail it down.

                    I’ve thought about maiking compilation vids in the past but have never understood how to legally access the content.

                    Good job, by the way. You’ve been tinking outside the proverbial box.

        • Mark,

          Thank you for kind words, and sure, I’ll send you a submission later this month, thanks for invite!

          Yes, today, I’m doing more than $350 per month. 🙂 .. and yeah… from Rumblefish YouTubeContent ID, that payout was $350 over 6 months… but still… with only 50 tracks in the Rumblefish catalog, the buildup from $0.99 -> $50 -> $350 was not so bad. So I look forward to Art Munson’s visit to Dhruva. 🙂

          Best Regards
          /Christian

  10. I just wanted to quote Bjorn Lynne and then share my own view “Unless your music “goes viral” in some crazy popular video, the money you end up with after what started as $1 – $1.25 per 1,000 views, after the money passes through one or two other companies, is hardly anything left for you.”

    I had around 50 tracks in the Rumblefish catalog. First 6 months, I made 99 cents from the YouTube Content ID program.
    Second half, I made around $50. After 18 months, the next pay check was on $350. I’m not a famous artist, and I only had 50 tracks in their catalog.
    This $350 is much more money than I made from any other music library with only 50 tracks in it by that time.
    But then I left Rumblefish due to complaints from a music library. Today, I think the choice is still questionable. Because that specific music library has not yet even made me $350…

    Today I have 225 unique tracks, around 750 including variants. How much would I get from YouTube Content ID program today? One can only speculate…

    • @Craze. There is a vast difference between selling cues for $1.99 and $199.
      It’s easy to sell cues at $1.99. That’s like giving them away. It’s a lot harder at $199.
      So, don’t blame the library.

      Maybe the price point for your music is somewhere in between.
      Listen to Mark.

      • Michael,

        I’m not trying to blame anyone here. However, this specific library I’m talking about sell full music collection CDs including around 20 tracks for about $50… so this specific library is actually on the same price levels as AudioJungle… or lower… but again… the only one to blame would be myself to sign with them. 🙂 … and today, I wouldn’t…
        … anyway… my point is that some people claim that YouTube Content ID system will give very little back unless you are big and famous. I say that, judging from my own experience, it MAY not be true… it seemed to build up pretty good over time even with pretty few tracks in their catalog… (I consider 50 tracks to be few…)

        But I’m not saying that I will join. Just that the decision to stay outside is not super easy. 🙂

        Best Regards
        /Christian

  11. If one sells a song using CD Baby, is their “sync licensing” program optional?

  12. Would love to have a private chat with anyone regarding IODA – anyone? Please pm me!

  13. Synth, I don’t think that you’re here to proselytize (great word btw, at the center of several supreme court cases). What I do think is that you see the world based upon your experience, which is derived from the music that you write.

    You are a passionate guy, but you tend to make broad sweeping, highly generalized statements, like “there are no more high end libraries” and there’s “no upfront money.” That may be true for certain kinds of music, but not for all. It may well be that you write a kind of music for which the market is already saturated. Thus, yes, the market is very hard.

    I’ve never done business with Sarah Gavigan, but she has some interesting things to say about licensing and making it in this business.

    Here’s her website

    http://www.getyourmusiclicensed.com/

    and something she just posted in her newsletter.

    http://sarahgavigan.com/take-the-stairs/#

    I really believe that in order to succeed a writer must hone their skills, be very disciplined and take an extremely long view of the industry. If you focus the the pennies at the bottom of the fountain, you will eventually believe that’s all there is, because it’s the only thing that you see.

  14. Synth Player says:

    Relax guys. I am not here to proselytize! By all means, continue to do whatever practices bring YOU the most success. I am no guru and I never purported to be one.

    Besides, I see no reason for you guys to get bent out of shape since you do not participate in the Youtube Content ID program. If I was rude, sorry. I just think the program sounds wonderful and I am preparing all new music to participate in the program. Good luck!

  15. By the way, Rumblefish relaunched “Friendly Music” with a new technology where you can “mash” a song to a video and share it.
    That gets even more folks interested in using content ID songs. Paul at Rumblefish walked me through it, it’s pretty cool.

    http://gigaom.com/video/rumblefish-friendly-music-relaunch/

    Like I said I can make my own youtube vids in just a few hours and make more money with them than my cable T.V. placements, and I don’t have to wait for someone to license my songs.

  16. Synth Player says:

    I hate to say it, but it looks like non-exclusive libraries and the Youtube Content ID program are the future of library music. It is all about making money from ads these days.

    That is what the music game is about now: selling stuff.

    This is why Coca Cola has an interst in Music Dealers. The demand for music is at an all-time high, but the value of music is at an all-time low. It just makes more sense to make music that will be used in advertisements. That is where the money from music will come from.

    It is time to embrace the future and stop fighting it. It is no use. The labels tried to fight against iTunes but eventually had to give in to the digital revolution. Music library composers are going to have to give in and add their music to non-exclusive libraries that participate in the Youtube Content ID program. You have to adapt.

    • I completely agree with you Synth Player.
      All non-exclusive music libraries should indeed submit their music catalogs to the Youtube ContentID system (even though they are required to exclusively own their content as per the Youtube TOS).
      Then when a customer legally licenses a piece of music to use on their youtube channel they will be immediately hit with 10 or 12 copyright infringements notices in their youtube account from a wide variety of companies.
      Once all music libraries comply with your suggestion of inevitability then musiucloops.com and partnersinrhyme.com will be the only youtube-safe music library on the market.
      Great suggestion, keep up the good work with your passionate campaign.

      • Synth Player says:

        Nice sarcasm.

        Anyway, more music libraries will start participating in the Youtube monetization program. Non-exclusive music will be used forTV placements and exclusive music will be used for the Youtube deals. If I started a library, I would have all non-exclusive music for TV and all exclusive for the Youtube deal. Why miss out by taking sides? Doing both would allow for a library to make more money!

        The hybrid method sounds the best to me..

        • “Anyway, more music libraries will start participating in the Youtube monetization program. Non-exclusive music will be used forTV placements and exclusive music will be used for the Youtube deals”

          I really dont see your logic at all here Synth. If I were to sign an exclusive deal it would be to a high end library, that I would have judged by their track record would have a history of high end placements. Thats the whole point of it, the client gets a track that is exclusive and pays accordingly. Why would anyone sign exclusively to sell for $1.99 and get pennies in royalties.

          Its a system that benefits libraries much more, as they are making pennies off thousands of tracks, but the individual composer isn’t just by the nature of the scale.

          Apart from anything else the internet and technology moves at an alarmingly fast pace. What was popular one day is gone the next. My-Space, AOL etc disappeared virtually overnight. Who knows where we will be getting our Video from in future and if You-tube will still be there.

          I opt to keep control of my catalogue, and if I give up control, at least have a fighting chance to reap some reward from it. That being said I have no problem with the Youtube ContentID system as long as non exclusive libraries dont mess up their composers by including them in it without their permission.Thats just greedy, unfair and totally against what a proper non exclusive agreement is.

          • Synth Player says:

            “If I were to sign an exclusive deal it would be to a high end library, that I would have judged by their track record would have a history of high end placements.”

            There is only one problem with that statement: There are no high end libraries anymore!

            I have been in the game long enough to sense that there really is no upfront money for most composers. Even if composers do get a sync/license fee, it will be a few hundred dollars at most. Most libraries do not pay composers to acquire their music. The only compensation that music libraries offer these days is back-end royalties, via the writer’s share.

            There aren’t very many individual composers making a living from music licensing, let alone from upfront fees. I know it may be hard to hear, but the possibility of making a living off of music licensing is slim to none. It could happen if someone worked at it for at least a decade and made some great inside connections. But most composers will never put in work for a decade just to make as much as a college grad at an entry level job.

            Some of the “exclusive high-end” libraries are struggling. They are beginning to offer their music to clients through blanket licenses, meaning no sync fees for songwriters. Some exclusive libraries have placed their catalogs through non-exclusive libraries (Sony/ATV through Getty/Pump Audio). Other exclusive libraries offer their catalogs to TV networks at no charge. This only leaves back-end royalties for composers, which do not pay a lot per single placement. If publishers are fighting to make things happen, it is even rougher for the average composer.

            Youtube monetization isn’t going to make things that much better for composers. But it is definitely a new route to generate some passive income.

            • I think you’re right about that Synth. I haven’t been in this game as long as you, but I recently got some placements on “Keeping Up with the Kardashians”. NO up front money whatsoever, and I went straight to Bunim Murray to get that, no library middle man. They told me straight up they don’t pay up front money, you just get your royalties. So they paid me $1 per sync fee, which is the same up front money I get from Rumblefish-Friendly Music! Actually, I get more up front from Rumblefish, because Bunnim Murray didn’t even pay me my 1 dollars. And Bunim Murray didn’t care that my music was already on some rinky dink youtube videos. Same thing with Jingle Punks library, they get me T.V. placements, but nothing up front. And I make way more from youtube than I make from JP.

            • Sorry Synth I am even more confused now. Lets assume you are correct and the the old “exclusive ” model is dead.

              You say that upfront money synch licenses are more than likely to be hundreds of dollars and that composers only real income is back end. This may well be the case this is not what the discussion is about.

              Why then would anyone sign an “exclusive deal” with your hypothetical library to sell for 1.99 and get micro royalties rather than a “non exclusive” one for which the
              at least the synch fee would be better by your own admission and the back end would be greater. Also of course the composer is not restricted to your library.

              You are right in saying that making a living from music licensing is difficult.We all know that.I have been in the music business a long time and in this area for the past 2 years. I make a five figure income from licensing so far.I dont think that would be remotely achievable from your exclusive model library.

              • “There is only one problem with that statement: There are no high end libraries anymore!”

                One thing that they hammered into us in law school was to avoid speaking in absolutes — because NOTHING IS.

                I’ve been in this business as long as you have Denis. 🙁
                And, I don’t even PRETEND to know as much about it as these younger writers with ALL the answers.

                It’s very risky to draw conclusions and speak generalities in about others’ business practices. The speaker might be wrong, because their perception is based upon their personal experience, which may differ vastly from others’.

                Maybe I’ll get it after another 30 years. 😆

  17. Just a head’s up.
    It appears that Magnatune has now entered their entire catalog into the youtube contentid system via IODA without the expressed permission of the composers.
    As a result Magnatune have apparently been flooded requests from composers asking why they did this without their permission and to remove their music from the IODA and youtube contentID system databases.
    IODA also ends up selling the composer’s music for $0.99 a track on iTunes and Amazon, the same music the composers are trying to sell for more than $50.00 on music library sites.
    If you have tracks in the Magnatune database you might want to contact them to find out the status of your catalog.
    -Mark
    Partners In Rhyme

    • Thanks for that Mark. I’ll make a note in Megatune’s listing.

    • Thankfully I dont have anything in Magnatune, I just find this behavior really reprehensible. Surely
      Magnatune must know the ramifications of doing this before they submitted their content, and to do so without consulting their composers, shows a complete lack of regard for them. Also as discussed to death earlier in this thread Youtube requires exclusivity, but yet again another non exclusive library seems to get away with it. Sad business practice IMHO

  18. Ha Ha, Hee Hee, Poo Poo, Pee Pee. Here’s what happened with the birds sounds. For some reason youtube’s system matched those bird sounds with an actual song from one of their artists. It was contested on a Friday, Sunday afternoon it was discovered to be a mismatch, within 3 hours of verifying that, Rumblefish got the claim released. And they apologized for it. Rumblefish does not have their sound effects catalog in content ID, but they do have 5.3 million song roaming the content ID system and with that much diversity of sound there will invariably be some mismatches. However, the amount of mismatches like that is extremely low when you consider how many songs are being processed. Much ado about nothing really.

    • Do you work for Rumblefish by any chance?

      Otherwise, why/how would you know all of the details regarding the incident?

      • Ha, I was wondering when somebody would ask me that. Makes sense it was the lawyer 😉 Good question. Honestly Michael, NO, I don’t work for them at all, I just really love these guys. And believe it or not, even though they pay out millions dollars a year to their artists and I’m just one little “Rumblefish” in a huge sea of Friendly Music minnows. The staff there are remarkably accessible to me and answer all my questions, in fact Paul, the Ceo is a blast to talk to. I just love learning about this niche and when I see a comment on MLR, I just ask them about that along with whatever else I’m trying to figure out and it’s my pleasure to share what I learn with you guys. After all, I learn so much from your comments all over MLR.

        But to be even more frank, the reason I am so supportive of them is a personal reason which is…

        When I started trying to sell my music, I had other options to do other things. I didn’t know if people liked my music, if it was worth it, you know, the typical things you’d feel starting out in this biz. But RF was the first library to make something happen with my stuff, they put it in audioswap, and the first check I got I asked them, “Well, how many people have my songs on their videos?” And they showed me it was approaching a thousand, and I thought, wow, I have a reason to make music. Not only that, but I don’t have to wait to get a placement and make money, I can do my own projects in this marketplace.

        So these guys inspired me to create and pursue this because they developed this avenue for artists. And that’s why I love these guys. Besides the fact that they also happen to be really cool people…up there in Portlandia 🙂

        • Hi Dhruva.

          That’s recovering lawyer. 😆

          Do you sleep?

          Cheers,

          Michael

          PS. If I had that much support from a library early on, I’d be passionate about them too.

          • Yeah they gave my career life…and that’s the second question I was waiting for someone ask me 🙂 I guess you didn’t notice in our discussions there is a period I go radio silent. Usually from 7am to 3pm…that’s another great thing, getting to work at home 🙂
            I do run up to the roof in my undies first thing when I wake up to get some sun…sorry Art if that’s TMI.

          • Passion about music is a good thing. Joking aside what software is used for this. Is there watermarking or is it a Tunesat sort of thing. There seems to be a few glitches to be ironed out if you go through the reddit comments. Confusing bird song with a music track is pretty wide of the mark

  19. https://www.google.com/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=55df85c8372461a6&hl=en

    Check this out. Rumblrfish claiming copyright on birds singing in background. Funny, but goes to show how flawed the system can be. Crazy.

    • Hey Denis,

      Social Networking is THE future. Just because Rumblefish is smart enough to come up with system to monetize bird songs and the birds weren’t smart enough to do it themselves, don’t blame Rumblefish. I mean why should bird songs be left out there in nature where people can just hear them for free… forever, with no backend. Is that fair? Rumblefish is doing a great job creating opportunities for the birds that other libraries just don’t. I hear they’re even working on a program to monetize the birds’ tweets! So, stop bashing Rumblefish.

      Cheers,

      Michael

      • I thought the funniest one was the video of the guy just riding his motorbike and was told he was using a piece of Rumblefish music !! They didn’t however tell him which piece, which would have been fun.

        • No Joke..true US Supreme Court case. Harley Davidson tried to register the sound of its motorcycles as a trademark. They lost.

          But I’m sure Rumblishfish would claim the content! 😆

      • I wonder if those birds got written permission to use those “chirp samples” from EastWest first? If not, they are opening up a whole new “can of worms” (pun intended). 🙂

        (You started this Michael!)

        • I heard the birds offered them chicken feed, but East West said it wasn’t enough scratch.

          sorry.

          • The important thing to remember is that Rumblefish claimed it was an ID for a piece of MUSIC they control. Please can we hear what it was, pleeeeeaaassse. That being said I am busy remixing my entire content and adding bird sound, animal noises and various types of cars, motorbikes and industrial machinery so I can be on top of this. Content ID is the way of the future an I don’t want fo miss Piggy out. sorry bad Muppet joke.

