TuneSat Announces Low-Price Service for Small Publishers


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

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

Its new online portal allows publisher to sign up, upload songs it wants tracks, and pick which country’s television broadcasts it wants monitored. Monthly subscription rates vary by number of tracks, type of service, and territories to be monitored, starting at as little as $10 per month, which gets 10 songs tracked in the U.S. market.

In addition to its new pricing model, the company has extended its reach to include TV broadcasts in eight new European territories: Austria, Denmark, Finland, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland, in addition to over 200 channels in the US, UK, France, Germany and Italy.

Within hours after an audio file is uploaded for fingerprinting, the service begins delivering track usage. In addition, TuneSat reports provide data regarding usage rates for a catalog or specific writers, artists, and tracks, as well as gauging revenue patterns over time.

“There is more of a need than ever for global transparency around the use of copyrights,” TuneSat co-founder and COO Chris Woods said in a statement. “Our monitoring to date shows that 80% of music on TV is unreported, and often music synchronization is not properly licensed in the first place.”

You can find them here:

30 Replies to “TuneSat Announces Low-Price Service for Small Publishers”

  1. I have received a number of ASCAP cue sheets that were not detected by tunesat. Has anyone else had this happen? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around?

    1. Tunesat doesn’t get every channel. I recently had music in a show on Lifetime Movie Network which Tunesat didn’t track. Also Tunesat will miss some as well as your PRO.

  2. My Tunesat account works fine for uploading. But my friend’s new Tunesat account shows the “maintenance” error when he attempts to upload the initial tracks to a new account. I was able to upload a track to my account, and his shows the upload error during this same period of time. Both are free accounts. My account had most of the 50 tracks uploaded, but I had missed a few, and used those empty slots to test the upload capability. There may be something about a brand-new [free] account that causes this wait time. Insights, anyone?

  3. I’ve been trying to upload tunes to Tunesat for the last week, but I keep getting a window that says I can’t upload due to maintenance on their servers. I emailed them last week, but received no response. Anyone here having the same problems or have any info?

  4. Price drops or not, that still doesn’t resolve tracks that have multiple titles. If we want to be able to monitor our non-exclusive tracks, it’s a waste of money to subscribe, especially if we have our non-exclusive tracks spread out amongst a number of libraries.

    1. Not a waste of money to me. I discovered two uses that Tunesat picked up. One netted me $1500. The other is a jingle that was purchased from an RF site. It would not have been paid by BMI had I not tracked down the sponsor and filled out the jingle data sheet.

      1. Interesting, so Art did you have to chase the production company yourself and ask them to file a cuesheet?

        And they believed your claim based on Tunesat report alone?

        1. I did chase the production company and in the case of the $1500 recovery there was no cuesheet as it ran on ESPNU and they only direct license.

          In the second (most recent) case there is no cuesheet but a Jingle Data Sheet which I will submit to BMI with a copy of the commercial, “Bounce Back Abs”. I found the commercial running on the Soap Channel and ESPN via Tunesat. I contacted the sponsor using a Google search and they directed me to the production company which sent me a copy of the commercial. Not sure how much money will be there but there should be something.

          1. Thanks for the clarification Art.

            That’s interesting, looks like in this new world, we’ll have to do a lot of work ourselves. As I said before my publisher (a major) wouldn’t join Tunesat.

            And also makes me think that I’d be unrealistic to chase a production company in US if I’m based in Europe.

  5. I’m still trying to make what I consider a tough decision to join tunesat or not. I have about 200-250 tracks that I would be interested in monitoring, but more would be added regularly. There is the expense of it, which is signaficant, so wonder if everyone here who uses it feels like it’s worth it???
    Also, I’ve wondered if usages are detected are you just sending that to your PROs to get those rectified or are you having to contact the libraries/production companies to get those sorted out, re-submit cue sheet, etc? I hope it’s the former rather than the later…

    1. I’m finding that I have to chase down the production companies. I collected $1500 last year from an unauthorized use. Recently Tunesat detected my music on a “Bounce Back Abs” commercial running on the Soap Channel and ESPN. I’ve tracked down the companies involved and submitting the paperwork and commercial to BMI. That cue was purchased off of a royalty free site.

      1. What do you think your net gain has been (if it is a net gain) with Tunesat if you had to ballpark it?
        Also, have you ever considered using their collection service?

        1. Probably paid for a couple of years worth of Tunesat.

          I would use their service if it looked like big bucks. I’m not sure the “Bounce Back Abs” commercial would be. I think BMI does not have a deal with ESPN though they do with the Soap channel.

    2. I’m wondering the same thing. Is there a way to file your own cue sheets or corrections for unreported uses? The idea of chasing down the production companies is not appealing to me!

      1. Generally, the PROS do not accept cue sheets from composers, or even publishers. They claim to be concerned with fraud.

        The only way that I am able to submit cue sheets to ASCAP is by forwarding original emails from the show’s producer with the cue sheets attached.

        If you believe that there is an error on your statement you can notify your PRO in writing. I just switched to BMI from ASCAP. I was told by BMI’s LA office that they would look at tunesat data if there’s a discrepancy. That does not mean that they will accept it, but they will look at it to investigate the claim. It also helps to develop a relationship with a member services rep at your PRO. They can help with problems.

        With respect to tracking down producers, the jury is out on that. I know that Art has been successful. BUT…I had a conversation with the owner of a well known retitling library that is moving in the exclusive direction. One of the BIG problems that some producers are having with retitling is composers hassling them trying to find out which library placed their cue on a particular show. That annoys them to no end, and contributes to some producers closing the door on re-title libraries.

        So..perhaps tread lightly with tunesat data, and reserve chasing producers for unauthorized uses.

        1. MichaelL said: “One of the BIG problems that some producers are having with retitling is composers hassling them trying to find out which library placed their cue on a particular show.”

          The only time I would chase somebody if I was fairly sure I wasn’t going to paid or the it would go unreported.

          In the instance of my first “chase down” it aired on ESPNU and they only direct license, something I didn’t agree to. In this latest, second, instance it’s a commercial. The people involved had no idea about BMI payments and the requirements for filing a Jingle Data Sheet. I’m still chasing down the sponsor to get the local air dates for BMI. The sponsor has not replied to two e-mails but I have the Tunesat data to back me up.

          So, to reiterate, I would only go after instances where I felt the uses would not get reported.

          1. @Art, I think you fall safely in the category of appropriate pursuit.

            The conversation that I had dealt with overzealous writers trying to figure out which library got them the placement. The upshot of the producers’ response was, “if this is what retitling leads to, we don’t need the hassle.”

            1. From Tunesat’s newsletter just yesterday:

              “[Use] our automated reports to compare TuneSat data with PRO statements and see the missing performances clearly. Contacting your Performing Rights Organization with these unpaid exception reports will enable you to claim all the money you are due.”

              They make it sound like you can get your PRO to handle it in a snap, but I can’t see that happening very easily – maybe I’m wrong. Seems to me like you would be hassling production companies.

  6. According to the rate sheet on their site it $70.00 per month for 100 songs monitored in the U.S. alone. That’s $840.00 a year (plus setup fees). Not too bad if the service can get you that much or more in un-reported usage.

  7. If those stats are accurate – and it is possible to recover the money – then I might be tempted; but for say global monitoring of 100 library tracks, you’re talking around $3,000 a year – so you’d have to be pretty confident that those stats accurately reflect your own usage and ability to recover the royalties!

  8. Scary stat:

    “Our monitoring to date shows that 80% of music on TV is unreported, and often music synchronization is not properly licensed in the first place.”

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.