February 22, 2013 at 4:04 pm #8767BIGG ROMEGuest
I been with them for awhile. I noticed they are mainly picking up all the channel that never pay anything. All the important channels rarely get picked up.
Yet, I hear my music on ABC,NBS, CBS never gets picked up.
BTW Fuse can kiss my … They are constantly playing my stuff and not paying.
Any advice on lawsuits filed for stuff like thisFebruary 22, 2013 at 10:34 pm #8769TheOneGuest
I hate FUSE those guys dont know how to fill a simple cue-sheet so they can kiss my a** too!February 23, 2013 at 2:02 am #8770axiomdreamsParticipant
I have a different experience with TuneSat though. I do get detections on ABC, NBC, MTV, Discovery, Nat Geo & those that you all mentioned above etc. However, I do believe that they also miss out quite a lot of detections. I’ve gotten paid for some of them & they never got picked up on TuneSat. I think they are abt 80% accurate only & very pricey but I really don’t know of any other method to detect my music on US TV plus I’m on the other side of the world. Too bad I guess, just have to make use of whatever means I can find. I really hope to be able to recoup my TuneSat expenses soon. Tough biz to be in, needs tough minds to make it.
-AxDFebruary 23, 2013 at 4:13 am #8771WildmanGuest
Here in Europe the Tunesat service works pretty well. All important, or lets say relevant, channels are monitored. So time will show if I`ll get my pro back payments.February 23, 2013 at 4:13 am #8772yzzman1Participant
I’ve noticed similar problems. I do like the service but I kind of agree that it’s a little pricey for something that is currently not as accurate as I’d hope. Here’s to hoping there are large improvements in the future. Really not bashing them – just saying how it is.February 23, 2013 at 7:10 am #8773JDGuest
Not to get off topic, but I am curious why ASCAP & BMI don’t adopt tunesat as a reporting device? Shouldn’t the concept be to offer the best reporting options available for their membership? Seems like a no brainer.February 23, 2013 at 7:24 am #8774
@JD…ASCAP and BMI have already developed their own technology. It has been implemented for the most part on radio. But…they will eventually use it for TV.
And …I have been told by both (not to steal the thread), that’s when the poop hits the fan for re-titling.
During the process of switching from ASCAP to BMI, I asked upper level individuals at both about re-titling and they said don’t do it because detection technology is coming to television.February 23, 2013 at 8:40 am #8775angopopParticipant
What is the problem with re-titling libraries and detection technology?February 23, 2013 at 10:02 am #8777
@Michael L. So what you are saying is that “detection technology” is going to replace cue sheets for determining royalty payouts? Also, I heard in a thread (2 months ago) that ASCAP recently made a deal with Soundmouse to handle their fingerprinting and detections, but when I spoke to this company they said this wan not the case.February 23, 2013 at 10:59 am #8778
@David…if I had to look into my crystal ball, I’d say that cue sheets and fingerprints will co-exist for a while, with fingerprints confirming / supplementing cue sheet data, until detection technology becomes the norm.
@angopop…this has been discussed to death. Detection technology only identifies a piece of music. It cannot distinguish between re-title publishers. So, the PROs won’t know which publisher to pay. When that happens, they just won’t pay. The PROs are not likely to waste time and resources trying to figure who the publisher of the moment is, and therefore will probably not pay for re-titled tracks. They have no obligation to do that.
If you are an ASCAP writer, look very closely at their writer/publisher agreement. It states that they can decline payment for any reason. I would wager, again looking into my crystal ball, that once ASCAP’s detection technology is implemented, re-titling will be one of the ‘reasons” that it doesn’t pay. It is very likely that BMI has similar provisions.
They make the rules. They will close loopholes if it’s more efficient. Broadcasters don’t want to pay for the same piece of music multiple times, through blanket payments to the PROS. PRO’s don’t want writers and publishers to double dip.February 23, 2013 at 11:33 am #8779
@ MichaelL. Here is a verbatim written response on 12-21-12 – 2 months ago to a question I presented to an ASCAP board member:
“Will composers’ royalties be withheld if multiple publishers claim the same music cue due to a fingerprint or watermarked detection from two different music libraries?”
