- This topic has 9 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
So I came across a library called Strike Audio after watching a television show on cable, and on their homepage it says the following:
How much does Strike Audio cost?As long as you complete and submit cue sheets, all of our music (over 15,000 cues) costs you nothing.
How does Strike Audio make its money?
All major television broadcast and cable networks are licensees of BMI and ASCAP. The networks pay BMI/ASCAP money on a quarterly basis for the sum of music they utilize. Networks do this for all music, including tracks from other libraries you may use. That money is then distributed to writers and publishers as royalties. Unlike most other libraries, we are our own writers and publishers. We make money from collecting royalties.
Personally I feel as though blanket licenses already hurt composers since it removes all sync fees paid out (to the composer at least), but now some libraries are offering music completely free on the basis that they will receive royalties? Does anyone find this to be a bit ridiculous? In the end, the library wins but it really devalues the composer’s work.
I’m curious to hear others’ opinions here.
Can I ask what show did you watched?
I wouldn’t worry too much about libraries like this one.
I actually checked out this company a few years back. It looks like a small company that is possibly a side income for the owner. They probably just send out a few DVDs or Flash drives full of songs every quarter and collect the publisher’s share. Not a bad hustle for the owner, but not a good deal for the composers.
For library composers: choose high quality libraries and do a high quantity of work.
How does Strike Audio make its money?
All major television broadcast and cable networks are licensees of BMI and ASCAP. The networks pay BMI/ASCAP money on a quarterly basis for the sum of music they utilize.
This isn’t any different than what SK or JP does and a good number of us have made quite a bit of money with this business model.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t this what everyone is doing including well known exclusive catalogs? An up-front synch fee is only involved for very special circumstances such as an opening theme for a prime time show or an original score for prime time drama TV shows. Big brand advertising and trailer scores are another example. Even a show such as THE VOICE on NBC is not paying up front synch fees in exchange for background music cues during their interview/ singer profile segments.
Unless you are hired to score the show for a fee, I don’t think you can expect up front synch fees for background music cues found in music libraries.
Nothing new here. The model works.
Art, I do think there are times where the companies you hinted at above do actually make either Blanket License fees (example $3000 to $5000 an episode for access to the entire library) or
Are paid a fee to provide cues (a music supervisor role for lack of better description). Not much different from point 1 above.
I met an old competitor of mine at an industry related party not long ago and he indicated that his company is getting compensated $5000 an episode for cues.
I don’t think any of this money ever trickles down to a composer. Although oddly enough I did once receive a check for $750 for the Jay Leno Show. I guess NBC wanted to pay a synch fee. Thank you NBC!
Art, I do think there are times where the companies you hinted at above do actually make either Blanket License fees (example $3000 to $5000 an episode for access to the entire library)
That’s probably true but the end result for the composer is still the same. No sync fees, only back end money.
Yeah…unfortunately, like the other guys mentioned I also view this as somewhat normal now to just get backend on many placements.
This should probably go under it’s own page for the library mentioned but I couldn’t find one. Not sure if it is the same contract these days but I was interested in working with these guys awhile back because of their placements on cable shows. Things are worded very weird that I had never seen before or since. Still have it saved and checking it out now so I don’t mix anything up. Mainly the part about transferring 100% copyright in perpetuity under new titles (re-titled) non-exclusively. Not saying they are sketchy but I ran the other way instantly. Just a heads up to anyone if the contract is still the same.
I will close this thread and list here:
- The topic ‘Giving away cues and devaluing composer work’ is closed to new replies.