  20. Hi! I know this is somewhat off topic but I was wondering which blog platform are you using for this website? I’m getting sick and tired of WordPress because I’ve had issues with hackers and I’m looking at options for another platform. I would be great if you could point me in the direction of a good platform.

    • I’m using WordPress for this site. Hackers have not been a problem (as far as I know). It helps to have a good host and using Cloudflare (free) will also help security.

      Also it doesn’t matter what platform you use as there’s bound to be problems. Staying ahead of them is ongoing.

  21. Just read the latest post from Mark from PIR. Mark is taking the right approach and it’s very fair, reasonable and rational for everyone involved. It’s probably the best thing to do until everything takes s definite shape with this issue. Good for you Mark , you’re doing the right thing right now that is still fair to both the artist and library owner .

    • +1

      Dhruva said the no one has offered a solution. That’s not correct. I’ve looked at this issue as both a writer, and as an attorney in my OPINION, the best, perhaps only, way to participate in content ID without the potential for problems is to do it on an EXCLUSIVE basis.

      The fact is that content ID is NOT analogous to what the PROS do because there are many levels of informed consent and end user participation missing from the equation.

      Mark’s solution is highly equitable.

      • Art…when you finish packing, or take a breather, we need that edit function restored,

        so the that I don’t write run-on sentences. 😆

        • Hi Michael, unfortunately that version of the plugin is broken and the new version isn’t working with the site and the new WordPress upgrade. I’m working on a new site design with a more “compliant theme”. Soon I hope!

      • I didn’t say no one offered solution, I just said I didn’t SEE anyone offer, its a nuance I think as an attorney you might appreciate (if I was on your side). I guess I missed that offering like a needle in a haystack of complaints. Or it just didn’t sound like a solution to me because…

        Since you can’t force libraries to only be exclusive, then this idea of Content ID tracks only being exclusive won’t hold its ground very well. Especially if libraries start to adopt the model I presented which is labeling which tracks in your library are content ID, or not. As a library owner I would message all my composers and say “Hey guys I need a list of all track of yours that are content ID so I can label them for prospective buyers.” And on the ingestion side of the site, I would place a box to check if the track you are submitting is in content ID. Then the system would automatically label it. Problem solved for everybody, It’s a Win/Win. Composers and Libraries can sell more tracks and they never have to worry about a buyer complaining he can’t monetize his youtube video, because that buyer knew ahead of time. You know why you submit to libraries they ask you… “Does this track contain samples” or “Explicit language” Well, they can add one more thing…”Is this track in content ID”.

        If you have a track that is exclusive to one library because it is in Content ID then that means that track’s exposure is severely curtailed to get all the opportunities in broadcast and on DVD etc.
        That does not seem good for the composer.
        For instance, I got my song on a Skiing DVD, they want people to buy the DVD, not watch it for free on youtube. I might not have gotten that placement if that song wasn’t in multiple libraries.
        More than likely not, actually.
        It also doesn’t seem good for the Library because even if that song was in Content ID the Library could still sell it to the DVD producers that don’t want to put their product on any free social media site.

  22. We have warned our AudioSparx artists NOT to participate in the CD Baby option of participating in the Content ID program by assigning their music to Rumblefish for inclusion the YouTube Content ID program.

    In addition, we will NOT accept any new applicant composers selling their music at Rumblefish (due to low-ball pricing strategies that devalues your music) and will delete any composers we discover are participating in Rumblefish’s YouTube program with tracks they have uploaded to AudioSparx.

    Just like Mark and Bjorn, we don’t want our clients receiving notices on YouTube that some other music library is the potential owner of the music we license to our clients.

  23. According to the CD Baby FAQ [ https://members.cdbaby.com/faq.aspx#sync2%5D :

    You aren’t “giving up” any rights, as in assigning them entirely to another company. With CD Baby sync licensing you retain ownership of all of your copyrights. However, you are granting nonexclusive rights for synchronization so that you’re music can be used for sync without your direct approval. You are also granting an exclusive license for Rumblefish to manage Content ID controls (and similar controls) on YouTube and other so-called “User-Generated-Content” Networks, as this will allow you to earn additional revenues that may be payable for the use of your content in videos on such networks.

    It looks like the content itself doesn’t need to be exclusive, but the Content-ID system used to track the content would need to be. Hmmmmmm…….. HUH?

    • That’s what I’ve been saying,
      one rep per song in content ID
      one digi distributor per song on iTunes, etc
      and only one PRO for your writer share
      These things can’t work any other way
      But you can be in as many libraries that will have you 🙂

      • This is all well and good,but…. If Rumblefish wants to act as a PRO then the only fair thing to do would be to split that content id revenue with the library that sold the track!

        They shouldn’t be able to take the whole pie on the library end if they were not the library that sold the track to the end user.

        • That’s a great question Euca and the great answer is – Euca you Ignorant ******** [Dhruva – keep the profanity out of the conversation!] – no kidding, KIDDING! (I still feel bad about that, sorry guys)

          It is a great Euca question, it is Eucarific, and it raises the point that all libraries should be a part of content ID and not shun it. Like Crucial Music for example, Rumblefish is collecting for them, right Euca?

          I see a lot of people complaining about this situation, but with the exception of my arrogant, hotheaded self, I have not seen anyone put forth their solution.

          My solution levels the field so that you don’t have to raise the Eucarific question. The reason Rumblefish will get the dough is because other libraries are giving it away by not being part of this system.

          In the near future every buyer is going to know that they are buying a track that is either in the content ID system or not.
          And every library is going to be aware that they have to decide whether to sell Content ID tracks or not.
          It will be up to both buyer and library to choose what they want.
          If libraries decide to sell those tracks, hopefully those libraries will be able to partner with platforms like youtube and rep tracks in the same way that rumblefish does.
          Or at least sub contract it out, like Crucial.
          If libraries collect content ID royalties instead of saying they want nothing to do with it, then they will be getting a piece of that action.

          Like I said before, If I was running my own music library I would play both sides of the fence. I would have a little icon on every track displayed so that the prospective buyer will know if it is content ID or not. That solves the problem for EVERYBODY.

          Libraries are entitled to a cut of content ID money if they participate, but they are not entitled to it if they don’t. Libraries don’t automatically deserve content ID money if they refuse to put in the work of managing these systems and doing the accounting work for them. I mean, saying that Rumblefish, which does a lot of work on this, should pay libraries is like saying ASCAP should pay libraries even if they don’t have the publisher share of a song that is getting broadcast royalties. If a royalty free library sells a song, takes their upfront money, and has no publisher share, then they have no claim to broadcast royalties OR content ID royalties.

          You remember that girl with the shampoo that said “Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful.” ? Well, don’t hate Rumblefish being smart enough to understand this market and to know what to do about it. In every business, some company gets there first and pioneers the way, then others follow. Don’t think for a second that Rumblefish doesn’t deserve what it’s getting, not only did they take the risk to venture into this realm, they had to do a lot of work behind the scenes to get it to work properly, a lot of Tech work and dealing with youtube. They’re not going around the Starbucks skimming the foam off peoples lattes, they had to help create that foam machine.

          • Now, now don’t get your dhruva roo’s in an uproar!

            Joking aside, how do you expect me to take the rest of your post seriously when you call me ignorant and poke fun at my user name?

            I can’t even read the rest of your post. I may be ignorant when it comes to content id but I myself am not ignorant or an *******.

            I am pretty much speechless. Name calling is not a good way to present your points.

            • Sorry you have to be the brunt of Dhruva’s lack of social skills and basic civility euca. He’s very close to being banned no matter what his points are.

            • Euca I swear to God I like your username, that why I did that, I wasn’t poking fun at it. Euca sounds cool, like a warrior from AVATAR or something, I’m not kidding. My sense of humor just doesn’t translate over text. I’d bet a million if I said that to your face you’d be laughing. My tone is totally different in person. I don’t have problems like this in the real world, I swear, really, people like me. I’ll just be like Drangnet from now on, I’ll just talk like an FBI agent, just the facts, no jokes, no tongue in cheek, no flourishes, no embellishments.

              • Hey Dhruva, No problem, no worries. I didn’t get that it was a joke at first, I read the post the first time on my phone and replied to the first reading. After I went back and read it again I realized it was just in jest. It’s tough sometimes to tell a joke just in text and it looked like the post had been edited so I figured it had more of a sarcastic tone.

                I wouldn’t go all Dragnet, you gotta keep the humor. Sometimes that’s all we have to hang on to, it’s a tough business!!

  24. Can someone please clarify a point for me.

    If a library says it’s not accepting composers that work within Content ID, can that composer still then submit tracks that are not with any content ID program?

    If not, that seems very unfair. Composers have been caught unaware of this issue as much as libraries.

    Sophie

    • I think Music Loops has changed their policy on this if they are assigned to Audiosparx, as those tracks would be exclusive to them. Check back in this thread to be sure.

      • Yes, as you said since some composers are being caught unaware by the recent submission of the Crucial Music catalog to the ContentID system without the composer’s express consent so we are simply asking our composers to let us know which of their songs have been compromised and we will only block those specific songs instead of their entire catalog.
        We have no issue at all with the program that Audiosparx is now running. All Audiosparx composers are more than welcome to submit their non-exclusive catalogs to musicloops.com.

  25. Hi All,

    Just for the record, I wanted to add that we at Media Music Now are in full support of Mark’s & Bjorn’s stance on content ID.

    We too have had several content ID issues, refunded numerous customers and lost a few also.

    Even though we have made a point of saying we do not want composers who are in content ID agreements some still slip through the net.

    We are now actively removing any music from our library that shows up as content ID.

    We have no issue with composers who want to work with content ID, that is their choice but equally we have a choice and have chosen not to be part of it. For libraries like ours we believe it to be completely unworkable and damaging to our business and our customers.

    Regards
    Lee
    Media Music Now

  26. Mark I understand your “real world” story, but the reason someone got fired is because of this learning curve about content ID. Once it becomes common knowledge that there are content ID tracks and non-content ID tracks, that sort of thing won’t happen anymore.
    It’s just like when you buy a car or High Def T.V. you need to know what to ask about before you buy and when something new hits the scene I think the onus is not only on the customer, but also on the library to really understand everything that’s happening in their business.
    So content ID snuck up on you, you got blindsided, well I’ve lost thousands of dollars and jobs because of things I didn’t know about…the point is, soon every professional music buyer will know, just like soon everyone will know that a 120 hertz HD T.V. is better than a 60 hertz one, I learned that the hard way too.

    If I was running my own music library I would play both sides of the fence. I would have a little icon on every track displayed so that the prospective buyer will know if it is content ID or not.

    You know I recently saw a website that had a webisode series that was very nicely produced, but they didn’t want to put it on youtube, they wanted to drive traffic to their site instead, ONLY their site. Customers like that won’t care if some music is in content ID unless they wanted an exclusive buyout. So If I had a library, I would cater to them if they happened to like a song that also happened to be in content ID, as well as to people that don’t want content ID music.

    And I feel the same as Synth who said-

    “Royalty-free libraries state that composers can add their music to these libraries on a non-exclusive basis. These libraries do not pay composers a fee to acquire or sell the music. Most of these libraries do not actively promote or
    pitch their catalog. So I just do not see how these same libraries can blame composers for placing the same songs in as many libraries as possible.

    These libraries have the nerve to blame the composer for this whole ordeal. This just does not make sense. The library got free music to sell and makes half of the money from the sell. But at the same time, these libraries do not understand
    advancements in the marketplace and subsequently want to “fire” the composer and eliminate his valuable catalog. I think the owners of royalty-free music libraries need to look in the mirror and evaluate the role that they played in
    this YouTube monetization issue.”

    and my point-

    “Is it fair that somebody buys my song from a library for 20 bucks then can put it on as many youtube videos as they want and blast that song all over the internet on as many social networking platforms that exist and even more that will exist in the future in perpetuity? As well as block me from having my song monetize because they paid 20 bucks for it? No that’s not fair. That’s why content ID exists, and if composers don’t want to participate, and get their fair share, they don’t have to. And if someone wants to monetize a youtube video (and youtube is only one venue out of many) then they can find a composer/library that is not in content ID, or they can make their own music.”

  27. Hi Again Barbie,

    Ley me play devil’s advocate. Are there no circumstances under which and artist should sell a track for $1.99.

    If we’re honest we all do A work, B work, C work and D work.
    Why not think like a business, rather than an artist, and have a bargain line? The same company that makes and sells the Lexus makes and sells the Corolla (but under a different brand).

    So, why shouldn’t an artist take less than stellar work, and to quote Billy Joel, “put it in the back in the discount rack?” …maybe under another name. That would create an additional revenue stream without tarnishing their main brand, and devaluing their better work.

    What if the price point that the average youtube client is willing to pay is $1.99, just like the average Corolla buyer is only willing to pay a certain amount? Is it then not bad business to
    charge too much for those tracks?

    Food for thought.

    Michael

    • Michael, it’s up to each of you composers to try and sort it all out, and no one should scoff at clever ideas to try and be successful in this highly competitive business.

      In the meantime, we hope you’ll bring only your “A Team” tracks to AudioSparx and send those lesser tracks to our competition. 🙂

      Okay back to chillin’ out — hey guys, it’s Saturday…

      Barbie

  28. It is nice to read varying opinions, but Michael L’s comment stood out a bit to me: “Unfortunately, this is a byproduct, I guess, of competition and desperation.”

    I don’t think that composers who are pursuing internet royalty income via YouTube and other social media sites is a sign of desperation. Rather, it is more like trying to find additional streams of revenue for their catalogues, some of which are extremely extensive. With videos being uploaded on the web almost at the speed of light, artists are trying to strengthen their name recognition through exposure to millions of listeners which, if a track goes viral on an extremely popular video, those quarterly checks can definitely be a nice morale booster.

    And remember, those deals you enter into today to garner extra earnings will continue going to your heirs for years to come if you kick the bucket. (Can’t believe I said that – LOL, but it’s true…)

    And yes, at AudioSparx we believe both our artists and clients are better served by our decision to enter only “exclusive” tracks into the Content ID programs.

    Hope everyone has a great weekend.
    Cheers,
    Barbie

    • @Barbie

      Hope you are well. I certainly dont have any issues with content id per se IF it is done with exclusive tracks and I get a fair license fee for my music. My interpretation of the desperation is

      1. Licensing tracks for really low ball fees, 1.99 was mentioned.
      2. And then hoping to make some money on the deal by the track having 50k views to make 30 bucks.

      If some that works for some composers fair enough, not judging.

    • Hi Barbie,

      Let me clarify, because we are the same page. By “desperation” I am referring to artists who feel that they need to put EVERY track EVERYWHERE. And, are willing to do so for $1.99.
      I’m sure that under those circumstances you would not say that they are just “trying to find additional streams of revenue for their catalogues, some of which are extremely extensive.”
      AudioSparx policy on selling tracks for $1.99 is pretty clear.

      I have NO PROBLEM with content ID programs as another revenue stream. But, believe 100% , as does AudioSparx, that material in a content ID program must be exclusive.

      I know that you try to get artists to go exclusively with AudioSparx, so I am am sure that you understand what I am speaking of when I refer to the every track everywhere syndrome.
      Not only is this a problem with content ID, but, as you have previously expressed, it can devalue a catalog in the long run.

