Blanket Licenses

[Kiwi]

Great discussion going on here guys. I do think it is time that we all address the serious problem with blanket licensing and even start a thread on it. I have a lot to offer to such a thread because I have done my homework. In a nutshell, Kiwi is 100% correct. All these NE retitlers have basically built up a free catalog and are now selling the music they collected for free to scripps, a non pro TV network offering no back end royalties for placements (for example), and not paying any writers a dime from these blanket deals. They basically are saying “you need music, we have music, we’re going to sell you the music that other people created and keep the money for ourselves.”

I believe you’ve misconstrued my comments.

For the sake of clarity, I wasn’t addressing the Scripps situation. I was speaking in regard to blanket licenses in general and, though I didn’t clarify it, was referring to libraries that ask for an exclusive agreement with the composer. To me the non-sharing of blanket licenses isn’t quite so egregious in the context of non-exclusive agreements as it is with exclusives. At least with the non-exclusive agreement you have the choice to market the music elsewhere and the library can’t brand themselves as exclusive which increases value for themselves as it diminishes value for the composer.

[Kiwi]

Also, I’m not trying to suggest that an “us vs them” approach is the way to go. That seems very non-productive to me. What I am saying is that it’s a marketplace and in a marketplace standards emerge because the parties involved agree to them, either formally or tacitly.

When supply is huge it becomes a buyer’s market. I believe we have an extreme case of that right now. I don’t blame the libraries or anyone else for taking advantage of it. It’s business. Successful business people take advantage of circumstances that are favorable to them.

I want the people that I do business with to be successful. I just want my fair part of that success for providing the content. That’s why I intend to stop agreeing to terms that don’t provide for what I see as a fair sharing of the wealth.

Everybody has to decide this stuff for themselves. I’m not calling for revolution, just trying to take part in a discussion.

[Frankie]

@Kiwi, that’s what I was mostly referring to. Exclusive libraries (who mostly place for television) are receiving blanket licenses with no payback to the composer while the composer is also unable to send their music elsewhere. With NE they are receiving blanket licenses, but at least the composer is free to spread their music around.

“At least with the non-exclusive agreement you have the choice to market the music elsewhere and the library can’t brand themselves as exclusive which increases value for themselves as it diminishes value for the composer.”

Yes, yes, this exactly ^^^

(this is not in regards to exclusive trailer libraries since – from my understanding – they generate higher license monies which are split with the composer)

[Desire_Inspires]

@DI, There is no doubt that full time composers have been slightly disrupted by the weekend hobbyists, newcomers, “bedroom music makers” because there is income not traveling into full-timers pockets.

But you are right, anyone has their right to try and earn some extra income doing something they enjoy. With that said, what kind of “supplemental money” can be earned? $500 a month? $1000 a month? more? less?

And, how much time a week can someone with a full time job really put into composing?

As a hobbyist, none of those things concern me.

I write when I feel like writing and make what I can from working with the libraries that accept my style of music.

Believe me, nothing I create poses a threat to the majority of full time musicians. That is why I never understand the attitude from some people that do music as a career. Why do professionals look down on amateurs and hobbyists?

[Desire_Inspires]

What to do about it?

Pull your music out of all businesses that are not making you any money or very little money. Ask them to delete your profile and music from the site. Then ask them to delete all of your music from their hard drives. If they resist, escalate the situation and take to public forums about the situation.

I have been doing this lately and it feels great. It really feels liberating. Companies that can not produce income for your music should not possess it and make money off of it from their blanket licensing and youtube business plans. If you have had broadcast quality music sitting at a company for 18 months or more and have not been paid, it’s really time to get out.

That is good stuff. I have dumped a few libraries in the past because of a lack of action. Do whatever feel right to you.

[Advice]

For the sake of clarity, I wasn’t addressing the Scripps situation. I was speaking in regard to blanket licenses in general and, though I didn’t clarify it, was referring to libraries that ask for an exclusive agreement with the composer. To me the non-sharing of blanket licenses isn’t quite so egregious in the context of non-exclusive agreements as it is with exclusives. At least with the non-exclusive agreement you have the choice to market the music elsewhere and the library can’t brand themselves as exclusive which increases value for themselves as it diminishes value for the composer.

Yes, that’s the crux of it. Thanks for saying it so well, Kiwi.

[Kiwi]

My $.02 based on my experience and observations:

15 years ago sync fees and/or upfront money, or at least an equitable split on backend including blankets, was pretty much the norm with an exclusive agreement.

10 or so years ago someone had some very astute realizations regarding the potential behind re-titling and non-exclusive agreements. The implementation of these agreements was very attractive to many who would not have previously given up control to participate in exclusive agreements. Suddenly the marketplace was open to many who weren’t composers in the conventional sense. The marketplace became flooded and sync fees and blanket license shares disappeared. Many were fine with this, looking at it as an equitable trade-off for non-exclusive advantages. Folks new to the market didn’t know the difference.

5 or so years ago the writing was on the wall regarding retitling and some very clever players took full advantage of the ever increasing supply in the marketplace and the inherent shifting standards and reintroduced exclusivity as the new norm. Except, all of the previous advantages for the content providers that used to be a standard part of exclusive agreements are now gone. No more up front money, no more sync fees, no more equitable split of a now exclusive catalog which has increased considerably in value due to exclusivity.

There are some very astute business people doing an excellent job of exploiting the marketplace. Who could blame them? Think about it like this: You decide to open a fast food franchise in your neighborhood. You get your ducks in a row and now it’s time to hire people. You hang the help wanted sign and suddenly a hundred people show up with spatulas in hand saying “We love flipping burgers! Pay us? You don’t have to do that! We just love it. You keep the money…”

I’d be tempted to keep the money.

Like I said before, everybody has to make up their own mind and I’ll wish you well regardless of the path you take but I’m hoping that I can get at least one new person (or experienced) to fully consider what they are agreeing to. The people that are making gobs of money aren’t going to voluntarily straighten this stuff out. That’s on us.

[Marcum]

Kiwi, that was well put! I’m new to this site but have been working full time as a musician/composer with no day job for 7 years. Working in music for over 15 years but only been focusing on the licensing end of things for about 4. I’m only recently starting to get discouraged after being in several NE retitling libraries who have secured me a great deal of placements, all of which have added up to not very much in back end ASCAP income. One question I have that might seem dumb to some, but would the back end PRO income ever change for a particular placement when placed by a library who gets blanket licenses and does not share with the artist, vs a company who gets synch fees, vs a company who gets neither? Is the back end only determined by the PRO? I recently started getting some placements on shows like Dance Moms where they perform dances to my full songs, so I’m very much hoping this will bring in a great more deal more income than these smaller cable show placements. Also since the topic of Exclusive was brought up in this thread, another question I have is what are the chances you could really get caught and financially damaged by signing some songs exclusively with a company, even though you actually have it in other NE libraries? I passed up a large deal on a song for a liquor commercial because my song was sitting in a NE retitling library earning .35 every time it plays on Flipping out on Bravo.

[Advice]

Another question I have is what are the chances you could really get caught and financially damaged by signing some songs exclusively with a company, even though you actually have it in other NE libraries?

Absolutely, unequivocally, NEVER EVER do that! It is a breach of contract and even if you never got caught, you’d still be doing something highly unethical (at the least!). Would you want someone to sign a contract with YOU and violate it? How would you feel if you signed a contract with a library, they promised something in that contract, and then just decided to ignore that?

[Marcum]

true. I wouldn’t like that hanging over my head either. I only ask out of frustration lately. I would consider pulling my songs out of some of these NE libraries that aren’t earning me much income, but there are quite a few placements already made so I still couldn’t turn around and sign them with an exclusive. But maybe for the sake of us together as songwriters, we should pull our music out of these types of libraries. I saw this in an earlier thread, and it has merit. In your experience, is there still decent revenue to made long term from a company who places stuff on something like Fox Sports? Even though its just back end writers PRO, does not get you synch fees or share any blanket license fees?

