Registering Cues With Soundexchange and Harry Fox.

Home Forums Commentary Registering Cues With Soundexchange and Harry Fox.

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 49 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #31036 Reply
    Music1234
    Participant

    Thanks Art…last question…
    I am studying SE’s spreadsheet right now (the way I filled in the data)
    Who is paid as “rights holder” ? Column G “Marketing Label” ?
    or Column x “Master Recording Owner” ?

    I put the name of a company in Column G, but I put my own real name in Column X. I also put my own name in Column M “Track Artist”.
    So I hope that did not disqualify me from collecting as rights holder and Artist….

    SE also wanted to know who the composer was in Column V, but does that column (Person) ever collect from SE?

    #31037 Reply
    MichaelL
    Participant

    It’s my understanding that HFA will pay rights owners “streaming Mechanical” royalties (from Spotify, YOUTUBE, Google Play, Apple Music, etc.) and yes ISRC codes and UPC codes are required to match the streams and get paid.

    The MMA sets forth the creation of the Music Licensing Collective, a non-profit governing body that will oversee the creation of the world’s largest, publicly searchable database of musical works. The Register of Copyrights has not yet named the Music Licensing Collective. It is the MLC that will be collecting and distributing the new Mechanical License royalties from Digital Music Providers. It may well be that the Harry Fox database will be eventually incorporated into the new MLC’s database (as its letter suggests) but Harry Fox is not the designated creator or overseer of the new database.

    When all is said and done, I think the MMA is highly geared for commercial releases to the DSP’s. I still do not know how the MMA impacts our bread and butter revenue streams (TV, film,TV commercials royalties from the PRO’s) So if anyone knows what the MMA will do for composers/ songwriters/ publishers as it relates to ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc…please chime in.

    You are correct. This is aimed at commercial releases to DSP’s for interactive streaming and digital downloads. It’s somewhat analogous to the mechanicals that songwriters receive for manufactured physical copies of records and CDs.

    The MMA states:

    A person may by complying with the provisions of this section obtain a compulsory license to make and distribute phonorecords of a nondramatic musical work, including by means of digital phonorecord delivery.

    Although the original copyright statute does not define the term “nondramatic musical work” it is understood as being a song or musical work that is not incorporated into something else, like a film or theatrical production, etc. Because our “production music” cues are incorporated into other productions, they most likely do not qualify as nondramatic musical works, when in that context. However, on their own and released to a DSP as independent works not within the context of another work they would be nondramatic musical works.

    So, to answer your question Music1234, I do not think that composers will see any additional income for production music via the new Mechanical License, unless, as Art is doing, they also release their tracks to Digital Music Providers, like Spotify, etc. Note that even in that realm if the DMP does not offer interactive services, or if the DMP provides both interactive and non interactive services, composers will only receive mechanicals on their interactive streams and downloads.

    #31038 Reply
    Music1234
    Participant

    Well I’d suggest to all serious, professional writers of production music who control their catalogs that it may be in your interests to release your music onto the DSP’s before NE libraries, Semi Exclusive libraries, and even exclusive for 1 or 2 years type libraries start doing that. I have been very keen to notice a lot of companies e-mailing relentlessly “GO PRO!” or “MONATIZE YOUR MUSIC THROUGH US”….It seems like these outfits know how to herd up hundreds of thousands of tracks and skim billions of pennies from Streaming, before they pass the composer cut on to the composer/ songwriter. Anyone have any thoughts on my “theory”? Is songtradr, for example, morphing into another CD Baby?

    I often wonder if we’ll see a day where sync licensing can be done via Spotify? i.e. sourced from Spotify. It could actually be a good day when we simply just upload ourselves to Spotify and Apple via our own accounts and collect streaming royalties and sync licensing royalties with no extra middle men around skimming and acting as “first collectors”. It’s at a point where we have to ask…why do we as indepent music producers and publishers need anyone (other than Spotify, Apple Music, and Google) between our music and the person who wants to license it or stream it for personal listening pleasure?

    #31039 Reply
    MichaelL
    Participant

    Anyone have any thoughts on my “theory”? Is songtradr, for example, morphing into another CD Baby?

    I cannot speak to many of the models that you’re referring to Music 1234. I had to check my Spotify account to confirm and, yes, one of the PMA libraries that I’m in has uploaded my content to Spotify. Of course, that’s their prerogative because the tracks are theirs. I have been also receiving BMI royalties for Spotify streams that could only be the result of “external distribution” by AS.

    I often wonder if we’ll see a day where sync licensing can be done via Spotify? i.e. sourced from Spotify.

    Considering that CD Baby places music on Spotify and offers sync licensing through CD Baby Pro, it’s not inconceivable that Spotify could create a sync licensing “Button” that loops back to CD Baby or to any other library that controls your music (if they don’t already).

    I’ve had the opportunity to review CD Baby and TuneCore contracts. As I recall, their sync and publishing admin options require exclusivity. I’m not familiar with Songtradr’s methods. I can understand the one-stop-shop appeal for artists without music business experience. So, yes, I would not be surprised to see more libraries/licensing agents trying to be everything to everyone.

    #31041 Reply
    Art Munson
    Keymaster

    Who is paid as “rights holder” ? Column G “Marketing Label” ?
    or Column x “Master Recording Owner” ?

    I put the name of a company in Column G, but I put my own real name in Column X. I also put my own name in Column M “Track Artist”.
    So I hope that did not disqualify me from collecting as rights holder and Artist….

    SE also wanted to know who the composer was in Column V, but does that column (Person) ever collect from SE?

    Are you sure you have the newest spreadsheet from Soundexchange? Those columns names do not match up with mine.

    #31042 Reply
    Music1234
    Participant

    This was registration work I did in August 2018. So yes, it is the latest sheet as I was told.

    #31043 Reply
    Art Munson
    Keymaster

    Well I’d suggest to all serious, professional writers of production music who control their catalogs that it may be in your interests to release your music onto the DSP’s before NE libraries, Semi Exclusive libraries, and even exclusive for 1 or 2 years type libraries start doing that.

    I agree!

    #31044 Reply
    Art Munson
    Keymaster

    This was registration work I did in August 2018. So yes, it is the latest sheet as I was told.

    Hmmm, I just sent them an e-mail.

    #31076 Reply
    Art Munson
    Keymaster

    This was registration work I did in August 2018. So yes, it is the latest sheet as I was told.

    I just checked Music1234 and that is not the latest spreadsheet. The latest spreadsheet would have “Publisher(s)” in Column X. The new spreadsheet is all inclusive. In the past you needed to submit two separate spreadsheets, one for Artists Repertoire and another for Rights Owner Repertoire. Log in to your account, Submit New>Upload New and look for the link to download “Repertoire Submission form”.

    #31078 Reply
    Music1234
    Participant

    Thanks Art, indeed this is another frustrating “work in progress” on the part of sound exchange. When these organizations constantly change the metadata format one has to wonder if they have their “sheet” together. Literally and figuratively speaking. HFA has not been smooth sailing either. Just getting a spreadsheet ingested in successfully has been a challenge for 2 years now. Too many e-mails back and forth with customer support.

Viewing 10 posts - 11 through 20 (of 49 total)
Reply To: Registering Cues With Soundexchange and Harry Fox.
Your information: