Royalty free music sites and the rest of the world.

[Art Munson]

There are a number of composers that make the mistake of lumping the various music library business models together when in fact they serve very different clients. Some composers argue that one should not waste their time with royalty free sites and only concentrate on placing their music with high end exclusive libraries.

MichaelL has many times tried to explain the difference of the various business models but the message gets lost over time as new composers discover MLR and do not understand the differences. This is an attempt to gather some of Michael’s thoughts here.

Many thanks Michael!

—————————-
The royalty free music (RF) world does not compete with the exclusive world, any more than Toyota competes with Rolls Royce. By and large they service two different clientele. Any one who uploads music to RF sites expecting that they’ll get network TV placements for the most part is delusional. That is not the goal of most RF sites. Any one who thinks that serious RF composers expect placements on network TV is equally delusional.

This is not a monolithic business in which everyone has the same goal…royalties. Thinking that way is not seeing the forest for the trees.

There is a whole wide world, probably hundreds of thousands of “industrial” producers, educational producers and in-house ad agencies who use RF libraries. High end libraries such as APM and Megatrax etc, are not in their budget.

Here’s an analogy.

A man walks up to another man who is fly fishing in a mountain stream. The man says to the fisherman, “you’ll never catch a tuna that way.” The fly fisherman just shakes his head, and catches trout. The other man dismisses the trout as a useless small fish and walks away.

Then, another man walks up to the fly fisherman. He’s carrying a large rod and a bucket of squid. He says to the fly fisherman, “I’ve come to catch a tuna.” “This is the same gear and bait that ALL the tuna fisherman use.” The fly fisherman says there are no tuna here, only trout. The second fisherman says “I thought that you could catch tuna in any water. Isn’t all water the same?” Disillusioned and disappointed, the second fisherman says fishing in mountain streams is hard and a waste of time. So, he storms off empty handed.

The fly fisherman just shakes his head and catches another trout. Having caught all that he needs for his dinner, the fly fisherman goes home satisfied.

Think of library music as kind of like the food pyramid. RF music, if you have enough of it, can provide a good foundation for you to build on. It allows you to eventually do other things. That was Mark Petrie’s (another MLR composer) strategy, and it’s a good one.

[More advice]

I agree 100% with everything that is stated above, but…there is a but to this: Don’t think that word can not get around about these royalty free sites to buyers who have “bigger” budgets, and especially buyer’s clients. Any advertiser (Not advertising agency) can get wind of these RF sites and start using them more aggressively or “demand” that the agency and their production company (a post audio engineer or video editor) use these sites. It is happening. In the audio post engineers group on Linked IN, in a thread, a St Louis based engineer stated:

“We use several libraries. APM, KillerTracks, DeWolfe are the most-often used, mainly because their libraries are so extensive, and their online search/download is handy. Many clients force me to use “blank”.com or “blank”.com for royalty free/buyout libraries. They are dirt-cheap, and have some gems, but are filled with lots of crap too.”

The key words were “dirt cheap”, “force me”….and “have some gems” So I would take these RF sites very seriously moving forward. Price your music accordingly. “Cue sheet fatigue” may one day be upon us. Producers may just one day say “I don’t want to pay blanket license fees and license fees to ASCAP, BMI, and other PROS anymore, and deal with filing cue sheets… let’s embrace the one time fee royalty free model.”

Ideally, Composers should have music in both RF and “traditional” libraries so income streams come from both directions, but price the RF music in a manner where you feel as though the price paid by the client is a respectful one. Remember the sale is end game…no royalties, no cue sheets, and the client can do whatever they want with the track which can include it on a Superbowl TV ad.

[Tbone]

RF doesn’t mean broadcast royalty free. The networks have to make those payments to PROs whether they use a track they made themselves in their backyard, a track from an RF site, or a track from a major library. That structure is not likely to go away in the developed markets anytime soon.

All that happens is that if a network airs a track for which there is no PRO representation, then the other tracks which are PRO represented get a proportionately higher percentage of the blanket fee paid to the PRO each year by the network. That fee is set outside our library world, it doesn’t depend on whether they use RF or anything else, it is what it is, and it is divided up among all tracks with cue sheets or for which PRO rep and so on can be determined.

In short: Producers aren’t the ones paying fees to PROs, networks are.

I know the above because:

1. I’ve spent literally hundreds of hours speaking to PRO staff
2. I have tracks in RF sites generating broadcast royalties

[mikevan]

In short: Producers aren’t the ones paying fees to PROs, networks are.
2. I have tracks in RF sites generating broadcast royalties

I’d love to get into the ‘big’ ‘traditional’ libraries, but it’s not that easy…
In the meantime I got about 10K in broadcast royalties in the last year from RF sites placements, so it looks like somebody is filling in cue sheets even in the RF world.
I don’t have control on the pricing of my tracks on most of the RF sites but even if the single licenses are relatively cheap (30-70$), multiple sales on different sites add up and most of my tracks have passed the 1K mark in license fees (and some 3 or 4 times that, plus some royalties). So the (single) sale is not really the end.
I know that to some these figures may be quite small but you have to start somewhere and work your way up.
I started writing library music seven years ago and maybe it was already too late and the market was already crowded and, living in Italy, until the coming of fast internet connection it was a market I could not access (I didn’t even know it existed except from Valentino Library Cds).
So I don’t see Rf sites as ‘evil’ but as the only way to go for now.

[MichaelL]

Some RF libraries, like AudioSparx require their clients to fill out cue sheets, when appropriate. Others, like MusicLoops, will provide PRO information when asked. So, Tbone is correct. I did my first RF collection back around 1982 or 83. The sales pitch back then was more acurately, “no needle drop.”

It’s not a black and white world. There’s plenty of gray where RF and exclusive overlap. But, there’s an even wider field, where they do not.

My point is that you shouldn’t dismiss RF libraries, especially if you have a large catalog.

[Tbone]

Exactly: RF is no needle drop or in other words, no mechanical royalties to be paid.

Also, from what I understand, cue sheets are not always absolutely necessary for a composer to get paid: if the producer can just name the composer and track the network can report that and the PRO can use the global CAE database to determine the composer’s CAE and home PRO to send monies too. This is especially effective if you have a unique name as they can be sure it’s you.

We’ve gone over the cue sheet thing before in terms of the libraries: most libraries don’t require cue sheets to be filed with them since it’s the networks they need to be filed with. So when [removed by moderator] says they don’t require cue sheets, it seems unnecessary for them to say it. But their client base is most likely either not aware of how cue sheets work, or using the music in non broadcast e.g. youtube. So for those clients it sounds like a nice thing which makes them feel more secure buying from [removed].

[Mark Lewis]

Producers aren’t the ones paying fees to PROs, networks are.

Yes, I’m pretty sure that is common knowledge here.

So when [removed by moderator] says they don’t require cue sheets, it seems unnecessary for them to say it.

Not sure who you are referring to but on our PRO-free site when we say you do not have to submit cue sheets it of course means to the broadcaster, not to us. We don’t need a producer’s cue sheet.

But their client base is most likely either not aware of how cue sheets work

In our case since many of our best customers are the broadcasters themselves I would assume they know exactly how cue sheets work and are taking advantage of our offer.

I’m not sure why some composers seem to get so worked up over their misunderstandings of non-PRO music distribution systems. There are lots of really successful libraries out there doing it (quite a few of them are our distribution partners).

[Tbone]

Yes, I’m pretty sure that is common knowledge here.

I’m not sure what the purpose of this statement is. I was addressing the comment above me by More Advice. He clearly did not have this knowledge.

I’m not sure why some composers seem to get so worked up over their misunderstandings of non-PRO music distribution systems

I find this statement disappointing. All I see above is a few composers discussing PROs and royalties, without much more than the desire to help each other out. Certainly More Advice seemed to be feeling concerned, but I don’t think we got worked up in this thread.

In all seriousness, I have no problem whatsoever with your library’s business model. I have no agenda at all – in fact I have tracks in both sides of the library world. It’s just another case of the market deciding… and that’s totally fine with me.

The area I am lacking knowledge in, is in which countries the broadcasters benefit from using music which is not PRO represented. Here in the UK, it makes no difference – the broadcaster pays the same amount to the PRS whether they have music with no cue sheets, or music with cue sheets. It would – genuinely – be interesting to hear more about this as it may help me and other composers to sell our music more effectively in those markets/countries..

P.S Art – I apologize for putting the library name in, I keep forgetting about that outside the library sections. I’ll make sure not to repeat that.

[gdomeier]

For those of you that have success with rf sites, are the tracks you upload to them non registered with your pro? I am not sure if having my cues registered with my pro is a deterrent to sales on rf sites or not.

[More advice]

@Tbone

The networks have to make those payments to PROs whether they use a track they made themselves in their backyard, a track from an RF site, or a track from a major library. That structure is not likely to go away in the developed markets anytime soon.

Please explain this: I heard my music track on a USA Promo for 7 months straight every week Jan 2012 through July 2012 on TV and radio! Multiple radio stations. Yet, I never received a penny of royalties. Our favorite library admitted that they “gave it away as a loss leader and did not require a synch fee”…Why did I not receive back end royalties for this USA Network promo?

Why don’t promos pay?

[Art Munson]

Why did I not receive back end royalties for this USA Network promo?

I have received royalties from USA Network for promos but I’m with BMI. Maybe your PRO does not pay. From what I understand it depends on the PRO.

[mikevan]

@gdomeier
My tracks are all registered with SIAE (Italy’s PRO). In my experience only a few German sites won’t accept pro-registered tracks (they call them selves GEMA-freie). Most Rf sites encourage composer to register their tracks to get back-end royalties but a couple say that non-regisred tracks may have more placements.

[Tbone]

More Advice:

The synch fee has nothing to do with the broadcast royalties.

The library determines the synch fee with the customer. The PRO determines the royalties with the network.

I can’t comment on your individual case in much detail since I don’t know the channel or PRO.. but maybe they just didn’t file a cue sheet? Could be as simple as that..

I understand your frustration.

[MichaelL]

@More Advice…perhaps instead of giving more advice you should do “more research.” 😉

Look under promotional announcements. http://www.ascap.com/members/payment/musicinadvertisements.aspx

The USA Network would be considered “all other” and radio, which is “sample surveyed,” which means “oops we missed your promo…sorry,” in ASCAP speak.

Switching was hell, but I’m glad I did. Just dropped my ASCAP publishing company too, and the guy who writes for me moved to BMI too. I’m transferring all of his stuff to one of my BMI entities.

[More advice]

Yeah, Yeah, I know Michael…I have to chase after my royalties, write and complain, and fill out forms, and send an mp3.

Frankly, I don’t feel like doing it. I heard the track on the air sometimes 3 times a day for 6 months.

Promos should be treated no differently than TV shows. The networks using these cues should file cue sheets and the media buys should be sent in to ASCAP for reference. I know the drill.

Commercials should be treated no differently than than music cues on shows.

[Author]

Posts