[Kiwi]

I agree completely with Advice. I would never knowingly breach a contract like that. It’s not worth the risk to me and besides, the continued emergence of fingerprinting technologies could likely make it impossible to get away with.

To clarify, in my previous post I wasn’t railing against NE libraries. I don’t have a problem with that model as it’s commonly implemented. What I’ve noticed is the way that the NE model has played into the erosion of the exclusive model over the last 15 years or so (I know there are many variances for NE and exclusive deals – I’m just trying to keep it simple here to make a point). That doesn’t mean that I have a problem with NE agreements in and of themselves. In a historical sense they were very cleverly taken advantage of as a path way to our current state of affairs. That’s an observation of the production music world in general, not a criticism of the NE model.

What I do have a problem with now is that previously NE libraries have leveraged no-pay exclusivity and on top of that are starting to treat composers as if they were on staff with deadlines. This allows them to act as music houses more than libraries without paying for the labor they are monetizing. I don’t think that this is fair but I can’t blame them for doing it when so many are jumping for the “opportunity”. We’re giving it away and they are taking it and they’re making lots of money that they will not share with me or you. Once again, who could blame them. We’re lambs jumping for the knife.

Up until last year I was working on the composer teams for several popular cable shows and getting paid up front. Recently one of the larger newly-exclusive libraries signed a deal with the network that most of the shows are on so, for now, all that work is gone. I have music with that same library and I see the difference on my PRO statement every quarter. The library tracks never average as high as the tracks I was paid to do. It’s a simple fact: when someone pays for something they assign value to it and feel obligated to use it. No surprise there…

It’s just painful to watch us collectively shooting ourselves in the foot. Moving forward I’m not going to play into what I see as unfair practices moving and I hope that someone else reading this feels encouraged to do the same.

And I’m sure someone will chime in and say “That’s progress. Get over it. I like giving my music away for free.” Well, that’s exactly what I’m doing, moving along and adapting, but that doesn’t mean I like what I see. I’m glad to speak out about it as I’m moving past it.

[Marcum]

I agree with Kiwi that its not fair. and I appreciate the input.

Also would you have an answer to my question regarding PRO income? Could the same placement pay differently when secured by a different publisher, or is it only up to the PRO? In other words does it matter whether the library gets synch fees for their artist, or gets blanket deals with or without sharing with the artists, the back remains the same? And I mean the same placement, same time of day, length, channel, etc… basically does your library itself have anything to do with the money you make on the back end other than getting you placements?

Also are you ok with signing songs to NE’s, when they are receiving blanket payments for their catalog without sharing with the artist, and do not generate any synch fees for their artists? I still consider myself a newbie to licensing even though I have been working as a musician my whole life. And I do support myself entirely on playing/teaching/recording music. I’m wondering if all these companies I’m with who only generate back end money can really add up over time if you keep building your catalogs quality and volume? Or if the only way to really make good money is companies who get money up front? So far my small cable placements have been very low. However I did start getting placed on Fox sports often, and I would assume those are higher back end payments??

[Art Munson]

basically does your library itself have anything to do with the money you make on the back end other than getting you placements?

No, back end income rates are controlled by the PRO.

“I’m wondering if all these companies I’m with who only generate back end money can really add up over time if you keep building your catalogs quality and volume?”

Yes it can add up but it’s a long game with lots of product in a lot of shows.

[markbodino]

I’m relatively new to online music libraries. I have uploaded to a few sites. Royalty free. Non-exclusive. I was offered to be included in a library through “411”. What would be the advantage of being exclusive with so many other sites?

[zartan87]

“Before you dis “bedroom” music makers” you might want to do a pole of the full-time pros here to find out how many of us are working in spare rooms.

One of the most high profile, and high earning” cues, that everyone knows, “Mind Heist” (the trailer for Inception) was written and produced in an alcove in an apartment, with Logic and VSL.

You need to get hip to the fact that its a brave new world and very high end music can come out of small home-based spaces.

Never under estimate the competition.”

This is a perfect statement to me, it’s always seemed like a lame sales tactic to undermine the competition implying where it’s created is lesser or inferior thereby discouraging them from producing in general. Sad really.

[Author]

Posts