ASCAP Board Member’s verbatim answer:
“as of now neither ASCAP or BMI are using raw fingerprint data to pay royalties. They are using fingerprint data to corroborate existing information, or fill in holes in their data.
In the event there is a dispute over which publisher placed the cue, the composer should be paid anyway. I plan to bring this up at the ASCAP Board as Chair of the Operations and Administration Committee so we can get the procedure in place before it ever becomes a problem for composers. Thanks for your attention to this, and for bringing it to mine.”
Folks, If the music library business shifts gears and demands that composers and publishers NOT re-title their tracks, this is no different than the industry saying “all music must be exclusively represented moving forward.” This is not good for composers and I do think we should all collectively fight against it. However, I am not worried about it because of the response above.February 23, 2013 at 11:49 am #8781
Yeah…pretty much what I said. Fingerprints will be used to “corroborate” and “fill in holes.”
Now…think about the second part. Who gets paid in a re-title situation?…The composer. If potentially only the composer is going to get paid, what will the incentive be for publishers to continue to re-title and risk not getting paid?
On the surface it looks good because the composer still gets paid. But, taking it one step further, I believe that you’re going to see fewer non-exclusive opportunities. Fewer non-exclusive opportunities means fewer opportunities, period.
As a publisher, I am not going to do the work of getting a cue placed only to not be paid because the writer put the same cue in another library. I believe that more libraries will focus on developing an exclusive catalog, while letting their non-exclusive catalogs age out and fade. Just my perspective, as a writer and publisher.February 23, 2013 at 12:05 pm #8783
I don’t think you need to be that worried as publisher IMHO. As publisher, you know who your clients are and I can only assume that you know which productions you are supplying music for. So if you get a cue sheet from a production company displaying the cues that were used…isn’t that the proof you and the Pros will have proving factually that your publishing company placed the cue ?…and not the other one? Aren’t publishers reviewing the list of cues used in a production prior to the cue sheet being filed? If not…why aren’t they?
Bottom line, if composers are forced to go exclusive: it’s great for publishers but a terrible loss of royalty and up-front license revenue for composers. Why should only publishers win in this business?February 23, 2013 at 1:19 pm #8784
So if you get a cue sheet from a production company displaying the cues that were used…isn’t that the proof you and the Pros will have proving factually that your publishing company placed the cue ?…and not the other one?
No, the PRO’s don’t accept cue sheets as “proof” of anything. They are in fact very suspicious of cue sheets, as potential sources of fraud, which is why the survey “rules,” and why they do not accept cues sheets from composers and publishers.
Aren’t publishers reviewing the list of cues used in a production prior to the cue sheet being filed? If not…why aren’t they?
They should, but often it’s long after the fact. Cues sheets, if they get filed at all, are often filed months after a show airs. Several times I picked up cue sheets errors, only after we had missing royalties.
Tunesat spells out the reality. Nobody likes to fill out cue sheets. It’s time consuming and tedious, and many producers would rather not have their employees using valuable time filling out cue sheets. Often, it’s the lowest paid staff member, like an intern, who gets the job. And, unfortunately, they are probably more interested in other things.
At the upper end of the food chain, the Networks have the major exclusive libraries in house and its all managed with Soundminer / Musicminer software.
Bottom line, if composers are forced to go exclusive: it’s great for publishers but a terrible loss of royalty and up-front license revenue for composers. Why should only publishers win in this business?
1) There are no upfront fees for gratis licensing.
2) There are many composers who make a lot of money from exclusive deals.February 23, 2013 at 3:05 pm #8785
1) There are no upfront fees for gratis licensing.
2) There are many composers who make a lot of money from exclusive deals.
I am well aware of both points Michael, but my experience has been to make a lot of money with both up-front license fees into TV spots, and corporate videos with a non-exclusive publisher and do very well on the back end with this same publisher. Some, not all, but some of these same cues are also performing well in the back end arena with another NE publisher, and selling very well in a royalty free shop. All parties are winning in this scenario. If I am one day forced to pick one publisher, I will lose lots of revenue.