Tagged: #soundexchange #se
- This topic has 33 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 3 months ago by Art Munson.
By opting out of their international mandate, it has the following effects, all related to commerce outside the US:
Positive Aspects of Opting Out:
1. You avoid giving SoundExchange exclusive control over licensing the rights to your sound recordings outside the US.
2. You can participate in direct-licensing commerce outside the US.
3. You can license your own music directly to clients outside the US.
Negative Aspects of Opting Out:
1. You can’t participate in statutory/compulsory licensing outside the US for your artist and/or sound recording owner rights.
AudioSparx is actively trying to get SoundExchange to change their international mandate from an exclusive license to a non-exclusive one, in the same way that ASCAP and BMI have been forced to operate in a strictly non-exclusive manner.
If we are successful, this will have a huge benefit for US artists and sound recording owners, because then they, and you, will be able to participate in both direct licensing and statutory licensing commerce outside the US, just like composers are able to do right now.
Does that mean that I would lose royalty payments from SoundExchange, for instance, on songs that otherwise SoundExchange would be collecting royalties on for international use?Lee JohnsonGuest
Yes, that is correct. This is what is very bad about the structure of their exclusive license, in that it forces you to choose to participate in either statutory licensing, or direct licensing, and you can’t do both simultaneously.stnmusicParticipant
I’m finally filling out the Rights-Owner-Repertoire excel form. I only register the tracks that I sell via music libraries. So should I put “none” in the Album and Marketing Label fields? Also, the form requires ISRC which I don’t have since I don’t have a distributor. What do I do here?
Of course, I asked SE these questions but still waiting for their answer.. just resent the email with questions again, maybe more luck this time.
Thanks in advance!
None of the thousands of library tracks and TV/Film tracks that I’ve done have ever ended up in the arena that sound exchange pays out for. I think you are most likely wasting your time unless you’re releasing an “album” or the like for commercial release / broadcast / listening.
At least that’s how they explained it to me.mingin1Participant
I have a stupid question: Can you register tracks at soundexchange for collecting digital royalties, even when those tracks are only on royalty free Libraries ( royalty free music) ?
Thank you !Art MunsonKeymaster
Can you register tracks at soundexchange for collecting digital royalties, even when those tracks are only on royalty free Libraries ( royalty free music)
I only do for the tracks I have released for digital distribution (Spotify, iTunes, etc.). I am not sure there is an advantage for tracks only in RF libraries.mingin1Participant
Thank you Art,
I wondering if this is possible, because a lot of Librarys provide / deliver music for streaming online radio stuff. But I think its not legit when your music is royalty free on the market.
But I think its not legit when your music is royalty free on the market.
Don’t understand that sentence. What’s not legit?
Essentially SE pays only for “digital radio station” type plays. Not youtube, other video based web performances, or netflix, amazon vod, etc..MichaelLParticipant
Essentially SE pays only for “digital radio station” type plays. Not youtube, other video based web performances, or netflix, amazon vod, etc..
To be specific, SoundExchange collects/pays for non-interactive digital sources.
Michael – what constitutes “interactive” in this context? Thx.MichaelLParticipant
Michael – what constitutes “interactive” in this context? Thx.
As you might guess, it involves the amount of control the listener has over what they are listening to. The interesting thing about this section of the statute is that it appears that even the music a service selects for you, based on what you have requested, is considered interactive.
As is often the case with the law, we infer what something is by the definition of what it is not. 17 U.S. Code § 114(j)(7) defines “interactive” as follows:
7) An “interactive service” is one that enables a member of the public to receive a transmission of a program specially created for the recipient, or on request, a transmission of a particular sound recording, whether or not as part of a program, which is selected by or on behalf of the recipient. The ability of individuals to request that particular sound recordings be performed for reception by the public at large, or in the case of a subscription service, by all subscribers of the service, does not make a service interactive, if the programming on each channel of the service does not substantially consist of sound recordings that are performed within 1 hour of the request or at a time designated by either the transmitting entity or the individual making such request. If an entity offers both interactive and noninteractive services (either concurrently or at different times), the noninteractive component shall not be treated as part of an interactive service.
Keep in mind that SoundExchange collects/pays royalties for performers and master rights owners, not composers. What SoundExchange collects is similar to neighboring rights royalties paid in Rome Treaty countries.
If you want to read unit you pass out, here’s a link to an annotated copy of the full statute from Harvard Law:
This raises the question as to whether creating playlists on subscription services really has an impact? My personal experience is that my SoundExchange royalties have come from services in which the listener has no control in music selection, like cable music channels.
Wouldn’t Netflix, etc. be considered interactive then?UpFromTheSkiesParticipant
Is anyone on here claiming “artist” share on music they have released with exclusive libraries? Obviously, the library (label) becomes the “Rights Owner,” but what of the other half of the pie?