- This topic has 18 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Yes! Talk to the people who are using it to describe their music!!
‘royalty free music’ is the term that customers search for when they want this type of music, a term that has been used for decades. It is a ridiculous notion that all companies and all customers should change the term they use for something because a few people think it is somehow incorrect. That’s just silly.
Also, the term actually does mean something.
Royalty Free Music as opposed to Needle Drop Music.
Needle Drop Music is where you have to pay a synch fee every time you use a piece of music in a production. Royalty Free Music means, in its original sense, a one time synch fee for all uses.
The term has nothing to do with PRO royalties or anything like that.And Stock Music is something distinctly different than Royalty Free Music so it would not be correct refer to Royalty Free Music as Stock Music.
And Stock Music is something distinctly different than Royalty Free Music so it would not be correct refer to Royalty Free Music as Stock Music.
Now, you’ve stumped me. What is Stock Music as distinct from Royalty Free? I’m in a library that has both and have wondered what the difference is.
Thanks, Mark.
Mark, please wikepedia “Royalty Free Music”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_music
The irony is that even this objective resource can not really define what Royalty Free music is!
And when you search “Royalty Free Music” they take you to “Production Music”.You can not say that there is any official definition of royalty free music and needle drop music. These terms get tossed around and everyone has their own definition Mark.
Sites market themselves as royalty free to get the customer over to their site and then the customer still has to navigate through the licensing contract. Some so called “royalty free music” sites do not allow you to but a direct license once and use the same track perpetually for as many projects as you wish. And frankly Mark, this is not a good policy for composers. How would you feel if your composition was licensed 1 time and then the company made 20 national TV spots out of it and ran them for 2 or 3 years and had them all over YOUTUBE, used it on radio spots, etc etc.?
I agree that “Royalty Free” is probably a term that will not go away any time soon but it’s confusing to everyone, publishers, stock music licensing sites, composers, and buyers, and it would be nice if we advocate using it a lot less. What makes it confusing?
1. The fact of the matter is that any time anyone buys a direct license from your site Mark, you then pay the composer a “royalty” from that license sale. It is not a “performance royalty” but it is a royalty nonetheless. I suppose you can call it a “commission”. It’s all semantics. in my mind, it’s a royalty for every unit sold.
2. Different RF sites have different interpretations and contracts for the license they are selling and many allow pro registered music. Many define “Royalty Free” differentlyWhat else is wrong with the term?
Well for starters is has the word “free” in the term. It manipulates the customer into thinking that something is “free” when in reality, 999 out of 1000 customers are never going to be on the hook to pay PRO’s anything after they buy a direct license. They are not getting the license for “free”. They still are buying a license and a royalty gets paid to the composer from that sale.
Mark I just read your terms:
The license is a Lifetime License
This means you can use this music in as many projects that you, the licensee, are personally involved with as you want without paying extra fees or needing to re-license the music.The license is a Direct License
A ‘direct license’ is a license between you and the composer who owns the copyright to the music. When a composer signs on to our library they have agreed to waive all rights to collect back-end royalties for uses of the their music when licensed via musicloops.com. Musicloops.com faciliates direct licensing between our composers and customers. This means you will not be paying royalties to performing rights organizations for the use of musicloops.com music.Can you kindly point out when your customers would have to pay PRO’s if you did not enact this policy? Also would you really be OK if your track were licensed on your site into a huge advertising campaign and you would not collect performance royalties for potentially thousands of airplays? And how do you feel about those “paid anyway” performance royalties possibly going unclaimed for no reason whatsoever? Or, would you allow the writer to file a claim at their PRO to collect them?
Mark, I am not being confrontational, just looking to gain more education on a rather delicate scenario. What I do not is that big national advertising campaigns pay big bucks in “Performance Royalties” if the claim is files properly.
What I do knowis that big national advertising campaigns pay big bucks in “Performance Royalties” if the claim is files properly.
and therefore it’s healthy for the entire production music community to see to it that those performance royalties get collected.
Sorry about my typos!
Not upset one bit Mark. If you look at people’s comments in this thread, The PMA has stated that they are seeking to make production music better for all and are not . They are seeking everyone’s input. I am offering some input. Were you not advocating that the discussion flow as it does last week? I am not attacking your business model either and I think it’s great that you give PRO information when its requested. Art, you can move these posts if you decide they went in the wrong thread. Maybe LA writers thread is a better place for these last few posts on “RF confusion”
It is also stated above:
We created the PMC as the world’s first annual conference dedicated to production music and it provides an opportunity for all of us – friends & competitors, writers & publishers, PMA & not ? – to get together and hopefully educate or challenge or inspire each other.I can not get to that conference so this seems like a logical place to join in the discussion.
I meant to write this:
Not upset one bit Mark. If you look at people’s comments in this thread, The PMA has stated that they are seeking to make production music better for all .
Royalty free music generally means bad music written by people who can’t get their stuff into proper libraries and are too lazy to get real instruments on their tracks.
Royalty free music generally means bad music written by people who can’t get their stuff into proper libraries and are too lazy to get real instruments on their tracks.
This fanciful notion is dated and out of touch, but perhaps comforting to believe. There was a time, long ago, when this may have been true and in some RF libraries with little or no quality control it may still be true.
Mark has provided a brilliant example of how things have changed. The reality is that many composers in so-called “proper” libraries also have music in RF libraries because they are pragmatic business persons and it’s a viable revenue stream if your music is good.
I can point you toward multiple Emmy Award and Grammy-winning artists, as well as conservatory trained and degreed composers in RF libraries.
Your comment is also off topic and probably a good place for Art to start enforcing his new rule.
Your comment is also off topic and probably a good place for Art to start enforcing his new rule.
And his IP address is now blacklisted.
I have thoughts on all of this, but honestly, I’m not sure if I can stay “on topic” enough. What seems on topic to me has been in the past honestly described as off topic, so I will refrain so as not to derail the conversation.
I will say I enjoy the topic and discussion, and believe it’s one that should be discussed openly and candidly.
I have thoughts on all of this, but honestly, I’m not sure if I can stay “on topic” enough.
Hey LAWriter, just start a new topic.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.