Netflix and our collective futures..aka…are you depending on BackEnd?

Home Forums Commentary Netflix and our collective futures..aka…are you depending on BackEnd?

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 37 total)
  • Author
  • #28179 Reply

    LA Writer mentioned Micro-licenses, and I just saw something on BrandX Music’s site that seemed a little like a “canary in the coal mine”….

    They now have a “micro license” option…

    Now, I think to myself, why would a company that gets all kinds of high-end placements and a catalog of 4000+ songs make their catalog available to YouTubers and student films?

    Aren’t they essentially turning their catalog into Pond5?

    I honestly don’t understand that business model.

    I am no expert on any of this, and am so grateful for this site (I always learn so much), but I really can’t figure this out.

    It makes me not want to go beyond Pond5 and just do RF. Not sure that’s a wise move, but it seems that everything points to that.

    I am producing a “higher end” album now with some real players, and mixing and mastering by other engineers, and all this really concerns me.

    I really hope this project doesn’t turn into a “vanity project”.

    #28180 Reply

    @Daniel, you are kind of missing the point about what LA writer is saying about “front end”. He is also taking into consideration the direct licensing markets (AKA RF markets). Those markets are when people pay you immediately for the cue. They license the stock music right then and there and you are paid (add to cart/ buy now). That is “front end” meaning you are paid immediately for the license sold. I don’t care what anyone says but when someone buys a license on these sold called “royalty free” sites, we are getting paid a royalty, immediately. By the way, I am having very good success at $50 a track so I encourage all to raise their prices to $50, $60, $70. It really depresses me when I see so many people selling for $20.


    I have been around a little longer than you may think. Of course I know about RF or NE Libs are where you get paid. IMO it’s not worth spending hours tagging metadata for a 50.00 sale to be used in a High School film. It’s also becoming more prevalant where these libs are setting their own standard fee for 20 or 30 bucks.

    When I was commenting about LA Writer’s post, I was refering to upfront money which was hundreds for a track or thousands for an album which he did or still does receive.

    #28181 Reply
    NY Composer

    Sorry for the quote mixup. For some reason I can not edit my post immediately after posting it on a Mac.

    #28183 Reply


    there are loopholes…

    Loopholes for the composer or the library to exploit?

    …and eventually, once the “exclusive with no up front buyouts…

    the tide may already have started turning away from perpetuity. I’m seeing exclusive contracts that have no upfront, but have short-term reversion clauses.

    #28199 Reply

    Hello to all. I did read a lot of the comments, but didn’t digest them all. But, here is something that I think is on the horizon..

    I have the strangest feeling that WE Composers/Writers are about to see some MAJOR head-way in our PRO’s legal battles with the now Streaming Giants! I think that when Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, and others were starting; most thought they were a “niche market and would not become a major competitor”. NOW, everyone is seeing the effects of not having the proper agreements in place. We as composers are seeing that we are being robbed. The PRO’s are being ROBBED!

    If I am not mistaken didn’t something similar happen with the “unexpected growth” of Cable TV? WE need to force the hands of OUR PRO’s; and get these legal procedures moving faster!!

    #28200 Reply

    Everyone, (especially our publishers who are supposed to protect our copyrights and make every effort possible to see to it that writers and themselves get paid) need to be beating the drum and sounding the alarm to our PRO’s about performance royalties for streaming services (on demand) content.

    If you do write for a Netflix series, you better ask for a healthy fee up front because the back end is not there.

    I ignore all briefs that say “We need music for a new Netflix series” as should everyone at this point. If they pay up front, then fine. The back end is pennies.

    It also disgusts me how Google is not on the hook for massive contributions to the performance royalty pool at all PRO’s. Google (AKA YOUTUBE) is basically the largest TV network in the world at this point in time. Their contributions to the royalty pools at BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC should be larger than ABC, NBC, and CBS combined as the world consumes entertainment by watching YOUTUBE.

    A deal has been made between ASCAP and Google, but it would be nice if we knew what was inside this deal below?

    ASCAP and BMI collected over a billion in 2016, I think they each need to collect another 500 million from Google in 2018 so writers and publishers get paid for YT performances (Streams). What do you think?

    Read here: Google is also doing everything it can to NOT identify copyright owners.

    Google earned 20 Billion in Net Income in 2016 and is worth 650 Billion as of today.

    #28201 Reply

    Thanks for sharing your honest thoughts and experiences in these times, where so many seem to carry their head under their arm.

    It’s so important to be mindful, especially when storms rage, and this is exactly why MLR is so valuable!

    #28202 Reply

    Take the time to really study what google is doing with these NOI filings.

    For 7 million songs they are saying “Author unknown, copyright owner unknown”

    Publishers, I know you are reading this. How are you fighting back? How are you protecting copyrights when google is trying to file spreadsheets that claim “Author unknown, copyright owner unknown” ?

    This is not old news, this is breaking news. Google and Spotify are trying to strike first because once those NOI’s are filed, copyright owners have to jump through hoops to eliminate the status of “author unknown, copyright owner unknown.”

    It’s quite sickening what they are doing and clearly their intent is to reduce as much as possible the amount of royalties they’d have to pay to rights holders (writers and publishers)

    “After the NOI has been filed, it is then the copyright owner’s responsibility to become aware of and locate the NOI, and then take action in order to receive mechanical royalties.”

    Read this too:

    and this link to takes you to all the “copyright owner unknown, author unknown” filings by google, spotify, amazon, microsoft, a few others…They are filing these like crazy! Why? Because they don’t want to pay rights holders I’d imagine. A huge cost savings for them.

    I am not an attorney but it seems like they are saying “NOTICE OF INTENTION” to the copyright office…”WE DO NOT KNOW WHO OWNS THESE SONGS SO WE CAN NOT PAY THESE FOLKS ROYALTIES”…

    L…your thoughts?

    #28205 Reply
    Michael Nickolas

    Thanks for sharing your honest thoughts and experiences in these times

    I think this was meant for the Irma topic, but I agree. Hope the cleanup won’t be too much of a hassle for you guys!

    A deal has been made between ASCAP and Google, but it would be nice if we knew what was inside this deal below?

    Glancing at this one, it seems any increase in payment is tied to the Content ID system, which many of us here don’t utilize in order to work with RF libraries hassle free.

    #28206 Reply

    If the author is unknown why aren’t the PROs collecting the royalties for ‘unknown author’ and distributing it pro rata to known authors? What right does the network have to keep the money? The whole idea is back-to-front. It incentivises poor reporting.

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 37 total)
Reply To: Netflix and our collective futures..aka…are you depending on BackEnd?
Your information: