- This topic has 190 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Yes, a lot of reporting about libraries happens here. And lots of music library writers work with ADREV so it would be nice to hear about those experiences too. Or are there strict reporting rules here? Is it limited to libraries?
No.
If you know people that are making money from AdRev, tell them to come here and report their experiences. I am not doubting you or saying that you are hiding something.
There is no conspiracy theory going on. Just let us know what the real deal is as far as making money. I believe that the program is helpful for detecting usages. But I am not convinced that it helps composers to make more money.
Whatever proof you have, share it!!!
Whatever proof you have, share it!!!
I ‘ingested’ (love that term) about 30 tracks into AdRev and they make about $500 – $900 a month. Keep in mind that the majority of these were ‘epic’ tracks, which get shared a lot on YT. They’re not for sale on any RF site.
I imagine there are some high end libraries that make a fortune from content ID. Can you imagine the check Two Steps From Hell gets?!
I think it’s worth getting involved in content ID if you have tracks that are getting uploaded to YT all the time (by trailer music fans etc) and they regularly get 1000s of views.
The higher end of the licensing business is a much better fit for content ID because the clientele – major distributors and promo channels, are all whitelisted (no matched content flags to worry about). The libraries at this level are also usually exclusive.
Non-exclusive libraries (particularly RF ones) and content ID are just not ready for each other right now. Hopefully there will be a solution soon that changes things in that regard.
Soundroad, it is difficult to get past the first line of defense with Orchard. PM me here on MLR and I will send you direct email addresses for the contacts that work for me.
You have to send them a really professional email though that includes obvious proof that you are the copyright holder of the music in question.I ‘ingested’ (love that term) about 30 tracks into AdRev and they make about $500 – $900 a month. Keep in mind that the majority of these were ‘epic’ tracks, which get shared a lot on YT. They’re not for sale on any RF site.
I think it’s worth getting involved in content ID if you have tracks that are getting uploaded to YT all the time (by trailer music fans etc) and they regularly get 1000s of views.
Non-exclusive libraries (particularly RF ones) and content ID are just not ready for each other right now.
Which is the point of what most of us have been trying to make.
If you have:
1) high-profile music in a popular genre, like Epic,
2) by a well-known composer like Mark,
3) with a fan-base that is likely to be sharing (not paying for) your music in youtube videos,Then AdRev makes all the sense in the world.
That is a completely different scenario than someone ripping a piece of RF music and throwing it onto a wedding video that might get a dozen views.
If I were in Mark’s (Petrie) position, I would sign up for AdRev. But, as a composer whose focus is on mostly anonymous non-exclusive RF music, for which there is no fan base, it doesn’t make sense, at this time.
What you decide to do really depends on where you fit in the musical food chain. I’m too far down for it to matter much financially. So, I choose to self-monitor, as Mark Lewis has outlined, simply to catch and hopefully stop the thieves.
Mark’s position is a lot like yours MichaelL. He has music in NE RF libraries that would cause problems if they were registered in contentID and he has exclusive music out there which the contentID system was perfectly designed for.
As you always say… separate your music catalog and distribute through the appropriate channels.And now the discussion is beginning to move somewhere. First, let me say that I agree that ADREV is a non event for new composers with 20 tracks on the market. Thank you Mark for offering your experience with 30 tracks in the system. I’m sure you may be asking what it would be if you ingested another 200. I do disagree that the statement:
Adrev only makes sense
If you have:
1) high-profile music in a popular genre, like Epic,
2) by a well-known composer like Mark,
3) with a fan-base that is likely to be sharing (not paying for) your music in youtube videos.I think it makes sense for any composer that has been dealing their music in any and all markets for 5 – 10 years and has a catalog of say 100 to 1000 tracks. When do we know when a video will march on to 1 million views? The numbers are now starting to make some sense for all you doubters. The protection and control and empowerment composers have through ADREV certainly makes sense. Remember the overseas publisher who was going to direspectfully slip a “freebie giveaway” of my friends track so his client could use it on youtube. Then the ADREV folks came in and called a time out, allowing my friend to look at the usage and ask questions: What’s it for? Are you paying me a sync fee? Why are you not paying a sync fee? Why are you talking about royalties when those only occur if music is broadcast on TV?