      When I do put tracks into a content ID program it will be on exclusive basis. At the same time, if I put tracks into a royalty free library that promises no content ID issues to it’s customers, I will abide by and respect their their policy. It’s that simple.

      Cheers,

      Michael

      • Thanks Denis and Michael,

        I think we are all on the same page here. And I see artists rethinking the value of spreading their tracks on 20 to 30 or more competing websites, cutting back on the number so they can concentrate on working with those that sell their music best.

        Many things will be developing in the future, and each composer should carefully review any deal before they jump in.

        Barbie

  29. At the end of the day, I feel deeply saddened for composers. They do all of the work, get half of the reward, and all of the blame.

    Royalty-free libraries state that composers can add their music to these libraries on a non-exclusive basis. These libraries do not pay composers a fee to acquire or sell the music. Most of these libraries do not actively promote or pitch their catalog. So I just do not see how these same libraries can blame composers for placing the same songs in as many libraries as possible.

    These libraries have the nerve to blame the composer for this whole ordeal. This just does not make sense. The library got free music to sell and makes half of the money from the sell. But at the same time, these libraries do not understand advancements in the marketplace and subsequently want to “fire” the composer and eliminate his valuable catalog. I think the owners of royalty-free music libraries need to look in the mirror and evaluate the role that they played in this YouTube monetization issue.

  30. We at Shockwave-Sound.com support Mark Lewis’ position on this. We have taken the position that the music we sell on our site should not be in any YouTube “Content ID” setup. It is our opinion that if you sell royalty-free music for $30-100 per track like we do, you need to give the customer the freedom to use that track in YouTube without getting copyright notices from YouTube, and without having advertising placed on the video, with the money for that advertising going to somebody else.

    Some other royalty-free music websites have gone the other way and are embracing “Content ID”, and that is of course their choice. They sell a royalty-free music track to the client which, in my opinion, turns out not to be royalty-free after all, and the customer will, for example, not be able to monetize his own YouTube video.

    You could say that there is absolutely no reason at all for a customer to even spend money on such a music track, because the customer may as well just take music from a pop CD, or rip music from a famous movie soundtrack CD by Hans Zimmer. The result is exactly the same. They put the music in their video; they receive a copyright notice from YouTube (because the music was recognized as belonging to so-and-so company) and advertising is put on the video, with part of the advertising money going to the company that is claiming ownership. This is exactly what happens if you just take music from a famous band or movie soundtrack from a famous composer and put that in your video. And the same thing happens with stock music that is in Content ID. So then you may ask yourself why any customer would want to pay $30, $50 or $80 to use your music at all, when they could rip Hans Zimmer music *for free* and use it in their video with exactly the same result.

    It is my opinion that if a customer has chosen to do the right thing and PAY for a license to use your music, he really shouldn’t get the same problems as somebody who just ripped music from a famous / soundtrack CD.

    Anyway. The biggest problem with Content ID comes up when you as a composer have your music sold via several stock music sites, and one of those sites practice Content ID. The problem then is that even if the customer has bought your track from Shockwave-Sound.com and used the track in a video, the video creator gets a message saying that the music belongs to – for example – Rumblefish. So now it looks to the customer like Shockwave-Sound.com are selling music that is owned by (some company). It makes us look bad. And now this other company starts to earn money on the customer who bought the music at Shockwave-Sound.com. This is totally unacceptable to us. We spend a lot of time, effort and money to get our customers to our site. When we get a customer to buy something from our site, we don’t want a competing company to make money on that, and we don’t want our customer to be told that this music belongs to that other company.

    For this reason, we will not work with any composer who has his music in any Content ID setup. If any of our customers start to receive Content ID / copyright warnings about your music, we will immediately stop selling your music. We had to do this to one of our composers about a week ago, and it’s not pleasant but we have to do it. If the music is subsequently removed from Content ID, we will start selling it again.

    Company A sending your to music Company B which then in turn puts the music in Content ID? Without even asking the composers first?? Wow. That’s a three-step sub-sub-licensing setup which seems very odd for a YouTube program that it says right there on the page, is ONLY for original, exclusive content owners. You may want to ask yourself what’s left for you if Company B are going to collect $0.001 for the use of your music in video, then share a small portion of this to Company A, then Company A are going to take that money they get from Company B and share a small portion of that with you. Who’s getting rich on that? Not you.

    In a very recent move, CD Baby now offers musicians an offer to send their music to Content ID via one of the companies discussed in this thread. I know a lot of you guys have your music out for sale via CDBaby.com (myself included) so I wanted to make you aware of this new move by CD Baby so that you can consider their new offer carefully before you sign up with it. You can find this option at CDBaby if you log in as a composer, click on “View/Edit” one of your albums, and you can see the option under “Sync Licensing”. Anything other than “None” in this field will cause your music to be monetized by the Content ID company, then CDBaby, then you. And it will cause our customers to start getting “owned by so-and-so company” messages about your music. Which will force us to refund the customer’s money, withdraw your royalties for any sales that caused our customers these problems, and stop selling your music.

    I know several other sites/companies take the same position as ourselves on this matter. Not just myself and Mark Lewis at PiR and MusicLoops.com but others too. So – unless you are ready to fully embrace the Content ID way, then be careful with your music and where it goes. Read the small print. And if somebody just takes your music, sends it to another company, and it somehow ends up in Content ID without you even knowing about it, well, then I guess you have the right to be very angry.

    • I’m going to jump into the fire here. So be it.

      I completely support Mark and Bjorn.

      My father was an industrial/corporate film maker. If he

      lost his job because the composer of a library track in one of his projects parasitically tried

      to squeeze a few more pennies out of it for themselves, particularly after he made an effort

      to avoid, just that occurrence. I’d be furious.

      Unfortunately, this is the byproduct, I guess, of competition and desperation.

      • +1 MichaelL

        I 100% support Bjorn and Marks position
        I also think that the Audiosparx system of making your tracks exclusive to them, as the only way to do this without collateral damage. The Youtube TOS seem pretty clear to me.
        I also applaud Crucial for withdrawing all their tracks from Rumblefish and then making it an opt in requirement going forward.

        One of the great resources of this site is to share and pool knowledge and opinion. This thread in itself has been heated at times. Its important to discuss these things and then let the individual composers make up their own minds on the merits, or lack of in this.

        This will undoubtably continue !!!!

    • Bjorn – Thanks for the information regarding the “Sync Licensing” option on the CD baby site.

  31. Ok, here’s the thing.

    Dhruvu has the right promote his very creative view of how the ContentID system works. Rumblefish and Crucial Music have the right to promote their offerings in whatever light they want to, be it true or not. But I have a lot of first hand experience with this issue and the effects it has in real life. It has been an issue in my business life for over 2 years now and I am not just being stubborn or short-sighted. I feel very strongly about this issue for a reason.

    In November of 2009 GoDigital signed up for the YoutubeContentID system and asked another popular royalty free music licensing company to place all of their composer’s music catalogs into their system and the company went for it, not knowing the possible ramifications, the ramifications were not explained to them, I don’t think GoDigital even really knew what they were doing. But the ramifications came quick and fast with a flood of customer complaints about videos getting tagged with copyright notices and loyal customers actually questioning if we had the right to distribute the music we were licensing. This was happening not only to us but many other royalty free music libraries, even the popular one that originally submitted all of this music to GoDigital was receiving complaints.

    Then one complaint came in that changed everything for me. A video producer working for the Four Seasons hotel chain licensed a piece of music from us. He had licensed many tracks from us before this and was a completely happy and loyal customer. He incorporated this latest track he licensed from us into a Four Seasons hotel promotional video meant to be placed on the company’s Youtube channel. He delivered the video and was paid. When the Four Seasons Hotel uploaded the video to their channel they were immediately hit with a ‘content owned by third party’ notice. The video started displaying ads for a competing hotel chain on the Four Seasons Hotel Youtube channel. The Four Seasons people were furious that they somehow ended up promoting their competition on their own Youtube video channel.

    They contacted their video producer (our client) and fired him. He then contacted me with an email that just devastated me. The reason he lost his job was because he trusted our company to provide him with legal music. I hired a lawyer that same day to contact GoDigital and get this issue resolved. In the end the only way to resolve the issue was to no longer distribute music for composers who were involved in the Youtube ContentID system. I’m not trying to be an a**hole here. But the fact that somebody lost their job because of something that they bought from my company is something I will never forget and I will work as hard as possible to make sure it never have happens again.

    Please keep this story in mind as you read all of the creative descriptions of how the Youtube ContentID system is just a royalty system like BMI and ASCAP. The people telling these stories most likely have no direct connection with what actually happens in the real world, or don’t care as long as they are squeezing every penny they can out of all possible revenue streams.

    -Mark
    Partners In Rhyme Inc

  32. Tanvi wrote:
    “Since there are no take downs issued by Rumblefish, music can be licensed from any other libraries and used by the video partner without worries.”

    I’m sorry but there actually are other worries,

    1. Our customers have purchased a license from us so that they don’t get a banner ad placed on top of their video.

    2. Our customers have purchased a license from us so that they can monetize their own video creations.

    When a third party company starts monetizing the music we license to our customers, and places ads on our customer’s videos, and stops our customers from being able to monetize their own videos then we can no longer distribute that composer’s music catalog. Our customers license music from us specifically so that these things will not happen to their video.

    “microsynch/content id”

    This is not an actual thing, it is a phrase you are making up. No matter how much you try to convince yourselves that the contentID system is a synch/royalty scheme like ACAP or BMI, it is not. It is revenue from ads being placed on the videos of people who do not want these ads placed on their videos and have actually paid not to have ads placed on their videos. The ContentID system is for record companies, popular artists and exclusive rights owners, not non-exclusive royalty-free music licensing companies.

    -Mark

    • You raise an excellent point about -specifically- royalty free libraries, but my question is what is the ratio between those that are licensing music to actually monetize on youtube and those who don’t care about monetizing on youtube and are licensing royalty free music for a variety of other uses or reasons. I know that’s hard to pin down, but we will soon see the ratio becoming very clearer, and as I said before, there is definitely a niche market for completely non-content ID royalty free music.

      As a matter of fact, that title could be right on the front page of your site if it isn’t already- “Non-content ID royalty free music”. And it will be up to the composer based on the market how much of his catalog goes into a library like yours as opposed to how much goes into content ID distributors. Nevertheless, an outfit like Rumblefish still will be collecting royalties in the content ID realm just as ASCAP collects in the broadcast realm.

      The similarities are clear…

      Big production companies sync music to their shows and put them on T.V. stations that gets the money from ads

      Small time producers sync music to their videos and put them on Youtube that gets the money from ads

      T.V. stations pay ASCAP BMI etc

      Youtube pays Rumblefish Audiosparx etc.

      The only difference between Rumblefish and ASCAP is that Rumblefish is more proactive in getting musicians deals and takes a bigger cut for it.

      And yeah Mark you’re right some people don’t like to even see ads on the videos but people don’t like to see commercials when they’re watching T.V. at least on youtube the continuity of the show is not being broken up by ad segments. We’ve gotten so used to that it seems totally natural. But if T.V. was brand new and the internet came first I think people would be pretty teed off that ads actually stopped the show you were watching right in the middle…ads are just a fact of life.

      And I’m sure T.V. show producers don’t want ads on their shows but the stations say they have to have them.

      As for people who want to pay to not have ads…that’s where you come in.

      In the future it will be interesting to see how much music in content ID actually will come from royalty free libraries.

      • “The only difference between Rumblefish and ASCAP is that Rumblefish is more proactive in getting musicians deals and takes a bigger cut for it.”

        Why do you keep saying that?

        ASCAP and BMI don’t get deals for writers. That’s NOT what they do. They are strictly performing rights organizations that exist to collect royalties from certain media and live performances. They can’t even collect from all media because they are not AUTHORIZED to do so.

        Rumblefish is a LIBRARY. It IS NOT a PRO. Not even apples and oranges. We’re talking apples and potatoes.

        • I know the difference Michael. Instead of saying Rumblefish is “more” proactive I should have just said they are proactive, unlike ASCAP. And that’s the difference, ASCAP is just a collector and Rumblefish is a collector and go getter.

  33. Hey MichaelL, I wanna mention something about what you said regarding Rumblefish- “…if you want to sell tracks at $1.99 a pop, that’s your call.”

    The interesting thing about that is…

    It’s not just $1.99 (or perhaps a buck after Rumblefish takes their cut) but in that deal, you are also getting Guaranteed Monetization. Now, there’s no way to know in the life of that video if it’s gonna get 500 hits or 5000,000. But lets say in a year or so it gets 50,000, that means after Rumblefish gets their cut, you get around 30 bucks. So that’s 31 bucks just for giving a license for a youtube vid, nothing else.

    Now, compare that scenario with the following…
    Jingle Punks got 30 seconds of my song on a cable T.V. show Amazing Wedding Cakes! I got no up front money, and my ASCAP royalty was $17. So I’m actually making more off youtube videos than I am off of these types of cable T.V. shows.

    Another example is the production company Bunnim Murray. They pay nothing to composers up front. They just say you’ll get your PRO royalties, so I went with that and they put my stuff on Keeping UP with the Kardashians… I’ll probably see more dough from that than Amazing Wedding Cakes, but you’re still getting more up front money from Rumblefish than Bunnim Murray.
    See what I’m saying?

    On top of that, if you have your stuff on iTunes, there’s a sales link below the video for people to buy your track. That’s good exposure. People give their music out for free to be played on radio and podcasts. Some people even pay for radio exposure in they hope that will help with iTunes sales and business in general. Well on youtube through content ID you actually are getting paid on top of getting exposure.

    I have no idea how many composers on here sell on iTunes, but people love production music, just to listen to if it’s good, so selling on iTunes and all that digi distro is smart I think.

  34. Hey all,

    I recently e-mailed Tanvi and Dan at Crucial Music regarding the YouTube Content ID Program as they have a partnership with Rumblefish. Tanvi replied to my e-mail with the following. She also informed me they are in the process of removing all Crucial songs from the YouTube Content ID program and implementing an option to “opt-in” to the Content ID Program going forward. I have to thank Tanvi for being so pro-active on this subject.

    Here is Tanvi’s reply:

    ———————
    Hi Art

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this controversial topic. You may post this reply in its entirety on your site.

    It seems anytime there’s a new technology implemented, which opens up a new opportunity for earning revenue, controversy and kinks abound.

    Crucial Music thru its classical catalog Point Classics has had a relationship with Rumblefish for many years. Our agreement has resulted in thousands of dollars every quarter of microsynch licenses and youtube ad rev share $ for our classical music. The microsynch market of music use on video and social networking sites is continuing to grow, and there is an opportunity for artists to make substantial revenue. As a synch representation company, it’s our duty to seek out all new avenues of synch licensing for our artists and to be able to make them as much money as possible. Having seen what Rumblefish had done for us on our classical catalog it only made sense for us to provide the content in our Crucial catalog for microsynch licenses thru their API partners, friendlymusic.com and ad rev share thru content id on YouTube.

    In July 2011 we struck a deal with Rumblefish, and immediately informed all of our artists. We have the right in our artist contracts to be able to make distribution deals as we see fit, and remit 50% of the income received by us to the artist. If the artist already had material with Rumblefish, then we would not deliver those tracks. Due to many factors, our content has not made it into all the platforms that Rumblefish offers, but we believe that once the material is active across all platforms, we’ll be generating thousands of dollars for our artists.

