Performance Free

[MichaelL]

The “performance free” business model is an emerging platform. Do not confuse it with “royalty free” music.
This business model is a formula for short term gains and long term losses.

http://pmamusic.com/how-performance-free-music-libraries-hurt-the-industry/

[woodsdenis]

Heres a strange thought on this one, In Ireland unclaimed royalties go into a fund which is divided out pro rata to all its members.

All TV and Radio here is PRO registered therefore any track derived from a performance free library would have its PRO money paid by the broadcaster anyway, it would then sit unclaimed in the Irish PRO and be distributed ultimately to me and others.

So not only does the original composer not get paid, but other composers who have no contribution to the music do.

So in a really twisted way if the performance free quota went up here I would be better off as the original creators would not be getting their share, we would. Something not right there !!!!

[Art Munson]

Funny this thread has come up now as I was just speaking with a well respected composer/library owner who thinks that it’s possible that the days of the PROs are numbered.

[Desire_Inspires]

Yes. I just learned a certain large music library is adapting this business model. This will result in difficult decisions for the many composers that have songs with this company.

People may have to pull all of their music from this company. That seems unfortunate. But there are many viable alternatives to working with companies adapting this business model.

The PROs may end up losing out to this new business model. Some will choose to only get upfront payments and may forgo the performance royalty organizations. With the way royalties differ from quarter to quarter, some composers may throw in the towel and get out of the music business altogether.

This could have dire consequences for all. We will need to wiat and see how it all shakes out.

[MichaelL]

It’s hard to say what the role of the PROs will be in the future. They may well be obsolete, to a degree. But, remember, royalties and royalty rates are a matter of law in the US. http://www.copyright.gov/carp/

However, the US Supreme court ruled, that composers have the right to circumvent their PROs, and to direct license their music, which allows for royalty free and performance free models.

In theory if broadcasters can prove that a percentage of the music that they use is “performance free” (like Scripps), they can argue for, and receive, reduced blanket payments to the PROs.

When I first came to this forum, the first thing that I noticed was the militant attitude among composers, who we’re tired of having exclusive libraries shut doors in their faces. That spirit fueled the non-exclsuive re-title bubble.

I don’t think PRO’s will go away. But, I do think that their significance will fade.

[SCP]

I still don’t understand the difference between RF and PF, can someone please explain it to me? I have received PRO income from PF thru Scripps in countries like UK/Denmark/Hong Kong and I don’t expect PRO income from RF libraries like P5 and ML. I could really use a primer on what the difference between the two is

[MichaelL]

@SCP, Royalty Free, generally means that users pay once for a sync license, and can use the music again with no future payment. This model appeals to many non-bnroadcast (e.g. corporate) users. The term royalty free is generally a misnomer for marketing purposes. Like “gluten free” water it doesn’t mean much. Most RF libraries do require, or request that broadcast users file cue sheets.

The new Performance Free model, is one in which users pay upfront, either per cue, or through subscription, for unlimited use. The library does not require or request that broadcast users file cue sheets. That is their marketing gimmick “avoid the hassle of filing cue sheets.”

Performance Free libraries generally require that the composer not be a member of a PRO. Some offer a small upfront fee to buy your music out, after which you receive nothing. Unless you are truly desperate, I don’t know why anyone would do that.

[SCP]

Thanks for clearing this up for me MichaelL – much appreciated!

[Desire_Inspires]

I know that there is a small but hardcore group of composers that would only prefer to have music in a performance free music library. Some people have a deep dislike and even a hatred of the PROs. By doing direct licensing with a performance free music library, these composers would be choosing to get paid upfront and rejecting backend royalties.

I think this model will not be adapted by PRO composers, at least not initially. But to be honest, I think that the performance free model will be adopted by many micro stock sites and by some non exclusive retitle companies. Royalties from PROs are not the best for smaller companies. They would probably go for splitting an upfront payment with the composer instead of waiting for publishing royalties to come in.

My main question about this model is will there be blanket licenses? A blanket license usually implies that a composer receives no upfront money. The performance free model would provide no backend royalties. So the only winner of a blanket performance free music library is the library itself. Licensing a boatload of tracks on the cheap with this model completely cuts the composer out of the picture financially.

My guess is that the big company that is moving towards the performance free model will initially not do blanket licenses. But they will eventually end up changing the terms with a slight-of-hand and will then offer blanket licenses. From reading the email I received, they are leaving the terms of the contract vague so that they can make such changes without prior consent. Composers will have to opt out, and may pretty much have all of their music removed from the library.

Even if there are no blanket licenses, will payments for individual licenses go up at all? Will people still be licensing music for $10 and splitting half with the music library?

[Art Munson]

So when ABC and The BBC use non pro registered music licensed at RF sites that require the music not be registered at a PRO, what happens on the cue sheets?

“Composers will have to opt out, and may pretty much have all of their music removed from the library.”

This would not be so bad….

[woodsdenis]

So when ABC and The BBC use non pro registered music licensed at RF sites that require the music not be registered at a PRO, what happens on the cue sheets?

On the assumption that the PRS operates the same as here (it usually does) all that money is put into an unclaimed pot and distributed to PRS members. The cue sheet could just name the program, or it could be as simple as The name of the track or Pump audio.

The BBC would insist that any outside commissioned program’s would have all this info attached. As long as the program maker shows a valid license for music they don’t care.

As I said in a previous post, the irony would be that PRO members in countries that do this benefit from more non pro registers tracks being used in their territory. They are required by law to pay and to the best of their ability identify the payee. If they can’t identify the composer the money is paid anyway.

I can look up unclaimed monies in Ireland, there is a lot of it.

[MichaelL]

“Composers will have to opt out, and may pretty much have all of their music removed from the library.”

This would not be so bad….

I agree. Anything that gives a composer control over their music is a good thing, if that composer has ways of monetizing their catalog, on their own.

IMO…this would apply mostly to libraries that deal in mass market product, e.g. JP, SK and PMP. It would not apply to high end libraries, with more discerning clientele.

[MichaelL]

@David….in response to your deleted post on the PMP thread.

No, TBH, I do not think it is possible that ABC, etc would license a cue like that for its evening news.

While that cue might suffice, sound “network-ish” and “big” for a smaller market local news broadcast, or an in-house corporate news program, it is rather dated. It is sonically and compositionally not on par with the current ABC news theme, which was composed by Hans Zimmer and/ or the NBC news theme which was composed by John Williams.

More to the point, however, if the networks are willing to pay Mr. Zimmer and Mr. Williams their considerable fees, as well as hiring full orchestras to perform their news themes, what makes you think that they would choose to spend $35 on an RF cue? I think that you can sleep soundly without worrying about that.

But, for more disposable programing, yes, I could certainly see the subscription performance free model making a dent.
Editors are not going to want to take the time to search for and then individually buy the dozens of cues used in a typical half hour episode of throw-away TV. Not having to file cue sheets, is a bonus.

Food for thought: Wouldn’t automated cue detection really make the “no cue sheet” argument a moot point? It seems that to save themselves the PROs may actually have to do what they fought against, which is to adopt detection technology, like tunesat.

Could be interesting.

[Art Munson]

Listen to this theme. Fairly dated, but still in use. I have been hearing it over there for almost 20 years now.

News Themes are all dated.

I do not agree with your “cues have a limited shelf life theory”. The Beatles, zeppelin and the stones are still selling their music 45 years later and making a bundle.

And no, John Williams is not needed for everything important. And yes big companies have used RF music on big spots in the super bowl.

Let me just touch on news music a bit. I had a deal on my desk, and to a certain extent it may still be there. The client renewed the old theme for one more year. Hopefully with some luck they’ll license my piece for 2015 (I don’t have my hopes up, but I will keep trying). Here is the deal I was presented by the marketing manager of one local station: 40 small markets similar in size to Kansas City. A parent Media company owns 40 local stations. Each market would license the theme for $600 a year. $600×40= $24,000. PLUS, royalties for the writer. Obviously there are a lot of politics and cronyism surrounding this deal, but what blows my mind is the ability to find news music in RF land, and bypass royalties all together.

Doesn’t this bother anyone about non pro registered RF music?

[house]

This is a very interesting thread. In a past life I worked as a web developer with a couple of websites that used music on their sites but music was not their primary business. The PRO’s were militant on the amount of money they wanted to collect from the websites. They wanted a percentage of the gross revenue from the sites regardless of whether or not it was derived from music. Both of these sites generated mid 6 figure revenues and used a few tracks of music for product demonstrations. They both pulled all of their PRO music and went the non-PRO route. I can’t remember the percentage off the top of my head but I believe it was between 4%-5% of the the GROSS revenue of the site.

[Author]

Posts