Mark, I get the impression you own a RF company and are really concerned about all of your composers ADREVing away? Instead of suppressing composers and disallowing them some control over how their music is used on YT, why not allow Content ID and on the license ‘s you sell give the e-mail address of the composer with a statement that says “if you are going to use this royalty free track on YOUTUBE, please e-mail this license to ADREV to have your video white listed. Here is the e-mail of the composer that owns the master recording, they too can clear any claims and help white list your videos/ channel from ads appearing.”
Instead, we have companies that are now taking this “hassle free” approach. Sure it’s hassle free to the RF company itself, but still oppressive to the end creator. I know, you don’t want all those e-mails from customers saying “What’s the deal man, I have an ad on my video” – I say just give them the info on how to clear the issue up on the license itself.
And Michael L, I am not interested your response, we know where you stand, give others some space to chime into this discussion. Thanks!
And for you composers reading this or new to this business NEVER EVER and I mean NEVER opt into a Content ID program offered by the library publishing your music where THEY collect the ad revenue first, then distribute your YT earnings cut to you. Clearly this is what all publishers would want. They say “let’s just exploit all 30,000 tracks on ADREV to our benefit FIRST and take advantage of ignorant and uneducated composers who simply see this as a way to make some more money.”
If you are going to enter Content ID. DO IT YOURSELF! No one needs to get between you and your rightful Youtube Content ID royalties (also known as “advertising revenue”). What we really need is a Tsunami of composers jumping on this bandwagon and submitting to this system. This puts all the control of your music as it relates to YOUTUBE back in YOUR hands. Why? because you will see first hand every video on YT using your music. You will get to decide which customers deserve to be white listed for buying a license. Those who don’t produce a license or stole your music…well oops, an ad is going on and you will collect YT royalties, not your publisher, but YOU…the original creator. That’s the way it should be!
Getting back to my friend and his story from his overseas publisher…he always says that he frequently asks the guy “Hey Mr Publisher, have you sold any licenses for my tracks?” The response has always been “Nothing Yet.” But wait…now that the tracks are in Content ID, suddenly his track is going on a video for YOUTUBE! and a claim was sent to the music user, the client of the publisher. But the publisher has always said “nahh, no licenses yet!…but we’ll keep on plugging away.” So yes, ADREV also prevents dishonest publishers from being dishonest! They now suddenly have to be honest about when they deal composers’ music to clients for YT videos!
This all happened because of ADREV. So as an answer to the original question in this thread: How to stop the systematic violator of copyright?
One way to help prevent it is by uploading all your titles to ADREV. At the very least, you will get to know what is going on with your music in the YOUTUBE space!
Mark Petrie, congratulations on picking up an extra $10,000 a year in easy passive income from your 30 tracks. Just Imagine what that may be if you escalate it to 300. 10K per year is certainly not pennies found on the street like some are portraying ADREV to be here. That sounds like a sweet additional revenue stream that all writers can use after 15 years of brutal music devaluation.
Not to sidetrack this discussion but I just received a copyright claim on visual content administered by orchard music. The visual content in question is a stock after effects template that is properly licensed. I wouldn’t add this to the junk claim pile because it is the same template, but it just goes to show that it is not just music that customers worry about getting claims, it is visuals too. Just something to think about.
And Michael L, I am not interested your response, we know where you stand, give others some space to chime into this discussion
David, comments like this will surely get you banned from MLR forever. It’s not the first time and they add nothing to the discussion!
Wow, this was a heated discuasion….
Well, here’s my situation: I finnaly decided to try Adrev with a handfull of tracks. Not sure it was a great idea, but At least I will find out. I will post my experiences here as soon as I’ve got anything useful to report.
I am a pretty average RF composer I guess. Not full time, no crazy amounts of sales and not a lot of fans that would rip my tracks.
I highly doubt I will see any decent money from this, and I also highly doubt I will find out about massive missuse of my music, but you never know….
That being said, I have yet not recieved one single complain from customers about the tracks I have uploaded.If you are going to enter Content ID. DO IT YOURSELF! No one needs to get between you and your rightful Youtube Content ID royalties (also known as “advertising revenue”).
The problem here is that this poses a big problem for the libraries if you enter your tracks into the CID system yourself assuming you are earning money from libraries. You are essentially biting the hand that feeds you.
If libraries are selling licenses with your music, they NEED to be able to administer the timely removal of claims from the CID system themselves without needing intervention from you as you would have no way of knowing if each license is authentic or not. This poses a big problem. If they sell a license to a client and that client has a YouTube claim and fuming mad because you are advertising and monetizing their video, they will contact the library to get this removed. The library can’t remove the claim since the track is not being administered by them. This is where the problem comes in that explains why libraries are against composers that enter their music into CID themselves. You would be getting in between the library and their clients and this could result in the library losing clients, you losing licenses and possibly you getting booted from libraries. Let’s not forget that music licensing is the main goal here, and in most situations CID causes problems for the active parties involved unless the libraries administer the content ID themselves giving them the power to properly service their clients. The more composers that enter tracks into CID themselves, the more problems this will cause driving more clients to exclusive libraries where either ALL tracks are guaranteed to not be in CID, or ALL tracks are guaranteed to be controlled in CID only by the library. Remember that if you are with non exclusive libraries and you enter your tracks into CID yourself, you are breaking the YouTube terms and conditions as you no longer have exclusive streaming rights, this opens you up to litigation if there is a lawsuit by a client to the library (which is becoming more and more common).@Jay. I believe the conclusion here is that you would only enter exclusive music that you had not placed with any libraries. That would seem the cleanest way to go.
Ahh yes, well in that case, if the music is purely for album release or for other non licensing/non library uses I can see how entering these tracks into CID could be a good thing.
Art, Sorry about the disrespectful language, I apologize to all.
I am very glad to see other names chime in though.
Jay, I hear what you are saying about administering. What I have been hearing from a lot of composers, those with a 100 to 200 in ADREV, for example is this:
1. It’s not always the “best seller” that runs on some video that suddenly takes off on youtube.Any track can suddenly go to millions of views.
2. They believe most of the general public does not quite understand YOUTUBE ads, and many out there simply think “oh geez that’s just the way YOUTUBE is these days, we have to deal with an ad first before our video shoews.”
3. Anyone presenting a music license (i.e. the customer) can get the video white listed before it goes live, or immediately after it goes live by e-mailing ADREV the license and asking “Please do not put ads on here.”
And sorry, but the library CAN remove the claim because they have a copy of the license they sold. This ends the “big problem”.
4. Regarding “biting the hand that feeds you”. I’m sorry but maybe its time that everyone accept this as the new way of doing business and one more “proof of purchase” step needs to take place to give back some control to creators who experience unlicensed and illegal use of their music non stop.
Content ID is great for composers because we can monitor and approve of every usage on YOUTUBE. The unlicensed videos can be IDENTIFIED. It’s bad for libraries because they don’t want to do some occasional extra work (eliminating claims) that will cut into their margins a tiny bit.Most writers indeminify publishers so the litigation will go back to writer. The litigation does not need to happen if people simply use a license to clear a claim. That can be done by 3 parties, the company selling the license, the customer who bought it (can send it to ADREV and be instructed to so on the license), or the original creator of the track who ADREV’d up.
Composers I speak to in the ADREV system report this type of experience: ” In the last 6 to 12 months, I have had like 5 to 10 customers write to me, I removed the claim for them and it was no big deal, no one was upset, they requested that I remove the ad, and I did so.”
The music license can solve the ad issues for YT customers and that is a positive development for writers. You can not deny that. We only have something to gain through content ID, why should we be sharing those royalties with a library or another midlle man? Just because library owners don’t want some extra work e-mailing licenses to ADREV?
Jay, you sound like you own a library, do you?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.