    However, there’s misinformation floating around on the internet. When a video partner uploads a video and a song is detected that is represented by Rumblefish thru their relationship with Crucial, a simple notice is sent to the partner, that the music has been identified as claimed by Rumblefish, their video will be monetized, and nothing else needs to be done by the video partner. The video is NOT taken down and accounts are NOT blocked. YouTube offers content id partners three courses of action: Monetize, Track or Take Down. I cannot speak to what happens if music is claimed by the artist themselves, Go Digital or any other content ID collection companies.

    Since there are no take downs issued by Rumblefish, music can be licensed from any other libraries and used by the video partner without worries. All Rumblefish is doing is monetizing that use for our artists, by taking part in YouTube’s ad rev share program. The problem that has arisen is that royalty free companies have decided that content id/ad rev share is bad for their business and it may be depending on how it affects them. However, most royalty free companies are not really royalty free. Most still require cue sheets because they don’t offer performance buyouts. The royalty free part of it is “buy once, use multiple times”. Content ID is not going away, and I imagine that more video sites like Vimeo et al will incorporate it (if they haven’t already). It’s going to grow, and the royalty free libraries, if they want to keep composers, are going to have to allow for that, and inform their buyers that the music use is covered under a royalty free license (however they interpret that), but that ad rev share may be applicable once the video is posted on YouTube. Dropping composers will reduce the pool for royalty free libraries. It is the composer/artist choice to be part of whatever service they want to be in; but they should make informed decisions, and not be bullied into a decision that could cost them substantial revenue as the microsynch/content id market grows.

    The language YouTube displays on their Content ID page, about who can and can’t take advantage of Content ID is very vague. Rumblefish has sorted out with YouTube what is required of them to be able to collect on behalf of their artists and includes that language in their contracts. Crucial is in the process of implementing an opt-in procedure for its artists.

    A majority of the industry is not even aware of Content ID, and I wasn’t before my relationship with Rumblefish. It’s a complicated concept, and I am still learning more and more everyday on how it works and the results. Mistakes will be made anytime a new technology and concept is introduced. But it’s worth working thru the mistakes so that all partners benefit. At Crucial we believe in artist rights and being able for to make as much revenue as possible for them.

    Thank you

    Tanvi

  35. Content Identification Application

    Thank you for your interest in using Content Identification!

    To qualify for Content ID, you must own or control exclusive online streaming rights for the content you submit in the territories in which you assert rights. Visit the Help Center for more information about copyrights.

    This is on youtubes page for signup. What does “exclusive online streaming rights” mean? Is that a loop hole?

    • Hi ecua,

      Technically the copyright owner hold’s the “exclusive online streaming” rights to a given work.

      Once you place that work into multiple non-exclusive situations you’ve muddied the waters. No non-exclusive library holds an exclusive online streaming right to your music, UNLESS you grant them exclusivity in that track.

      Dhruva’s argument is that Rumblefish (although it is a library) is acting more or less as a PRO (like ASCAP) with respect to its content ID program. The argument is not without validity in that in non-exclusive situations the composer always remains the exclusive owner of the work.

      There is a difference between sync fees and backend royalties, as the Rumblefish FAQ explains.

      Here’s the problem: some royalty free libraries expressly represent to their customers that once you buy a track, that’s it. It’s yours to use forever, no strings, no future responsibilities, no worries. When a track from one of those libraries shows up on youtube and it’s been put into a content ID program, they get a copyright notice. EVEN IF, it does not mean anything, or cost the end user anything more, that is not what they were promised by the library that sold them the track. It causes confusion and concern for the end user.

      My opinion is that if you sign up with a library that makes a no-strings, no-worries representation to its customers, you abide by those terms. If you don’t like those terms, then don’t put your music there. It’s that simple.

      Dhruva compares the Rumblefish program to ASCAP. Yes and No. ASCAP does not provide content to broadcasters. I think that everyone would be more comfortable if an entity collecting and distributing content ID royalties was a third party that does not provide content too.

      It’ll all work out in time. But like I said in another post, if you want to sell tracks at $1.99 a pop, that’s your call.

      • Thanks Michael. I’m just trying to make heads or tails out of all this. Like you I have no problem with content id, I have some tracks in it through Audiosparx(exclusive of course) and that is the only way I would do it.

        I agree it will all work out, I guess it is only a matter of time before ascap, bmi ,soundexchange or a similar entity enter into the social media game.

        • Hi euca,

          Yes, it’s only a matter of time before larger interests start to sort things out. I know from attending the PMA meeting, that the major exclusive libraries are looking at this.

          Don’t forget, it’s not just home videos of someone’s flatulent grand dad doing a cannonball into a kiddie pool that air on the internet. Most network television shows can be seen now on sites like hulu.

          So, all this talk about youtube and social media is kind of like the tail wagging the dog. Unfortunately, when rate courts start looking at this, the prices being established at the bottom of the food chain for internet plays are going to have a negative effect at the top.
          You won’t get the same amount of money for the same cue in the same show that is shown on the internet versus broadcast television or cable. While making more money from selling $1.99 tracks seems attractive in the short run, it is very bad in the long run.

          The only thing that I do know is that I should be spending more time writing than debating the pennies involved content ID.

          Cheers,

          Michael

  36. [Deleted by moderator]

    • Enough Dhruva. Name calling will not be tolerated! To that end I have deleted your comment. Any further comments will also be deleted unless you can keep it civil. Right or wrong there is no excuse for juvenile behavior.

      • Thanks Art,

        I will not comment or reply to Dhruva’s comment. I have never spoken like that to anyone on this forum and never will, It doesn’t help your case or point at all.

        Quite simply I am asking someone from Rumblefish or their allies on this board to respond to Lee Audiosparx post which I think was conveniently ignored yesterday.

        This quoted from the end

        “Accordingly, unless Rumblefish has some sweetheart deal that permits them to submit non-exclusive content, Rumblefish is seriously breaching the terms of YouTube’s stated requirements for their Content ID program.”

        Nobody has answered this or responded in any way, This a statement from a well known and respected library, not me personally. It should be taken very seriously.

        Respond to Lee in the same way you did to me, if you are so sure you are right. Somehow I dont think you will.

        I will now bow out of this thread

        Don’t shoot the messenger.

        • Frankly, I found the whole discussion a bit misleading. It sounds like Rumblefish has some sort of official link to youtube.

          Youtube, as we all know, is owned by Google. Google bought RightsFlow to manage youtube royalty issues.

          OK…because Dhruva challenged us to go to the Rumblefish FAQ section on youtube to see for ourselves, I did.

          Here’s one of the first things it says:

          “If you’ve received a notice from YouTube stating Rumblefish owns the content in your video, this FAQ is for you. It will explain what the notice is and why received it. Before we get to the longer list of questions, here are the most common ones:”

          The most obvious difference between the above statement and Dhruva’s representation are the words “Rumblefish owns.” Rumblefish OWNS clearly cannot refer to non-exclusive content from other libraries. The terms are mutually exclusive.

          Next it says:

          “The YouTube content ID system asserts claims on music content represented by Rumblefsh that you have likely included in your video.”

          This is where Dhruva and I part company. My belief is that the company that “represents” a given track is the one that SOLD it. Dhruva does not.

          Finally, Rumblfish provides the following disclaimer:

          “The FAQ does not reflect the opinions of YouTube, Google, it’s subsidiaries or affiliates and has been created entirely by and is property of Rumblefsh in an effort to help answer questions for YouTube users who receive Content ID claims from YouTube for music content represented by Rumblefsh on behalf of its content providers, including record labels, music publishers, artists, writers and estates”

          Again Rumblefish refers to ITS content providers. There is nothing in this langue that includes OTHER libraries content providers.

          Unless there is some other page on the Rumblefish website about their content ID program, there is nothing here that solicits content from other libraries or addresses it.

          However, my interpretation of the word OWNS, (this is what lawyers do) is that it implies exclusivity. Moreover, based on the disclaimer, I think the relationship between youtube and Rumblefish has been overstated in this thread.

          I see nothing in the FAQ that supports Dhruva’s interpretation, but maybe it’s somewhere else.

          The FAQ does provide a good explanation of why content ID is not an extra burden on the end user.

          I am still of the opinion that the best way to participate in content ID is with exclusive material. Whether one chooses to do that at $1.99 per track or $35 per track is up to the individual.

      • You’re right Art, I’m too heavy handed at debating, especially right before going to bed. I have to learn to be more diplomatic. And although I know a thing or two about this subject, there’s plenty I learn from all these contributors on other subjects which I am completely ignorant about. And for that I’m very grateful. And while I didn’t like seeing a great company like Rumblefish being besmirched based on hearsay, I will apologize for not keeping a civil tone and letting my New York-ness out.

  37. Lee Audiosparx posted this yesterday

    I also posted a link to YouTube own content id page which says exactly the same thing.
    Dhruva you called me and others ignorant and hysterical for pointing this out.

    Dhruva respond to this please without sidetracking. This totally contradicts your position.

    Lee said

    “Michael L and Denis are right on point. 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.
    Accordingly, unless Rumblefish has some sweetheart deal that permits them to submit non-exclusive content, Rumblefish is seriously breaching the terms of YouTube’s stated requirements for their Content ID program.”

    Are you really suggesting here that Audiosparx are hysterical and ignorant too.
    Simple answer please.

  38. I’ve heard a lot about Rumblefish and the content ID program, but I don’t think anyone has discussed the “Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society” – a mysterious company that doesnt seem to exist, that basically claims copyright randomly on videos on youtube. If you search youtube you can see a lot of people ranting about them.

    I uploaded a few of my tracks to youtube to see if I got anything flagged – one was from Rumblefish (I had some tracks with Crucial and they put them into the youtube ID system as Rumblefish are their partners). I got that solved pretty quick – Rumblefish were quick to remove them from the system.

    However, I now have a track (very popular track of mine) which is showing up as being claimed to by the “Music Publishing Rights Collecting Society”. So…you want to know what unethical?

    Unethical is a company that provides no real name or identifying details, that lays claim to your music (ilegally) and which could potentially put you out of business as a composer – think about it….if you only have your music with a group of non-exclusives that won’t accept anyone with tracks in the content ID system, you could lose your income that you’ve been building up for years, literally in a day. This scares me…a lot!

    I’ve contacted youtube to dispute the claim – the real pain in the ass now though is that I’m going to have to upload all of my tracks to youtube to see what else has been claimed by this society.

    There is also a loophole in this – if you don’t like another composer, all you need to do is download a few tracks from his website, join Rumblefish content ID with them, and they’ll be banned from all the websites they sell their music on. This whole thing is scary to be honest – not sure if anyone else has even thought about this yet?

  39. This has become such a hot topic I have re-titled it and put it on the main menu. It would be nice to have Rumblefish come on and state their position on this.

    Dhruva, if Paul Anthony is as open and eager as you suggest maybe you can convince him to come here and set the record straight.

    • I know Paul would conference call with other with other library owners and would talk to people that actually want to participate in content ID. Rumblefish sets the record straight everyday for artists and others that care to email them. I don’t know if anyone from there wants to come here and debate 4 guys on MLR that don’t want to even participate in content ID. They have thousands of people to deal with and are busy as hell. This really is just an educational issue and I’m contributing here because I get something out of being here.

      But I will address one thing that Michael said though-
      “…taking money for another library’s content. That is what is unethical.”
      That’s a misunderstanding of the nature of this business.

      First, when someone buys music from a non exclusive library, they buy the right to sync the music to images, they are not buying the right to monetize on youtube (which is only one venue out there). Youtube is a totally separate entity from a music Library, and Content ID is in a different realm from sync licensing. Social media is an ever expanding realm. Rumblefish provides a service to collect for composers from the social media world. Is it fair that somebody buys my song from a library for 20 bucks then can put it on as many youtube videos as they want and blast that song all over the internet on as many social networking platforms that exist and even more that will exist in the future in perpetuity? As well as block me from having my song monetize because they paid 20 bucks for it? No that’s not fair. That’s why content ID exists, and if composers don’t want to participate, and get their fair share, they don’t have to. And if someone wants to monetize a youtube video (and youtube is only one venue out of many) then they can find a composer/library that is not in content ID, or they can make their own music.

      Second, a library that sells a track does not have the right to tell youtube to take that track out of their content ID system because they don’t like Rumblefish collecting royalties for composers. That would be like telling ASCAP to stop collecting royalties on a video with music that ended up on broadcast T.V.
      Granted, ASCAP collects 11.3% for itself and Rumblefish collects 50% But Rumblefish should collect 50% because they are business that is proactive about getting artists deals and they really earn their keep.

      Hopefully this will click in the brains of some peeps reading this thread.

      • Yeah Dhruva. I get what you’re saying. Rumblefish is acting like a quasi-PRO, collecting money for internet plays. I never missed that point.

        I’m not against content ID programs at all. Maybe someday I’ll develop a line for that market. But when, and if, I do, it will be done on an exclusive basis, to avoid conflicts with, and problems for, any other libraries that I might be in, until better system is in place.

        • Yeah, it is the wild west and I’m interested to see when it all settles in and stabilizes how content ID effects a musician’s ability to garner sales in other areas. As well as what niche there is for youtube users that want to monetize contentedly. I wish them well. I personally, have not encountered any problems or conflicts whatsoever from all the libraries I’m in.

          The only issue I had with this is when I got accepted to Shockwave and right after Bjorn did a test video on youtube to see if I was in content ID. And he had to inform me about his reluctance to to have content ID tracks. That was the first and only time I had it come up. I’ve been accepted to other libraries since, and none of them seem to care. But I told Rumblefish about Shockwave and Paul quickly got in touch with Bjorn to talk about it. But basically libraries like that are at an empasse with Rumblefish at the moment.

          However, I have to stick with content ID because I see the most money from there. It’s always growing and it certainly isn’t effecting T.V. placements for me, unless Shockwave would have got me some…that’s a huge “IF”. This kind of thing only effects a tiny fraction of internet marketeers.

          Also, a lot of the people that use my music on their videos are using my songs to push a product or business and get free advertising on youtube, not necessarily monetize on youtube. The only thing I really wish youtube would change is for them to put those little rectangle ads below the actual video instead of on top of the lower portion of the frame. I don’t think that’s very nice. I don’t want somebody to have that ad block a portion of their video just because they decided to use my song, that’s the main thing that gives me angst.

          • Dhruva,
            I would really like it if Rumblefish did come on here to set the record straight. I know you feel it would only be a debate with 3 or 4 people but I think there are many, many other MLR members who are watching and reading this topic and would like to hear from Rumblefish, me included.

            I have no problem with content id but I am also very confused over the whole matter.

            In the fall I had a song placed through Jingle Punks for a Gap kids back to school web promo, it was put on youtube along with other sites. What would have happened if that song would have been in the content id through Rumblefish?

            I may be wrong, but I have a feeling it would have raised some red flags with the ad agency that did the promo. This to me seems to be where everything gets muddy.

            • What would happen is Gap would get their commercial viewed just like they wanted and you would get a little extra money. Gap used your music to enhance their commercial and sell clothes, and probably not to make fractions of a penny every time their vid is watched.
              Anyway, I don’t know what record needs to be set straight. I’ve explained everything pretty much, and their FAQ explain a bunch, but again if you have questions, just email them.
              Also videos can be de-monetized and the monetization can be switched over, so for instance, if Gap called Rumblefish and asked them to un-claim the video, perhaps they would, if they had good reason to.

  40. There is another very important point I want to make clear to everybody reading this thread.
    I see there’s a lot of confusion about the exclusivity issue regarding libraries that place music in Content ID.
    What I’m about to write will clear all that up -BUT FIRST- I want to point out that when people say things like —
    “…Rumblefish or any other non exclusive library CANNOT use your music for this program. They would be breaking their contract with both Youtube and the Composer. Its as simple as that.”
    Or “…It makes me very uneasy that Rumblefish can do this under a non-exclusive contract.”
    Or “I would suggest that Youtube should be informed of this immediately.”

    Those kind of statements are baseless, unfounded hysterics. It’s just plain ignorance. But I understand the confusion because this is a fast evolving, new part of the music licensing biz.

    Rumblefish has regular meetings with Youtube, and Youtube’s top lawyers know completely, 100% what kind of business model Rumblefish has.
    Rumblefish is a top notch, aboveboard organization that is pioneering the way into this brand new, business paradigm involving content ID. The CEO is a successful composer himself and the folks at Rumblefish care deeply about helping musicians get the best out of this business. I know, because they’ve had my back for years before I even had one placement.

    Now let me explain what the deal is with the exclusivity issue…

    The internet sync business (like youtube’s content ID program) is following in the footsteps of regular digital distribution.
    Meaning, if you want to sell your music on iTunes, EMusic, Rhapsody, whatever, you can only have one distributor that puts your music with those services. So you have to pick either CDBaby, or Catapult, or IODA, etc. You can’t be with all of them because…which one is gonna collect your money? You have to pick one. IN THE SAME WAY, when you decide you want to make money through Content ID, you have to pick only one library that is going to place you in youtube’s program. In my case, I have Rumblefish for that. They rep my music on youtube. But I’m free to be non-exclusive with all the other types of licensing deals out there.
    Rumblefish is totally committed to the non-exclusive model. But youtube has to know which entity to pay for each song, so it is they who insist on one rep per artist. It’s as simple as that.

    When you sign with Rumblefish, the only exclusive thing about them is the internet sync part, because there’s just no other way in the world to do it. And it’s optional, you don’t have to participate in content ID. If you don’t wanna make money doing that, that’s up to you. That just means more of the market will go to guys like me, so be my guest 🙂 If you’re good enough, you could probably be with Rumblefish without the internet thing and be totally non-exclusive, but they are experts in this aspect of the biz and I definitely take advantage of their expertise.

    Now, there are other libraries that do Content ID, for instance Audisparx, Lee and Barb over there are great people. One difference though, between Audiosparx and Rumblefish, is that (from what I understand) in order to be in content ID through Audiosparx, they want you to be totally exclusive with everything else, for whatever reason. But Rumblefish actually is the opposite, they encourage you to enjoy non-exclusivity with everything else. I dont know what the Modus Operendi is for other libraries that do this. All I know is that Rumblefish has an excellent grasp and vision on this fast evolving internet sync business.

    But I’m with Audiosparx (without the internet option) and Rumblefish, and a bunch of other libraries, so no problemo.

    I hope that clears that up.

    • Thanks DhruvaAliman for your input. Your explanation on exclusivity (as it pertains to YouTube’s Content ID program) makes perfect sense to me.

    • Hi Dhruva

      Seeing as you are selectively quoting me and accusing me of baseless ignorance and hysteriaI I suggest you re read my post. My assumption about exclusivity was based on Lee ( Audiosparx ) statement that YouTube require exclusivity. Not exclusive reperesenation for content ID BUT exclusive representation for the music involved, which is why they ( Audiosparx ) insist on this. This is my reading of his statement, it seems pretty clear to me.

      In this regard both Rumblefish and Audiosparx’s positions contradict each other. One is correct, your assumption is that Rumblefish’s position is the valid one. It is not ignorance and hysteria when someone makes a point based on a statement from a reliable honest and ethical source (Audioparx in this case) perhaps you may want to rethink they way you present your points.

      I certainly don’t have the YouTube contract Id TOS in front of me. Do you have a link or a direct quote from it to back up all your assertions..

      I am not saying you are wrong or right but when an opposing point is made from a reliable source which contradicts what you say I would take note. I notice nobody from Rumblefish has come on here to answer the questions put.

      I have no axe to gring here as I do not have any interest in this program but I do have the right to comment on issues.

      • Well just as you were “absolutely stunned by this thread” I guess I was also a bit stunned to see people jump to the conclusion that one library must be dishonest (“breaking contracts”) just because a couple of other honest guys said something contradictory. Nothing personal though.

        • Hi Dhruva

          Tx nothing personal, I will try and make a one sentence point that can be addressed to get to the bottom of this, as it is important.

          IF my reading of the Audiosparx position re exclusivity is correct, then yours and Rumblefish’s position CANNOT be correct.

          Capitalisation for emphasis not shouting. I think you must agree with that summary of the issue here., there doesn’t seem to be a grey area on that one and I await with eager ears for an answer from all interested parties, especially Rumblefish as they have not chimed in yet.

          • Well my friend, the beauty part is you don’t have to wait for Rumblefish to chime in, you can just email them like it says at the bottom of their FAQ-
            http://www.rumblefish.com/id/youtube-content-id.php
            They eagerly await your questions 🙂

            • This is a public forum in which a few library owners have expressed their opinions, and points of view on this matter. I have no intention of relaying Rumblefish ‘s answers to any questions I might have second hand, I think they can do that for themselves if athey are interested in getting involved . That is their choice. I am a composer not a library owner and have no vested interest in this, apart from getting information regarding something of great interst and concern to many.

              Either way you seem to have an interest in promoting this companies views, which cool and acceptable BTW. To clear this issue it would be nice to hear directly and unambiguously from them directly.

              I think you would agree that would clear this up once and for all.

            • Who should not use Content ID?
              This program is designed for exclusive rights holders whose content is frequently uploaded to YouTube by the user community. If no one is uploading content you own, you don’t need this program. For content owners with only occasional content management needs, or who seek a simpler solution, YouTube’s other copyright tools may be more appropriate.

              How does Content ID work?
              Rights holders deliver YouTube reference files (audio-only or video) of content they own, metadata describing that content, and policies on what they want YouTube to do when we find a match.

              http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid

              This is pasted directly from Youtube own page on content id. They use the words “exclusive rights ” and “of content they own” when describing content. . Both of these would cause me great concern as they certainly don’t seem to be part of a non exclusive deal with a library.

              Even if you can legally fudge the “exclusive rights ” part how can a non exclusive library own your music.

              More turf for the fire as they say over here.

              • Denis, I have also been included as making statements that are “baseless, unfounded hysterics”. And don’t forget “plain ignorance”. 🙂

                I started this “firestorm” with, what I believed to be a simple question. I assumed it would be an equally simple answer. Oh how wrong I was!

                I will stick to my original “ignorant” statement that this all makes me feel very uneasy. It seems that the composer is the only one who must hold up his/her end of the deal in contracts today! Non-exclusives claiming exclusive rights , Exclusives putting tracks in non-exclusives, etc.

                I know if I were to submit a song to AudioSparx and mark it “exclusive”, and then submit the same track to Rumblefish, I would be in a world of trouble! At the very least banned from the libraries!

                I am hoping that the Libraries will start to police themselves. And if they would be nice enough to hash it out here on the MLR, I would be able to make a more informed decision on who I trust with my music. 🙂

                Let the cream rise!

        • Dhruva, you have nothing else to prove. I think you need to leave the issue alone. I myself believe you because you are an active participant in the program. Most of the people that disgaree with you are not participants. That automatically disqualifies their opinion to me. It just seems that people want to argue for the sake of arguing.

          I am glad that you came on here to clear the issue up and provide firsthand knowledge on the subject of Youtube monetization. If composers are skeptical, they should not participate. But I do not think it is right at all for people to be angry with you. You told the truth and you have the hands-on knowledge to back up your case. That is all that matters to me. Thanks for the info. I have contacted Rumblefish via Friendly Music to start adding my songs to the catalog.

          • Thanks Synth, my thoughts exactly, good luck and let me know what happens with your submission.

            • Actually whats happening here is a lot of composers/libraries are calling out the legitimacy of this practice and you are stating your opinion as if its fact, without taking into consideration some of the very good points a number of people have just made.

              Just because Rumblefish are doing it, doesn’t mean its legal. I’m not saying it is or it isn’t, but this is a discussion – not an “I’m right, you’re wrong” competition. I for one, have been interested to hear both sides of the argument, and although its not something I would ever be interested in joining (as you are making your music worth a lot less to potential buyers if they know the hassle they’ll be getting themselves into), I think it would be interesting if the libraries in question joined in here.

              • John (the other John) says:

                “Just because Rumblefish are doing it, doesn’t mean its legal” – Emmett

                Or ethical – which is more concern.

                • What would be unethical is to tell millions of youtubers that they can’t use music to put on their videos because a tiny fraction of youtubers want to monetize their videos without having to spend a little time finding music that is not in content ID.

                  What would be unethical is to tell Youtube they can’t provide this service to their users.

                  What would be unethical is to tell companies like Audiosparx, Rumblefish and all the rest that they can’t partner with youtube in this endeavor.

                  What would be unethical is to tell youtube how to do business with Rumblefish or to tell Rumblefish how to do business with composers or buyers.

                  What the hell is unethical?

                  No one is forcing libraries to be in Content ID.
                  No one is forcing buyers to only buy Content ID songs.
                  No one is forcing musicians to participate in Content ID.
                  Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything they don’t want to do.

                  If music buyers want to monetize their youtube vids they can go to Shockwave or PIR, that’s great.

                  Problem solved. At least for the non-hysterical.

                  • The vast majority of content id music on YouTube is owned exclusively by the
                    Big record labels. Fact. They adhere to the guidelines I posted in this thread from
                    Youtubes own website. There is no issue with that at all. YouTube can legally do
                    business with them.

                    The issue here is quite simply that Rumblefish MAY not
                    adhere to those rules. IF that is the case it certainly would be unethical and
                    possibly illegal. Until someone from Rumblefish can explain the obvious
                    contradictions between their stance and that of Audiosparx and indeed YouTubes own
                    Rules, then everything is conjecture, including everything written by Dhruva, unless you
                    are actually representing the company here.

                  • “What the hell is unethical?”

                    Rumblefish collecting royalties for music that was sold through AudioSparx, MusicLoops, Shockwave, or any other library than Rumblefish (which is not partnered with Rumblefish).

                    That is taking money for another library’s content / sale. That is what is unethical.

                    And the situation exists because we, the composers, are afraid we’ll miss out on a few dollars if we don’t put ALL of our music into as many libraries as possible.

                    The ethical thing to do, especially for all those “tens of millions” of youtube customers that you are so concerned about, is to NOT place your tracks in every library.

                    Set aside tracks for youtube and put them where ever you want, EXCLUSIVELY. That way nobody loses: not the library that sold the track and not the customer who bought the track. The party making the sacrifice is the party that SHOULD make the sacrifice, in this instance– the composer.

                    The only bar between doing content ID ethically and not ethically is composers who refuse to set aside exclusive tracks for that purpose, thereby cheating the library that actually sells the track out out of royalties, or by causing problems between the library that actually sells the track and its customers.

    • I said that I was going to remove myself from this thread because it doesn’t apply to me
      But….Dhruva you have clearly stated the fatal flaw with the “wanting it all” syndrome.

      “Meaning, if you want to sell your music on iTunes, EMusic, Rhapsody, whatever, you can only have one distributor that puts your music with those services. So you have to pick either CDBaby, or Catapult, or IODA, etc. You can’t be with all of them because…which one is gonna collect your money? You have to pick one. IN THE SAME WAY, when you decide you want to make money through Content ID, you have to pick only one library that is going to place you in youtube’s program.”

      Yes you MUST pick “only one library” to place you into youtube’s program. BUT, and this is the BIG BUT, you cannot prevent the customers of OTHER libraries from using your music on youtube. Which means that no matter where the user buys the music, AudioSparx, MusicLoops, Shockwave, etc., Rumblefish is going to collect the youtube royalties, which will justifiably p**s off the library from which the music was actually purchased.

      Next, that puts other libraries in the position of needing to tell their customers that they can’t use your music on youtube, which will then eliminate an entire class of buyer for that library. AND, when those customers receive the youtube copyright notice they will be calling the original library for an explanation.

      Under those circumstances, IMO, it is completely reasonable for a library to drop a writer, and/or specific content, that is in a content ID program.

      “But Rumblefish actually is the opposite, they encourage you to enjoy non-exclusivity with everything else. ” Of course, they get paid by youtube no matter which library the music comes from. Is that fair? They are not a PRO or Soundexchange.

      The problem here is that you want to collect from youtube AND still play the non-exclusive game. What you are suggesting is analogous to signing a deal with CDbaby and then going out and cutting side deals with itunes, Amazon, and IODA anyway.

      Usually it is libraries that get accused of wanting to have their cake and eat it too. But, this is an example of writers trying to game the system for a few more pennies.

      I’m not saying that writers should not participate in a content ID program. But, IMO the solution is to reserve exclusive content FOR THAT LIBRARY for that purpose.

      Michael

    • Michael L and Denis are right on point. 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.

      Accordingly, unless Rumblefish has some sweetheart deal that permits them to submit non-exclusive content, Rumblefish is seriously breaching the terms of YouTube’s stated requirements for their Content ID program.

      • Thanks for the clarification Lee

        This a really important statement for anybody considering using any content id system, and especially Rumblefish’s unique stance on it. Be very careful. Your music is a very important and hopefully valuable asset. Art, Lee”s comments should nearly be a sticky as this topic will surely come up again.

  41. I have read the Rumblefish FAQ. It sounds like they have lots of upset customers asking some tough questions about their videos getting tagged.
    If those customers purchased their music from Musicloops.com or Shockwave-Sound.com they would not have any of the problems listed in the Rumblefish FAQ.
    1. There would be no ads placed on their videos.
    2. They would receive no copyright infringement notices
    3. They would be able to monetize their videos.
    4. They would not have to go through a dispute process.

    In the end it’s up to the composer to make his decision where he wants to place his music. I am just trying to elucidate the other side of the story a bit so they might make informed decisions.

    And Dhruva, why not sign up for the Youtube ContentID yourself and get rid of the middleman and earn all of the adshare revenue?
    http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid

    • That’s a great question Mark, a few reasons I prefer to give 50% to Rumblefish are-

      1. By being with them I get my songs on a hell of a lot more videos then If I was just making all the videos myself. So I actually make more money by being with them, on top of whatever extraneous deals they got going besides youtube.

      2. Also, every once in a while I notice that ads disappeared from a vid and is not monetizing, so I call the guys at Rumblefish and they can fix it by calling their youtube contact right away…I don’t think as a lone tiny fish I could get that kind of service from youtube that fast, if ever.

      3. Also, an adsense account can be sabotaged and google will ban you from adsense for life, even if you didn’t do anything wrong, so many individuals have had that happen to them but that won’t happen with rumblefish, because they are not an individual they are a bigger business partner with youtube.

      4. Rumblefish has the ability to audit youtube’s books to make sure things are on the up & up…I don’t think individual youtube partners can do that.

      5. Also, I really like them, they are fun to work with, they are busy as hell but they still get back to me and hash things out…it’s like being a part of a team, and Paul really takes time to explain things to me, I like being a partner with them.

      Audiosparx also are really nice people, Barb and Lee, I think they also have the same deal with youtube but I told them they can’t rep my stuff on the internet but cause rumblefish already does a lot of it.

      I totally understand your point about people wanting to monetize their vids on youtube but there is so many other reasons people license music and places they put their projects.

      Maybe you do have a good niche market for people that are really concerned with monetizing their videos on youtube, though 🙂

      • I think I want to start making money from my music through YouTube. How do I get started?

        • You can start by submitting to Rumblefish. I would start with them because of all the music libraries, they may have the best relationship with youtube because they work with them on tech issues, I don’t know if other libraries do that.
          Don’t ask what tech issues, I’m not at liberty to say.
          But they have a symbiotic relationship.
          Audiosparx also does content ID but you have to be exclusive with them. Rumblefish however, is completely non-exclusive.

          • Thanks Dhruva. I think I am going to work with Rumblefish for the YouTube monetization program. They seem to have the best system and best relationship with YouTube. I like the fact that Rumblefish is non-exclusive. I do not think it is beneficial for me as a composer to have to have my tracks exclusively signed to a library for this program.

            I was reluctant to try the whole YouTube monetization program because I heard bad things about copyright infringement, artists getting paid pennies for usage, etc. But this recent conversation has given me the courage to give it a shot. It may be too risky for others but I think I could really benefit from this!

            • Sure thing Synth, and it’s true we do get pennies per usage, actually fractions of a penny, but you get a hella lot of usage! Like I said my checks are getting only bigger, not smaller, hundreds of dollars every quarter. You’ll see a big boost in the dough when you get your music not only in content ID but in audioswap when that reopens and I think only a few libraries can get you in there. But also you can make your own vids for instance check out this compilation of vids I put together with my own music http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL637BD36B27BB4835&feature=plcp
              especially check out my latest “Dare to get Air”

          • Hi Lee-
            I didn’t know this was your current policy.
            You’re saying that any composer opting into your adshare program has to be exclusive to you?
            That is really good to know and I will change our submission requirement guidelines on our website if that is the case.
            Regards,
            Mark

            • Hello Mark, I’m sure you also want to hear directly from Lee but yes what he
              says is true. The only music they allow into that program needs to be
              exclusive. But with audiosparx you can be both.

              I have 90 tracks with them but ony 8 are exclusive, so only those 8
              can be part of the adshare program, the rest are non exclusive and
              are not included in the program.

            • Hi Mark – Yes we absolutely require exclusivity for any tracks that an artist wants to have participate in our Internet Royalties program. This was not originally the case when we started this program several years ago, but when YouTube began requiring exclusivity, we modified our requirement to also require exclusivity since YouTube is the most important component of our Internet Royalties program.

              A few more notes to consider:

              Various dictionaries define “royalty” as “A share of the product or profit reserved by the grantor …”, or alternately “A share paid to a writer or composer out of the proceeds resulting from the sale or performance of his or her work.”. Hence we consider earnings from this program to be a de facto performance royalty that is based around the number of times a video is viewed. It functions in exactly the same way that performance royalties are earned via Performance Royalty Organizations (ASCAP, BMI, PRS, etc.) wherein the more a TV commercial or show is viewed, the more royalty earnings increase.

              When client’s videos get “tagged” and they receive an email similar to the following:

              Dear xxxx,

              Your video, xxxx, may have content that is owned or
              licensed by AudioSparx (or Rumblefish, or whoever).

              No action is required on your part; however, if you are
              interested in learning how this affects your video,
              please visit the Content ID Matches section of your
              account for more information.

              Sincerely,
              – The YouTube Team

              The YouTube notification is definitely not an accusation or insinuation of copyright infringement. We find that in these situations, approximately 2% of our clients actually contact us to have us remove the monetization for their video so that they can monetize their own video. The other 98% of clients don’t seem to care and we are able to monetize their videos for the benefit of our composers that are participating if the client has chosen a music track that is in fact participating in our Internet Royalties program.

              Our most successful artists participating in this program are earning royalties in the range of $500 to $1000/year for individual tracks. But most earn considerably less per track.

              Best regards,

              [email protected]

              • Thanks Lee, our musicloops.com composer submission FAQ has now been updated to reflect this…
                http://www.musicloops.com/faq.php#9

                • I absolutely stunned by this thread, both Mark (PIR) and Lee (Audiosparx) have stated that Youtube requires exclusivity to be a part of the program. I have absolutely no reason to doubt either of them as they are both extremely successful and honest libraries. This means that Rumblefish or any other non exclusive library CANNOT use your music for this program. They would be breaking their contract with both Youtube and the Composer. Its as simple as that.

                  I would suggest that Youtube should be informed of this immediately.

                  From a record companies perspective this is obvious, as any record deal normally gives them control over your masters Exclusively to do with whatever they want, in any format, anywhere in the known Universe. (Ever seen one of these!!!!)

                  Any way I digress

                  Any other debate about wether its worth it or not is completely secondary to this. I personally do not have any tracks in this program but if I discovered that a non exclusive library I was in, was trying to represent my tracks to a third party(Youtube in this case) as exclusive. I would dispatch a lawyers letter immediately and regard any agreement with that library as void. Audiosparx solution is the only way to deal with this, that is for the composer to opt for whatever tracks you want, to be exclusive to them. There is no grey area in this surely, you cant be both?

                  Surely its as simple as that?

                  • I cannot agree with you more Denis! It makes me very uneasy that Rumblefish can do this under a non-exclusive contract. Yet, it is very hard for me to believe that Youtube/Google would not have checked this out before signing any agreement with a Library, Publisher, or record company! Besides car accidents, the Music Industry is probably the largest “hotbed” of lawsuits out there! 🙂

                    • Agreed META, that old saying “Where there’s a hit, there’s a writ”

                      Why doesn’t somebody contact Google/Youtube and inform them.

                  • +1 Denis. I do not participate in any of these programs, as well.

                    What I said, and have said:

                    “IF I wanted to monetize via youtube, I would:
                    1) put some tracks into “content ID” libraries exclusively, or,
                    2) I would establish my own youtube channel for music that I sell to consumers via CDBaby, iTunes, etc.

                    With respect to other libraries, I would put completely different tracks into (a few) royalty free libraries, with the full knowledge and understanding that they DO NOT monetize via youtube. [ i.e., use Content ID, etc]

                    Those are the choices as I see it, with the least potential for trouble.”

                    More or less on the same page.

                    Cheers,

                    Michael

                    • My thinking exactly Michael,

                      Here is another point which I think Bjorn alluded to at some point earlier. Last year I posted a video of my daughter (aged 3) on holidays, that had Beyonces “Single Ladies” playing on the radio in the background. I didn’t even occur to me TBH that it would be flagged, anyway I got the Youtube warning as described by Lee. I did nothing, as instructed and the video was not removed. Maybe a grand total of 20 views.

                      So if there is this huge demand for music for the casual non commercial video like mine, why would I even pay the paltry 1.99 or whatever when I could just use any commercial release !!!
                      Talking about “Single ladies” there were hundreds of vids of people copying the dance. Maybe Beyonce’s label monetized the vids I dont know and I am sure the up-loaders didn’t care.

                      The reason when I would care is if it was a commercial venture, or an advertisement for a product or a company. If I then went and licensed music only to get the same response I would be p***ed off. Its a different market completely. In fact it doesn’t matter what the reason is, I have purchased a music license precisely to avoid this kind of thing. That is the nub of Mark and Bjorn’s point, and I would agree with them. Its bad business for everyone, composers too.

                      The claims and viability for demand for music for the millions of Youtube uploads is bogus for the very reasons I stated earlier, all it is doing is cheapening music down to a ridiculously low level to a market which couldn’t care less, and can really use any music they want to anyway.

                      I dont as a composer of course agree with this, but as the “Single Ladies ” example shows this is a reality for 99% of Youtube which is made up of personal or tiny views.

                    • Actually one last point on this issue ( too much Diet Coke today !!!) I earn between 7-10 thousand dollars per year for a TV/Radio ad in Ireland (very small country of 4 million) in PRO royalties. This ad is fairly popular and is an Irish based and manufactured product. It is NOT a for high rotation multinational Coke/Ford/Microsoft etc. Just for perspective on scale here.

                      Surely it makes more sense to try and get placements like this, and join libraries that can facilitate this, rather than hoping to make $700 from a Youtube vid that has a million hits.

                      Trust me I am not trying to be superior or anything like that, and I am not suggesting its easy, an everyday occurrence or I am better than anyone else, I certainly am not. Just putting things in perspective as I see it.

      • >1. By being with them I get my songs on a hell of a lot more >videos then If I was just making all the videos myself. So I >actually make more money by being with them, on top of >whatever extraneous deals they got going besides youtube.

        This is where I think you have a basic misunderstanding about how the system works. The ContentID system is not looking only for your personal videos that you upload. They look for all uses of your music. If you are distributing music through 20 libraries then the ContentID system will find all uses of your music via all of these libraries, not just the music you upload to your personal youtube site.
        You could be earning the full 100% of your adshare revenue and not splitting it with Rumblefish or any of your other adshare partners.
        Why not try it?
        http://www.youtube.com/content_id_signup

        Since you can make multiple claims on the same piece of music it will have no effect on your relationship with rumblefish, you can still distribute through them and you could possibly earn revenue both through your own channel and via rumblefish.
        Hey, it’s just a big free-for-all, why not go for it?

        • Because, besides all the other things I listed that I like about Rumblefish, I actually do get more users of my songs through them because they can put my music in youtube’s audioswap feature, which is not accessible to every tom, dick and harry. When you have your songs in audioswap, so many youtube users that don’t even know what a music library is will pluck your songs from audioswap…right now audioswap has been closed to all new material for a while but will reopen eventually, and I’m pretty sure only trusted music libraries that have vetted the quality of their music will be allowed to get their content in. Rumblefish put 70 songs of mine into audioswap before youtube stopped accepting new material.

          As for those twenty libraries, I don’t know how many of them cater to youtube vid makers, take Jingle Punks for instance, I see them getting me placements on cable T.V. in my ASCAP reports but hell if I know if they getting youtube users to buy my music, I haven’t gotten a check from them for that.
          However, Rumblefish has a special library called “Friendly Music” that is dedicated to just the youtube user. If I wasn’t with Rumblefish then not only would I not be in audioswap, I wouldn’t be in the Friendly Music platform either, that’s a lot less eyes and ears on my music.

          Also, I’m not too sure how much of your catalog you can get into content ID and a solitary musician, if any. The requirements might be more stringent and the customer service is probably horrific. It’s hard for me to imagine that youtube has the man power to deal with the millions of professional, quasi professional, and downright amateur musicians that want their content in there.

          • Thank you all for the “stimulating” discussion. Admittedly, I don’t have any skin in the youtube game, so I’m bowing out.

            But, thanks for the advice Dhruva.
            Now, I know where to put my “lamest, stupidest tracks.” 😆

            • Anytime 🙂 Don’t let them just sit around doing nothin’ for ya. I can’t believe how much use some of my tracks get that sound like poop in my ear.

  42. With all due respect Mark (from PIR), you are completely wrong about a number of things you said and are misleading people on this thread about content ID.

    1.You said- “People have to actually click on an ad to generate any revenue, not just view the video.” –That is wrong because they also count impressions not just clicks, see this to understand better- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_per_impression …On youtube a thousand hits equals about a $1.50, a Million hits equals about $1,500 (after youtube takes its cut). Then the split between musician and Rumblefish is 50/50, so the musician is left with over $700 per million hits. I mean think about it, do you really think those advertisers get to flash their ads for free all over the place without having to pay for putting them in your face? They pay more for clicks, but they still have to pay for getting you to see them.

    2. You said- “…the notices these customers are getting from Youtube are ‘copyright infringement notices’. No matter how many times these third party companies say “don’t worry about it, it doesn’t mean anything, just leave it as it is” it is still a copyright infringement notice that has direct negative consequences on the customer’s youtube account.” –THAT IS TOTALLY WRONG. They do not have negative consequences against your account. I have 4 youtube accounts with many videos of my own music, but youtube doesn’t know I’m the one that made the music, I get the notices every time I put up a vid, therefore, if you were right about it being bad for my account, I would have been kicked off long ago…actually youtube likes it when customers use these content ID songs because it means they’re making money too. So they definitely don’t want to kick users off that have their vids monetizing.

    3. You said- “According to the Youtube ContentID Terms of Service Agreement the individual or company uploading music into the ContentID system has to own the exclusive rights to the music they are uploading.”
    –That is also wrong. Rumblefish is completely NON-exclusive. Youtube knows they are, and youtube and Rumblefish work very closely together on technology related issues.

    4. You said “If you own the rights to your music you are the only person that can register your music with the Youtube ContentID system. All of these other companies are gaming the system.”
    –Rumblefish has over 5 million social soundtracks licensed. You think Rumblefish has tricked youtube into thinking they have exclusive rights millions of times? Of course not.

    There is one thing you did get right, and that is the same thing Bjorn Lynne said from Shockwave Sound, Bjorn is right and makes a good point about people that can’t monetize vids for themselves when they license a song that is in the content ID program, but in the future that situation will get worked out one way or another. And remember, some music supervisor that wants to license your song for a T.V. show or commercial probably doesn’t care or even think about whether that song is in content ID on youtube.

    And Art you said- “Thanks Mark, great reply and helps much in the demystification of this very confusing situation! I might just integrate it into the original post.” –Again, all due respect to Mark, I would not integrate any of the aforementioned points that Mark made into the original post because they only mystify this subject more, not less. I’m the demystifyer right now, not to say I can’t be totally ass-backward wrong about something else in the future, but in this case I’m right.

    It would behoove everyone, including Mark, to read Rumblefish’s FAQ on this and even contact them with further questions- http://www.rumblefish.com/id/youtube-content-id.php
    Paul Anthony , the CEO of Rumblefish is eager to help with, and discuss this matter with all affected parties. Paul reached out to Bjorn Lynne from Shockwave to talk about it, he would talk to Mark too.

    • With “all due respect” Dhruva, here are some numbers from Business Insider:

      “Some 53% of YouTube’s videos have fewer than 500 views, says TubeMogul. About 30% have less than 100 views. Meanwhile, just 0.33% have more than 1 million views.”

      So…let’s do the math 500 hits = $.75, of which you’d get $37.5, and 100 hits = $.15 of which you’d get 7.5 cents, and only 1/3 of one percent reach that million hit mark that will get you…uh $700.

      The return on the average number of hits is far less than you would get from just one sale through PIR or Shockwave. As far as a million hits goes, it’s like buying lottery tickets.

      • Thanks for the respect Michael 🙂 and what you say sounds all copasetic, except you leave out some important things to remember which are–

        In order to get $700 you don’t need any one particular video to reach a million. If you’ve got hundreds, or in time, even thousands of people using your songs on youtube vids then collectively you’ll get way over a million hits, in time. I don’t see any of my songs on vids over a million hits but I’ve already made from content ID way over $700 because a lot of people are using my songs.

        Also, this is just passive income, it’s not a replacement for other music libraries. Like I said, I’m in over 20 good libraries, and as of now, far more libraries will take you irregardless of content ID than will reject you because of it. So the way I look at it is, why not have the extra passive income while my stuff is working for me in those other libraries?

