- August 4, 2017 at 10:59 am #27855
I’m currently with a RF library in Germany that gives the artists the option to sell the songs direct with no obligation to file cue sheets, or to sell the normal way where they have to acknowledge your PRO and file cue sheets and maybe there will be back end if its broadcast. Almost every composer on this site goes the route of Non Pro. The tracks are retitled anyway so you aren’t giving away your publishing all together on the song, only through sales from this site.
I have still stuck to my guns and kept my tracks on the PRO side, but I’m being told that is slowing down my sales. Any thoughts? Seems like Performance free is a sure way to de-value your music. Or am I missing something about a current trend? The reality is most music on this site is for corporate or personal use where there wouldn’t be back end anyway, but there is of course the chance you will get screwed out of future income. But it really makes it hard when there is a button right on the library home page for PRO, or Non PRO. Of course clients are gonna select the Non PRO button so they don’t have to deal with it. But why are so many composers allowing that?August 4, 2017 at 11:16 am #27857
I’m on a similar site where I have the option and I re-title them. Even though I have set my tracks on the PRO side I have yet to see any potential PRO income. These sales are all small time clients and yes there is always a risk you could miss out.August 4, 2017 at 11:18 am #27858
Have you considered just sending them on the Non Pro side to see if sales increase? Or do you think that is one of those “race to the bottom” things to do, and potentially devalue your music?August 4, 2017 at 11:52 am #27859
The library needs to educate their clientele. If a tune is not broadcast via TV / Streaming / etc., there’s no downside to having it PRO registered. If it IS going to be broadcast, then they have to file a cue sheet anyway. (Theoretically) Not sure what the “problem” is other than ignorance of the realities of broadcast vs. non-broadcast.August 6, 2017 at 5:53 pm #27871
Although I agree with LAwriter that all composers should be educated on what gets backend and what doesn’t, I think the biggest problem we have with these Non-PRO deals is the PRECEDENT we are setting.
By signing these deals with more and more libraries, we are showing that it’s ok to not collect backend on our tracks. We are our own worst enemy. If we keep on signing these deals, all libraries may follow this model in the future because it may become norm.
Why would a client buy a track where they have to worry about filling out cue sheets when they could just use libraries that don’t require that?
Pretty soon, major networks will be browsing these libraries so they don’t have to pay royalties. Just picture your track showing up in 40 re-runs of The Kardashians and the network owes you nothing.
This is the reason why I turned down the new Pump contract. I don’t want to get 40 bucks for my track being used in a High School video. I would rather take my chances with libraries that are PRO. Who knows when some goofy track you did 3 years ago appears in a primetime commercial and is aired for 3 years?August 7, 2017 at 11:01 am #27873
I agree Daniel! Thats why I have never signed my songs for a performance free model. I’m sure you know this, but most of the Royalty Free sites still require that cue sheets are filed for anything broadcast. So I think its a decent model because you hit the smaller markets for personal use and are still covered if something is broadcast and there would be PRO money. My main requirement is that they do tiered pricing, so that larger projects pay a larger amount up front. Thats the one thing I really don’t like about P5, that its just one flat rate.
But the library I’m referring to allows the artist to chose, and they put a big button on their website for clients to chose PRO or non PRO so it really puts people like me who will not do the performance free at a disadvantage.August 7, 2017 at 11:03 am #27874
that being said, I’m shocked when I look at the site and see 99% of the composers doing Non PRO In hopes of getting more sales. Of course the clients go to this page and select Non PRO so they don’t have to deal with it. It really does set a negative precedent.August 7, 2017 at 7:14 pm #27876
I agree Daniel! Thats why I have never signed my songs for a performance free model. I’m sure you know this, but most of the Royalty Free sites still require that cue sheets are filed for anything broadcast
Yes Mojo. The “Royalty free” Phrase confuses a lot of people. They do require users to fill out a que sheet for broadcast.
From my experience, some people STILL do no fill out que sheets when they are supposed to, making it very difficult to track down placements and royalty income.
But the library I’m referring to allows the artist to chose, and they put a big button on their website for clients to chose PRO or non PRO so it really puts people like me who will not do the performance free at a disadvantage.
I think that library still requires a que sheet for a non PRO member. It’s confusing but the PRO doesn’t mean your performance rights. It means the professional upgrade. (More exposure, etc). I may be wrong but I think I know who you are talking about.
Think of it this way.If this were the case, more people should be choosing people WITHOUT the PRO tag because they don’t want to pay royalties.