- This topic has 30 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Last week i had some exciting news from a music agent i’m working with.One of my tracks was chosen for a high-end online commercial.
I was also asked to do a re-edit,just add a crescendo/energized ending.Everything was fine,but then my agent told me the client found my track
in a RF site for $99 and of course they weren’t that happy since they
had agreed to pay me a little less than $3K.Although they don’t want exclusivity (12-month NE license),they don’t think
it’s fair for them to have the track licensed for a high price while
someone else could get a license for just $99 at the same time.
They asked for a discount but my agent talked to them and they
agreed to stick to their initial offer,as long as i delete the track
from the low budget RF sites (they don’t mind if i have the track to
a high-end library with a competitive price),at least for the next 12 months.I think it’s a fair request,i totally understand their point of view (would you pay $3k for something you could find elsewhere for $100?) so,i
deleted the track from the RF libraries.I’ve worked very well with this agent in the past and i like his company
and body of work.My question is;do you think RF sites can harm your career in the long-term?
I’m new to library/agents/RF/supervisors thing and i only start to understand how every one of them is working.I shared this because i was reading that RF sites have,most of the times, different clients than high-end agents,networks etc but it seems that this isn’t entirely true or,at least,is changing.Also,i would like to know if
anyone else had a similar experience.
I felt bad,like i let down a cool agent,despite having him saying he sorted it out and i shouldn’t worry about it anymore.I think i have to separate which stuff goes to high-end agents and which one goes to RF sites.Any suggestions/ideas about this issue would be great!
Great question Kubed. Sorry I can’t answer it since I’ve not found myself in a situation like yours (yet). It has been a concern of mine ever since jumping into the RF market though. To play it safe I’ll only post to RF sites that allow immediate deletion of tracks just in case something like this comes up. I, too, would like to hear others thoughts on this…
My main question is will this agent be able to get you more work for a similar upfront fee?
If this is a one-time deal, it is not something to worry about. But if this agent is able to get you continuous work for an average of $2,000 per placement at least once a month, I would ditch the royalty-free sites. A good agent is a great resource to have.
If I were you, I would do my best to work with the agent for newer music placements.
Not sure if DI is confusing Licensing Agents, like JP etc. with having an agent, as in representation, which is a completely different thing.
That notwithstanding, this situation is the best argument that I’ve heard for keeping separate catalogs.
Carry on.
Kubed…sorry for your loss on the deal but thanks for bringing this up.I have music w/3 RF sites and though what I do doesn’t really sell I always figured..what it could it hurt to have music @ RF sites? – every once in a blue moon I get a sale and the work/metadata is done?…but lately I’ve been making contact with music supervisors and feel I’m close to getting some cool placements…I’d HATE to have them find a song of mine on an RF site even if it’s just the instrumental version…it COULD cheapen what I do/hurt my rep I guess and seeing it brings me almost NO $ I think it’s time to start deleting…again..sorry to hear about your situation but thanks..Jay
This is a valid concern, and the main reason I wanted a limit on the projects customers could use my library on. I put a cap on advertising budgets at $250,000, which rules out big budget licenses. Most RF libraries either let their clients use the music on any size of project, or have a tiered pricing that still allows big budget projects for just a little more (and nothing near what they should actually be charging).
I think we’d all agree that the vast majority of people using RF music aren’t big budget producers, but if it’s something like one in a thousand, it’d still be worth it to RF sites to have a budget cap, wouldn’t you think?
Last year I had a nice five figure license fee come from an advertising agency finding a track on my RF site, and I immediately removed it from there and the couple of other RF libraries I work with. It was just as a matter of courtesy (and also trying to avoid the situation you were in) – they didn’t ask for exclusivity but I wanted to give it to them for at least six months.
I also had the educational experience of an advertising agency contact me for a $30,000 license which turned out to be for a track I had written for a work-for-hire library (so my cut ended up being zero), but that’s another story…
Not sure if DI is confusing Licensing Agents, like JP etc. with having an agent, as in representation, which is a completely different thing.
I was under the assumption that this story was about having an agent, as in representation. I don’t know how JP got thrown into the conversation. Why do my words always get twisted up?
I was under the assumption that this story was about having an agent, as in representation. I don’t know how JP got thrown into the conversation. Why do my words always get twisted up?
I’m not twisting your words. That is what I thought that you meant. But, I’m not sure if it’s what KUBED meant.
I mentioned JP, because companies like JP are not necessarily libraries in the “traditional”sense, in that they do not generally
own copyrights (other than their own). They are licensing agents and publishers.In fact, if your read deeply into the info about some of the companies that we are calling “libraries,” you will find that they are licensed/registered as “agents or agencies.” I don’t know if JP, specifically, is registered as an “agency,” but others are.
So…to refine my question: Are you referring to a “library” that is actually a licensed agency, or an agent, as in representation.
You answered the latter, which is what I thought you meant.
EDIT: If I were to act as an agent, as many lawyers do, I would not represent, or pitch, music for a project, if I knew that it could be in the position that Kubed described. That is why I suspect that he might be referring to a “library” rather than an agent.
I’m not twisting your words. That is what I thought that you meant. But, I’m not sure if it’s what KUBED meant.
I mentioned JP, because companies like JP are not necessarily libraries in the “traditional”sense, in that they do not generally
own copyrights (other than their own). They are licensing agents and publishers.In fact, if your read deeply into the info about some of the companies that we are calling “libraries,” you will find that they are licensed/registered as “agents or agencies.” I don’t know if JP, specifically, is registered as an “agency,” but others are.
So…to refine my question: Are you referring to a “library” that is actually a licensed agency, or an agent, as in representation.
You answered the latter, which is what I thought you meant.
EDIT: If I were to act as an agent, as many lawyers do, I would not represent, or pitch, music for a project, if I knew that it could be in the position that Kubed described. That is why I suspect that he might be referring to a “library” rather than an agent.
That doesn’t make sense at all.
Anyway, congratulations Kubed. I am happy that the situation worked out for you. Hopefully you will be able to land more deals for around $3K.
It is hard out here for a composer. Your work must have been top notch!
That doesn’t make sense at all.
Did the opportunity come from a licensing agent, e.g. S.A.S, JP, whomever, or did to come through a talent agency. e.g. William Morris?
Good questions and I would also like to hear what others say about this. I think I would, for now, lean towards keeping stuff you are pitching here out of RF libraries. Even consider treat in them as exclusive (without actually going exclusive), or consider pitching them to similar level libraries. That isn’t saying send them your best stuff and send the rest to royalty free libraries, just, as Michael suggested, write stuff specifically for that library , you probably don’t want to be in a similar position again. Either way , you’re cruising.
I keep my Rf separate from my licensing catalog. And I also use a pseudonym for the RF stuff.
if this is ok to ask (Art) would AS be considered a lower tier RF? (or similar) ?
Congrats on the sale Kubed.
I am new to music licensing, and have also had concerns about this kind of thing. I’m starting with RF, and am not really confident enough to pitch to the higher-end libraries yet. But when the time comes, I’ll be keeping my RF catalogue separate, I think.
I am a bit concerned about the pseudonym issue. I work under an artist name, not my real name, but I’ve decided to just stick with that one name for everything. I don’t really want the hassles of building multiple ‘brands’, and I’d like anyone who likes my music to be able to find it all in one place. Will having music in RF libraries hurt me in the long run, if I later want to submit to better libraries under the same name?