        If in the future, I get dropped from all those libraries because of it, then I would change what I’m doing, but a lot of libraries are shooting to place on T.V. and film, not youtube vids, so they don’t really care about this.

        Also, what’s nice about this is that you may have tracks that never get licensed, ever. Yet you put hard work into them. Well, this content ID thing is a way for you to make money on those tracks by making your own videos as well as putting them in audioswap…let me tell you man, my lamest, stupidest tracks are being taken from audioswap and put on some ridiculous videos all the time.

        And it’s not like you have to have your whole catalog in it anyway, you can save your best stuff for more high end or exclusive deals.

    • All I can say is “wow”. It will definitely take someone smarter than I to get to the bottom of this morass!

  43. ” In regards to Michael’s request for library owners to figure out a way to make it so the composers don’t get the ‘short end of the stick’, what exactly would you like us to do? Give our customers the short end of the stick instead? It is never ‘forward thinking’ to p**s off and alienate your customers.”

    Hi Mark,

    Thank you for your informative answer. I think that you very clearly define the issue. No, I do not think that you should give your customers the “short end of the stick.” In light of your explanation, to say that writers are getting the short end of the stick is a mischaracterization.

    To clarify my position: I personally want to avoid the whole youtube issue. To me it’s chasing pennies, which is why I said “it’s not worth it, IMO, when you subtract the potential revenue that you loose from other libraries.”

    I do have empathy for struggling writers and the fact that they need to make choices which limit their options but that is in fact what they MUST do….choose what is exclusive, what is not exclusive, what is royalty free, what is not royalty free etc.

    If I wanted to monetize via youtube, I would:
    1) put some tracks into “content ID” libraries exclusively, or,
    2) I would establish my own youtube channel for music that I sell to consumers via CDBaby, iTunes, etc.

    With respect to other libraries, I would put completely different tracks into (a few) royalty free libraries, with the full knowledge and understanding that they DO NOT monetize via youtube.

    Those are the choices as I see it, with the least potential for trouble. The problem for writers who are not capable of producing a “volume” of material, or who don’t have a large catalog, is that they don’t have enough tracks to make several choices, so they try to put everything everywhere. Instead of having 200 tracks in two libraries, they have 20 tracks in 10 libraries, thinking that it will yield the same result, when in fact the majority of their licenses come from only a few libraries. Sooner or later, IMO, that is not a good idea.

    It is not a problem that you created, and I do not mean to suggest that you should change your policy to accommodate it.

    Michael

    Edit: I said essentially the same thing in my 11/28/11 post from which the “short end of the stick” came:
    “1) Only put a portion of their catalog into libraries that don’t wan’t to deal with the youtube issue. And, reserve those tracks for only those libraries”

    And that is my preference…divide your catalog to avoid problems all around.
    Of course, this discussion does not apply to , or refer to, traditional, exclusive non-retitle libraries.

  44. Hi guys,

    There’s one element/side to this whole issue that hasn’t really been discussed, so I thought I’d mention it:

    If you have your music with Rumblefish, GoDigital, Crucial, any Content-ID setup, then really, your music is no longer royalty-free at all. There is no longer any reason for customers to license your music for use on YouTube. The customer may as well just rip music from any commercial CD or film. The result is exactly the same. The music is recognized by YouTube as being copyrighted to somebody. An email is automatically sent to the video creator, telling him about the copyright in the music. Advertising is placed on the video, and the video creator is unable to monetize his video himself, seeing as how the advertising space on the video is already taken.

    This is exactly what happens if somebody just takes music out of a famous movie or a famous CD and uses that in their YouTube video. And this is now exactly what happens with your music too. For a client, using your music on YouTube has exactly the same effect as using a Justin Timberlake track that they just rip from a CD. So why, now, should anybody want to pay $30-75 to license one of your tracks from a stock music library?

    That’s just another thing worth considering here.

    We at Shockwave-Sound.com do not work with any Content-ID music and, like Mark at PiR/MusicLoops, we will immediately block from sale any composer found to be in a Content-ID setup. We don’t like to do it, but for us, the first priority is to keep our customers from feeling like they’ve been ripped off.

  45. Just to clear up a few misunderstandings that are being posted here in the hopes that they don’t eventually become perceived as facts.

    1. In regards to Art’s main question at the top of the thread, this issue has never been about taking videos down, it is about monetizing videos (placing adsense ads on top of the video) when the customer has already purchased the legal right to use the music in their video.

    2. No, Rumblefish is definitely not the only company registered with the Youtube ContentID system. Anyone can register. I have seen up to 5 copyright notices on one youtube video. That is 5 separate companies claiming they own the music that the customer has legally licensed for use in the video.

    3. What these companies earn are not royalties. They are a share of ad revenue. The person saying that 1 million ‘hits’ on a video equals $700 is just wrong. People have to actually click on an ad to generate any revenue, not just view the video. The amount earned will of course vary with content of the video, quality of the ads, etc.

    4. In regards to Michael’s request for library owners to figure out a way to make it so the composers don’t get the ‘short end of the stick’, what exactly would you like us to do? Give our customers the short end of the stick instead? It is never ‘forward thinking’ to p**s off and alienate your customers.

    When we sell a customer a license to use the music on Youtube they are purchasing the right to use it without fear of copyright notices and monetization from third party companies. These notices *really* piss off our customers. Our customers don’t want them, it creates a bad strike against their youtube account which can lead to deletion of their youtube account. It also makes it so they cannot monetize the video that they have created. It also covers their video with ads. And no matter what anyone says Youtube does not post ads on videos unless they have a copyright notice placed on it or unless the owner of the video is monetizing it himself.

    Remember, the notices these customers are getting from Youtube are ‘copyright infringement notices’. No matter how many times these third party companies say “don’t worry about it, it doesn’t mean anything, just leave it as it is” it is still a copyright infringement notice that has direct negative consequences on the customer’s youtube account.

    I think there is a huge misunderstanding among many composers about how this ContentID system actually works and what it does to the end user.

    I don’t usually respond to threads on MLR but I had to delete another composer from our catalog today and I really don’t want to see all of these misunderstandings and in many cases outright untruths being posted about this subject. Library owners of course do not enjoy deleting a composer’s catalog after putting so much time into getting it online and promoting it but if I’m going to lose a customer because of the legal claims made on your music then I am no longer going to distribute your music.

    -Mark

    • Thanks Mark, great reply and helps much in the demystification of this very confusing situation! I might just integrate it into the original post.

      • One thing I forgot to mention Art and it is the most important in my view,

        According to the Youtube ContentID Terms of Service Agreement the individual or company uploading music into the ContentID system has to own the exclusive rights to the music they are uploading. That means record or publishing companies that completely own the rights or the individual composer themselves if they own their music outright.
        It is not acceptable for anyone who does not own *exclusive* rights to the music to upload it. Unless your music is exclusive with these third party companies then they are not legally allowed to upload it into the system.

        Read it for yourself
        http://www.youtube.com/t/contentid

        “Rights holders deliver YouTube reference files (audio-only or video) of content they own, metadata describing that content, and policies on what they want YouTube to do when we find a match.”

        “Who should not use Content ID?

        This program is designed for exclusive rights holders whose content is frequently uploaded to YouTube by the user community.”

        • Mark,
          Fantastic post! Great information!
          Your second post, even more so.

          Quote: “It is not acceptable for anyone who does not own *exclusive* rights to the music to upload it. Unless your music is exclusive with these third party companies then they are not legally allowed to upload it into the system.”

          So, unless you are signed exclusively with Rumblefish, Crucial, etc., they have no right to add your tracks to Youtube’s content ID system? Yet they are Non-exclusive libraries.
          So, I have no worries of my tracks from any non-exclusive’s showing up on Youtube and making ad revenue. Unless, of course, they re-title the track first.

          Maybe I am not getting it!? (Won’t be the first time!)
          This is a great discussion! 🙂

          • You are correct up until where you say you do not have to worry about your music showing up in the ContentID system. Many of these companies upload your music without your permission and without the legal right to upload the music since they are non-exclusive libraries that do not own the rights to your music. Yet they still upload it and have built entire business models on illegally uploaded music both in regards to the system and in regards to not having permission from the actual rights owner.

            In other words you definitely do have to worry about it and be very careful where you place your music.

            Re-titling has nothing to with this since the ContentID system works off of matching audio waveforms. Again, this is not a royalty type system where they are looking at titles and earnings royalties per view. This is an audio waveform match system.

            If you own the rights to your music you are the only person that can register your music with the Youtube ContentID system. All of these other companies are gaming the system. But keep in mind if you do register your music in the system you will have the same copyright infringement problems with music libraries that are licensing your music for use on Youtube.

            • Holy crap!
              It seems as though the days of legal copyrights are just about over. As soon as your tune is out there, it’s fair game!

              I’m putting my cash under my mattress and stocking up on canned goods tonight! 🙂

              Thanks for the straight forward info Mark!

            • As many here are trying to place music with Crucial Music I just e-mailed Tanvi and Dan about this situation. Hopefully they will respond with their take on it.

  46. I’m still pretty confused on this whole YouTube situation. I just licensed another track through Revostock, and another through Pond5, and it got me thinking. I actually have no idea who licensed the tracks, or what they are being used for, but what if these projects hit YouTube? I’ve never seen anything concerning agreements that these 2 libraries have with Youtube. So who gets paid out of Youtube’s Ad (Royalty) Fund? Should I be signing up with YouTube as a composer?

    So lost on this. But as MichaelL said “Internet use of music is only going to grow.”
    What about sites like Vimeo and many others?

    I’m sure I have thousands of unclaimed dollars sitting out there! 🙂
    (Or maybe Rumblefish just gets to claim all of it!)

    • Do you know for sure if you have songs being used on Youtube videos? You should find that out first. That can help you to build a case.

      • I don’t know for sure. Like I said, I’m not sure who is licensing, or which production my music is being placed with. I don’t know of any way to search on youtube, unless they happened to credit me in the text description. I was simply curious, and hoping to prepare myself better for the future.

          • Thanks DhruvaAliman! That did help clear some things up.

            I guess, at least for now, if I stay away from rumblefish then I should not run into any conflicts with any of my other libraries. $1.99 per track? I think I’ll stay away. 🙂

            • 1.99 per track only applies to people that want to use the song on youtube vids ONLY, from what I understand. And you get more than 1.99 because the vid will continue to monetize with your song on it. So for example if I pay 1.99 for your song and put it on a video that gets a million hits, that’s about $700 for you after rumblefish gets their cut.

              • How many youtube videos actually get one million hits?

                Plus, if the payout is only $700, it’s not worth it, IMO, when you subtract the potential revenue that you lose from other libraries.

                • Over time if thousands of people are putting your music on videos the hits add up. Plus, if you are already selling your tracks non-exclusively there’s no conclusive evidence it would hurt your sales with other libraries unless in the rare case a library won’t sign music that is in content ID. But if you have albums on iTunes it might help your sales because youtube puts the sales link below the video. I’m with Rumblefish, but also in 20 other libraries, I only got rejected once by shockwave sound for having music in content ID. Also, you can be proactive and make your own videos and you don’t even have to pay $1.99 to put your music on them 🙂 I’m trying this out because every quarter my checks get bigger not smaller, I’m kinda new to this business, about two and a half years in with the licensing. But Rumblefish is the only library for me where the money gets bigger not smaller, or random.

                  • Quote: “Also, you can be proactive and make your own videos and you don’t even have to pay $1.99 to put your music on them ”

                    But do you then get the royalties associated with the ad revenue?
                    This is where my initial post was going (kind of). So Rumblefish is the only “Youtube partner” that has a content ID system? What if I was to direct market a collection of tracks myself to the “Youtuber’s” of the world? Would I receive the royalties directly?

                    Very soon, every video known to man is going to be online. Youtube, Vimeo, etc. It’s good enough for Crucial to be in bed with Rumblefish! Why would they do it, if there isn’t a future boatload of cash at the end?

                    This may very well turn out to be the future of all backend royalties!
                    “Do I wait for that 7 second late night placement on the Logo channel and make 20 cents, or do I have a better chance that someone’s cute kitten video gets 2000 hits?”

    • @Metatagteam, The funny thing is your original question never really got an answer. I had often thought exactly what your question was about.

  47. Haven’t read all of this, but thought I’d just post here and advise anyone else having this problem to check what libraries you have your tracks with and if those libraries have any other distribution deals.

    I uploaded some of my tracks to youtube to test it out and found 2 of my tracks came back saying Rumblefish owns them. I don’t have any tracks with Rumblefish, but have some tracks with Crucial who are a partner of Rumblefish.

    I emailed Crucial and they said they sent out communications to advise they have a distribution deal with them, so they added any music I had with Crucial to youtube finger print system. Both Crucial and Rumblefish were quick in responding and removed my tracks from the system when I asked them.

    Hope that helps in case anyone has the same issue

  48. Licensing Companies need to work together and find a solution rather than us composers getting the raw deal.

    Non-exclusive should mean just that, however, it seems that phrase is becoming more of a grey area these days.

    • Composers have to learn to establish relationships with companies. This involves regular communication with libraries. Many of us have been told to send it and forget it. That is a very detrimental move!

      Composers have to be vigilant and ask questions. Many of us lose because we do not want to ask questions. We have been conditioned to thinking that asking questions amounts to whining or harassing a company. But asking legitimate questions is in the best interest of the composer.

      Being passive will get you passed over. Stay inspired and stay hungry. Royalties don’t fall from the sky and licensing fees do not grow on trees. 🙂

  49. Hi Art,

    There are a couple of threads here dealing with monetizing our catalogs via youtube.
    Some libraries are apparently dropping writers who participate in programs that monetize tracks used on youtube. One thread mentions Shockwave. The last time that visited MusicLoops’ site it sated that writers would be dropped if ML received a content notice from youtube.

    It seems that writers have two options:

    1) Only put a portion of their catalog into libraries that don’t wan’t to deal with the youtube issue. And, reserve those tracks for only those libraries, or

    2) Do not deal with libraries that are dropping writers over this issue.

    Obviously, number one is the lesser of two evils. Neither scenario is particularly beneficial to writers, who are giving up opportunities either way.

    Internet use of music is only going to grow.
    Any thoughts from library owners how this can be worked out so writers don’t get the short end of the stick? In most cases, I’d be very hesitant to put tracks intro a library that isn’t forward thinking.

    Can anyone provide an overview of the situation?

    Thanks,

    Michael

    • Hi Michael,

      I just moved this from General Questions to here to avoid this thread becoming more unwieldy then it already is! -:)

      For me, I’m happy sticking with MusicLoops.com as it’s the only one of two RF sites that consistently makes me money every month. Mark has some distribution deals and I would imagine that he will eventually have more.

      I also think that this issue is very fluid and no one really knows how it will play out. Another good reason to hold on to our copyrights!

