- This topic has 36 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I think, no. If so they would have to hire about 100 more workers to handle this.
How would getting paid twice be a bad thing?
Direct licence is where you get money instead of the royalty stream from BMI. In the royalty free case you just give up any royalties from BMI. The money you get in royalty free I think is considered as licence fee and not direct royalties.
As I’m sure you know, in many cases, perhaps most, RF sales are for non-broadcast productions. As such, there are no backend royalties involved.
I’ve worked for many corporate clients, over the years, and every single one was concerned about royalties, and having to pay more money in the future. PRO’s DO NOT collect money for corporate videos.That does not mean that you can use any piece of music in a corporate video without worries. Taking a popular song, for example, and using it without paying a license fee, is a completely different ball of wax.
The issue is the license fee. When you buy a piece of royalty free music for are paying a perpetual license fee.The second most misunderstood concept is that even if the RF cue is being used in a broadcast show, it is the network, not the producer (purchaser of the RF cue), that pays the backend.
Next, when some libraries promise “truly royalty free” music what they are essentially doing is telling broadcast producers, “we’ve eliminated the hassle of needing to fill out cue sheets, because our composers have agreed to direct license.” If and when the PRO’s go to electronic detection, and producers no longer have to deal with the hassle of filling out cue sheets, that may change the paradigm, leaving only those, like Scripps, who don’t want (should I say refuse?)to pay royalties.
I think reporting every RF sale to your PRO, as a potential direct license, would be highly inefficient. Have you been given notice by a library that it made a sale to a network, on a direct license basis? Mark Petrie stated long ago, that in his experience, the higher up you go in the food chain, producers will file cue sheets for RF tracks.
I think the one-time perpetual sync fee vs. royalty waiver concept is a strong arguement.I’m sure Mark Lewis can add clarify things from his perspective.
_Michael
“we’ve eliminated the hassle of needing to fill out cue sheets, because our composers have agreed to direct license.”
There seems to be a misunderstanding as to, specifically, what our library at ML actually is, even though I have explained it many times.
We are non-PRO library. That means that we represent, for the most part, composers who are not affiliated with any PRO at all, anywhere, their music is PRO free.
Not having to enter info into a cue sheet is not a choice of ours, it is a simple fact, there is no information to enter into a cue sheet at all, that is why we say ‘no cue sheets’.
Again, we are a non-PRO library, representing non-PRO composers.The exception to this rule are composers who come to me and ask to be part of our library even though they belong to a PRO. I explain to them how we work and because they are joining a non-PRO library they have to play by our rules. This is completely the composer’s choice, they can choose to join and participate or they can move on.
When a client does use our music in a broadcast situation and asks for PRO information for a composer I of course give it to them if it is available. I have done this many times.I think being afraid of not reporting royalty free uses to BMI or ASCAP is a complete non-issue. It hasn’t been an issue in 17 years of our business, not sure why it would all of a sudden become one now. Believe me, there are no BMI police out there looking at your every move.
But that aside, again, it is the composer’s choice, no one is forcing anyone to do anything here. It really isn’t a big deal unless for some reason you choose perceive it to be one.
PRO’s DO NOT collect money for corporate videos.
Yes they do.
BMI Corporate Use Licensing
http://www.bmi.com/licensing/entry/532984?q=Corporation+Using+MusicI’ve had many dealings with most PROs (US, Europe, Australasia) on resolving issues where they were requesting royalties on corporate videos, presentations, on hold, etc.
All resolved with the cooperation of our composers who understand what they legally agreed to when they signed on to our library.Just a side note-
When we do give PRO info to our clients we do not claim any publishing shares and of course no writer’s share of the royalty. That is because we are a non-PRO library and we do not deal with that, for us that is solely the business of our composers and they should earn their full backend royalties, both publishing and writer’s, when the opportunity arises and the client wants to submit full cue sheets.Thanks for the info Mark. I agree. I don’t think reporting RF sales to BMI is a great idea.
As far as the corporate license goes, that’s news to me, obviously. However, it doesn’t surprise me. A friend of mine is an undertaker, and he has to pay ASCAP and BMI an annual license fee for the music he plays in his funeral home! It makes one wonder how the PROS actually go about
paying the composers in those situations. Twenty years ago I heard some of my music being played in restaurants, and I never got a penny for it from ASCAP.Thanks again.
Michael
As Mark says, if you’re in his library you play by the rules. And, I agree that I probably wouldn’t report every RF sale to your PRO.
But, I think more to the point is that if you’re using tunesat, or something like it, you SHOULD NOT go tracking the producer down and asking for a cue sheet. Then, not only are you possibly annoying the library’s client, you are violating its rules as well.
I guess things will get muddy in the future, and you may have to report RF sales as direct licenses if, and when, the PROs switch to digital detection.
MichaelL
It makes one wonder how the PROS actually go about
paying the composers in those situations.In those situations they actually do have ASCAP and BMI ‘police’ (or as we used to call them in high school “narcs”) that go into places, bars, restaurants, convention halls, etc, to listen to and take down notes on what type of music each venue is playing.
Most composers do not get paid for these types of uses because, like radio, it is basically calculated on a sliding scale of popularity. Justin Beiber will earn your share of royalties before you will if your track is played in a restaurant… or funeral home.
you SHOULD NOT go tracking the producer down and asking for a cue sheet.
A big Amen and plus 1 to that.
Most composers do not get paid for these types of uses because, like radio, it is basically calculated on a sliding scale of popularity. Justin Beiber will earn your share of royalties before you will if your track is played in a restaurant… or funeral home.
This is what happens in Ireland, anywhere that plays music needs a license, and the monies are split as Mark said above.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.