    • MichaelL, One solution I thought of to this whole mess is–

      The libraries can get a coalition together to convince
      youtube to invite all music libraries to register with youtube and when an uploader’s video gets matched (which is always immediately) youtube will then ask the uploader- “What music library did you license this music from?” Lets say, it’s a song from Bjorn’s library but that song is also in Rumblefish. The uploader tells youtube he got it from Bjorn. Well then Bjorn looks legit and doesn’t have to worry, and the uploader doesn’t have to worry about getting a scary email. Also, the uploader knows what to expect as far as ads and monetization. Because Bjorn gets to choose how his library content is monetized. Bjorn says to youtube- “I don’t want those goofy bar “Overlay Ads” on the bottom of my customer’s videos.” Maybe Bjorn just wants a “side ad”, or “after ad” (which he explains to his customers will happen when they visit his site).
      Or maybe Bjorn is happy with just a one time buyout fee from his customers on his “royalty free” site and he doesn’t want any revenue from youtube. Lord knows he ain’t getting any right now. But maybe Bjorn will choose to opt in later to get some of the ad share if a customer becomes a partner (which Bjorn will also explain to his customers before they buy). Bjorn is free to choose how he structures his deal with youtube and his customers. And the customers are free to choose which library they want to deal with based on how each library has their deal laid out. The Buyer will ask himself-
      Will this library put ads on our near my video or not?
      Will this library allow me to monetize as a youtube partner or not?
      Will this library take a share of my partner revenue or not?
      The Buyer chooses what library to buy from. The freedom to CHOOSE is KEY.

      The Nobel prize winning economist Milton Freedman wrote a bestselling book called “Free to Choose” in which he demonstrates quite clearly that economies thrive when people are free to choose. There is more for everybody when there is more choice. Our economy is not a finite pie where everybody scrounges for a slice until there is none left. No. Our economy bakes more pie when there is more freedom of choice. Choice leads to more creativity, more production and more music being used.

      Music Buyers may use one library for one youtube project, and another library for a different youtube project, depending one what their projects are. This is better than them just giving up on doing some of their projects because the licensing system is to rigid and non-optional to accommodate them.

  50. This issue sounds like a lot of technological hocus pocus. Nobody other than big name companies will be making any money from this.

    • I beg to differ SP, the top ten youtube partner earners-
      http://socialtimes.com/money-youtube-partners_b21335
      It’s any man’s game

      • I don’t think you understand why they make money from Youtube. All of those guys are video creators, not music composers. They make money from having millions of views from their video content. No one composing library music is making $100, let alone over $100,000 from having music on Youtube.

        I guess if I make a few hundred videos, add my music to them and get millions of viws, I could make a few hundred thousand too.

        • The youtube partner rate is about $1.50 per 1,000 views.

          Good luck getting one hundred million views ($150,000).

          • ^ Exactly!

            All of these companies are fighting over fractions of a cent here. Youtube is only going to make significant money for big companies with a few other guys getting some good money here and there.

            Composers need not worry about this and keep seeking ways to make money from their music. Don’t get distracted by these “games”.

            • This band probably spent two days putting together this vid
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo0Cazxj_yc
              34 million hits in a year. If they were with RF they’d get half the dough which would be at least $17,000 in one year, not bad for just a couple days work. You can make vids like that because of “transformational use” and “fair use” laws.

              Here’s a vid that probably took less than 5 minutes to make and it’s got 24 million views.
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV8eiSA4vqc
              Granted they have a lot of fans but there are vids with just still pics that get s***loads of views without any built in any fanbase.

              If you think creatively and take advantage of the opportunities out there you can make this work. But if you’re not going to think creatively and just poo poo it, then yeah, this ain’t the game for you.
              I’ll let you know when I make my first $100,000 😉

              • Thanks for the additional information. This Youtube video thing could be huge for someone here! Hopefully you guys participate and start getting those videos out there. It would be awesome to hear how someone who posts here was able to monetize their music through internet video.

            • This program at GoDigital and YouTube is definitely not a “game”. AudioSparx has hundreds of artists participating in our Internet Royalties program, of which GoDigital and YouTube are a component, and the top-earning tracks earn generally between $1000 to $2000 per year. My advise to artists is to not discount the importance of earning performance-based recurring revenue from Internet uses, it will only grow over time.

              Regards,

              Lee Johnson
              [email protected]

              • Straight up, Lee.

              • Lee,

                Somewhere this thread started of talking about Rumblefish, audioswap and Youtube, and then there were several posts about people getting dropped by libraries, including Shockwave because of Youtube issues.

                This is starting to get complicated because there are overlapping issues including, but not limited to the following:

                1) AudioSparx won’t deal with writers who sign with Rumblefish, but will monetize tracks through Youtube in a similar manner.

                2) Shockwave is dropping writers who monetize through Youtube, BUT… Bjorn Lynne (Shockwave) is one of AS top selling artists. I assume then that he opted out of internet royalties.

                I would really appreciate it it if you, Bjorn and Mark (PIR / Music Loops) would weigh in on this issue.

                Is there a way that royalty free libraries can keep their customers happy without diminishing
                composers’ opportunities to monetize their catalog?

                Best regards,

                Michael

                • It is a little complicated. AudioSparx does NOT accept new applicants that sell via RumbleFish and various other sites because we believe they are under-pricing music excessively, devaluing the industry and leading a race-to-the-bottom mentality. Our position on this has nothing to do with GoDigital, YouTube or Internet Royalties.

                  AudioSparx does operate its own Internet Royalties program to monetize Internet uses of the music of our composer community. GoDigital and YouTube are valued partners in this program.

                  To clarify the requirements for our Internet Royalties program, artists that wish to participate may only participate with tracks that they are licensing exclusively at AudioSparx.
                  Any artist that does not have exclusive tracks here is not eligible to participate.

                  Regarding this: “Is there a way that royalty free libraries can keep their customers happy without diminishing
                  composers’ opportunities to monetize their catalog?”
                  the answer is a resounding YES! Any affected client may request that we demonetize their video so that they can either have it permanently demonetized, or monetize it for their own benefit. Demonetizing typically happens within an hour of any request, hence it is not a cumbersome or lengthy process.

                  Frankly we rarely receive such requests, and we currently have over 33,000 videos monetized for the benefit of our participating composers. As long as the videos remain online, they earn residual recurring revenue for the composers here.

                  • Thanks Lee.

                    You’ve answered some of the questions that I just posed over in the general questions thread.

                    From what you’re saying it’s fairly easy to take care of affected clients. Thus, I am left to conclude that the libraries dropping writers do not have the human resources, or inclination, to take the steps to demonetize tracks when a client has a problem.

                    As I said in that post, writers are left with two choices.

                    Thanks,

                    Michael

        • And… does anyone really aspire to have their music as part of that dreck?

          • I make my music for people to use and enjoy. Every time someone puts my song on their video, that makes me really happy.
            If that’s dreck, count me in.

  51. Can anyone tell me if this Content ID match problem only appears with Music in audioswap?

    I have a lot of music with RF but not all of my stuff is on through audioswap. If this is the case I can just remove these audioswap tracks from other libraries and shouldn’t have a problem with content matches in the future.

    am i right?

    • It’s not just audioswap, ANY music of yours that youtube’s content ID system recognizes will be monitized and a email will be sent to the uploader saying-
      “Dear xxxx,
      Your video, xxxx, may have content that is owned or licensed by Rumblefish.
      No action is required on your part; however, if you are interested in learning how this affects your video, please visit the Content ID Matches section of your account for more information.
      Sincerely,
      – The YouTube Team”

      However, for instance, all my music is in the Rumbleish content ID thing and all my music in also in a bunch of other libraries and I have not gotten any real complaints from other libraries or music buyers about the fact that the uploader cannot monitize their video because my song is on it. I give away my music to people that want to use it on youtube videos because they monitize for me, whether or not those songs are actually in audioswap, they’re still making me money.

      The only problem I had was with one library http://www.Shockwave-Sound.com -Bjorn Lynne
      He is the only one that refuses my music based on the fact I’m in Youtube’s content ID
      Nevertheless more libraries keep accepting me.
      If people don’t want an ad on their video they can put it on vimeo or some other place.
      And the bottom line is this-
      You can sell your music royalty free for a small upfront fee
      and make money on top of that through youtube.
      OR
      You can sell your music royalty free for a small upfront fee to maybe 5%-10% fewer buyers, and NOT make money off youtube.

      I think the former is better, especially if your tracks are on iTunes and Amazon, because every video that has a content match has a link to buy the track under the video. (if the track is for sale)

      • So basically any music that goes through RF ends up with youtubes content Id system? IN which case the only way to avoid the issue is to Not send RF any more tunes or Remix the ones I have and perhaps give them different names.

        I’ve now lost 2 good companies from this issue,which is through no fault of my own nor the licensing company. Not very fair.

        • I don’t know if remixing would help because if just a few seconds of your songs are the same it still might show in Content ID. I added a beat to a beatless song and it still was a match. You’re better off just making new songs than remixing old ones.
          I know how you feel about it not being fair.
          Since this thing is just at the very beginning of sorting itself out, I think the question right now is not what’s fair, but what is the best option at the moment. One could argue it’s not fair for the music buyer that doesn’t know they won’t be able to monitize their youtube video with the music they just bought. What is fair is such a grey zone right now because of the evolving situation. This whole content ID thing will be guided by the market and a lot of things are going to change in this business. Right now it’s chaos, the wild west and I think it will get worse before it gets better.
          The best thing for you to do is call or email Rumblefish and tell them you lost two libraries. I did that and Paul Anthony the CEO of RF got on the phone with me and explained his vision of how he sees this unfolding in the future. A conversation with RF will help you make an informed decision.
          I’m curious bmk, what libraries dropped you?

          • I must be clear that i dont want to bad mouth RF, after all the lions share of my earnings comes through them, however I think they do need to look into the issue that myself and other composers are having.

            Having other revenue streams shut down because of the youtube ID issue is not beneficial to the composers, and we do work hard! It reflects badly on us I feel, and I wish not to be “black listed” just because my music is with a certain company etc.

            Id rather not specifically mention individual libraries that i’ve had this problem with, but one of them was a UK based company. Although my earnings from them are not massive they still contribute and they are a nice bunch of people to work with. Also, as a UK library I can earn £’s rather than $’s. As a uk resident nearly all my income from music is in $’s and its always hit really hard by the bad exchange rate! So any GBP earnings are welcome!

            I’m only here on a day pass and really wanted to clarify the issue with others. RF very very rarely respond to my emails. I may just give them a call though.

  52. Stuart Moore says:

    I’ve removed my post that was here as it was based on assumptions rather than facts. Sorry Lee.

  53. Stuart Moore says:

    I ran into a problem today. Someone purchased one of my tracks through Shockwave Sound and recieved a warning from youtube saying that Rumblefish owns my music. The song they purchased is not even available through Rumblefish but it got flagged anyway. Not sure what the deal is here. I’m awaiting a reply from Rumblefish.

    • Yeah, well I am with Rumblefish and I just got the following email–
      “Hi Dhruva,

      I hope you’re well. I was getting close to adding your music to Shockwave-Sound.com and as a part of that, I just make a little test video and upload it to YouTube – with some of your music.

      Unfortunately, I received an email from YouTube saying that your music is owned by Rumblefish and now advertising is appearing on my video.

      Dhruva, this is a major problem for me. I can’t use your music so long as it generates “owned by Rumblefish” messages to my customers. We cannot have a situation where a customer buys music from us, uses it, and is then told that the music belongs to somebody else. It makes us look really bad. It makes us look like we’re not legit, and I simply can’t have that.

      An additional problem is that customers who use your music and get that Rumblefish ownership message, are unable to monetize their own videos by harvesting ad-share money — because ad-share on that video is already covered. 🙁 So basically, the serious YouTube video creators can’t collect ad money on their own videos if your music is in that video.

      I’m really sorry Dhruva, but so long as your music is hampered by the “owned by xx” messages to YouTube uploaders, and monetized via YouTube fingerprinting programs such as Rumblefish, I can’t use your music. Sorry about that.

      Kind regards,
      Bjorn Lynne – Lynne Publishing
      http://www.Shockwave-Sound.com (Royalty Free Music)
      http://www.1SoundFX.com (100,000+ Royalty Free Sound Effects)”

      So I forwarded that to Rumblefish and they said they wanted to talk to Bjorn and told me “Rumblefish still definitely supports the non-exclusive model of music licensing and we hope that you are able to get your music out there and used in as many ways as possible. It is clear that social media uses are a huge part of the future of music licensing, and artists that have their music in the Content ID systems of YouTube and other sites stand to capitalize on the use of their music. We see the issues that most clients have as more of a YouTube education problem than a licensing problem, and we hope that we can be part of the education of users and music licensing.”

      My solution to this whole mess is–

      youtube could invite all music libraries to register with youtube and when an uploader’s video gets matched (which is always immediately) youtube will then ask the uploader- “What music library did you license this music from?” Lets say, it’s a song from Bjorn’s library but that song is also in Rumblefish. The uploader tells youtube he got it from Bjorn. Well then Bjorn looks legit and doesn’t have to worry, and the uploader doesn’t have to worry about getting a scary email. Also, the uploader knows what to expect as far as ads and monetization. Because Bjorn gets to choose how his library content is monetized. Bjorn says to youtube- “I don’t want those goofy bar “Overlay Ads” on the bottom of my customer’s videos.” Maybe Bjorn just wants a “side ad”, or “after ad” (which he explains to his customers will happen when they visit his site).
      Or maybe Bjorn is happy with just a one time buyout fee from his customers on his “royalty free” site and he doesn’t want any revenue from youtube. Lord knows he ain’t getting any right now. But maybe Bjorn will choose to opt in later to get some of the ad share if a customer becomes a partner (which Bjorn will also explain to his customers before they buy). Bjorn is free to choose how he structures his deal with youtube and his customers. And the customers are free to choose which library they want to deal with based on how each library has their deal laid out. The Buyer will ask himself-
      Will this library put ads on our near my video or not?
      Will this library allow me to monetize as a youtube partner or not?
      Will this library take a share of my partner revenue or not?
      The Buyer chooses what library to buy from. The freedom to CHOOSE is KEY.

      The Nobel prize winning economist Milton Freedman wrote a bestselling book called “Free to Choose” in which he demonstrates quite clearly that economies thrive when people are free to choose. There is more for everybody when there is more choice. Our economy is not a finite pie where everybody scrounges for a slice until there is none left. No. Our economy bakes more pie when there is more freedom of choice. Choice leads to more creativity, more production and more music being used.

      Music Buyers may use one library for one youtube project, and another library for a different youtube project, depending one what their projects are. This is better than them just giving up on doing some of their projects because the licensing system is to rigid and non-optional to accommodate them.

  54. Here’s a copy of the e-mail YouTube sends to video producers who use music purchased somewhere else but also represented by Rumblefish for YouTube.
    ———————

    Dear xxxx,
    Your video, xxxx, may have content that is owned or licensed by Rumblefish.

    No action is required on your part; however, if you are interested in learning how this affects your video, please visit the Content ID Matches section of your account for more information.

    Sincerely,
    – The YouTube Team

    • Hey Art, even though I’m with Rumblefish, go digital somehow got my songs and retitled the artist name, not the track name, and put them in the audioswap library under a different band name “audio masters” which encompassed other artists as well. But I talked to my Rumblefish rep and she said–
      “It looks like Rumblefish is actually receiving the payments for any ad revenue from tracks added by GoDigital, since your tracks are thumbprinted as Rumblefish being the “owner”. Its just that it looks like GoDigital uploaded them into the YouTube system.”
      SHE ALSO SAID–
      “I cannot really do a whole lot about another library using your music. However, we will be taking over “ownership” of songs in the APM library that Go Digitial represents in the coming months. In the meantime I can switch the artist name Audio Masters to your name if you would like?”

      So she took care of the problem. I didn’t appreciate Go Digital using my music under a different artist name. I never even heard of “Audio Masters”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *