Soundcloud partners with Getty images music

[Steve B.]

Any of SoundCloud’s 20m registered users — made of up songwriters and other sound creators — can make their original content available for licensing simply by adding the “license” button from Getty Images Music to their SoundCloud player. Commercial users can then request a license for any of those tracks by clicking the “license” button, after which Getty Images Music’s licensing department takes over. If the track has never been licensed before, the process is said to take between a few days or a few weeks, dependent on paperwork and the necessary clearance.

Soundcloud does not get any money for this. Mainly they just added the feature for their users. I for one will not be using this feature because of Getty’s terrible split percentages.

[soundslikejoe]

I’m interested in knowing more about this… Specifically,

have any users had action from this submission method?

I already have a Getty account. Will my SoundCloud submissions be associated with my existing Pump/Getty account?

 

[Michael Nickolas]

For me at least, Getty’s terrible split is becoming irrelevant. My recent statement showed that like many other companies they are most likely doing blanket licenses for broadcast. There are no individual license fees to terribly split any more. However they continue to pay 50% of publishing. So as long as that keeps up (shhhh…don’t tell them) it is (again, for me) actually a better deal than some.

[Wildman]

Hi,

can anyone explain a non English native speaker what you guys mean with ” gratis blanket licensing”. I read that many libraries do this now but I do not have a clue what it really means. Thanx….

[Desire_Inspires]

Hi,

can anyone explain a non English native speaker what you guys mean with ” gratis blanket licensing”. I read that many libraries do this now but I do not have a clue what it really means. Thanx….

A gratis (gratis = free in Spanish) blanket license is when a music library gives a client access to some or all of the music available in that library for free (free as in no money is exchanged).

This means that some music libraries give away access to the music for free. They do this because they intend on making up for the lost fee by earning publishing royalties when music is used on TV shows.

.

[Wildman]

Ok,
that is it what you native English speakers understand under “blanket licenses” 🙂
In Europe it is totally normal that nearly every TV channel or film production company has a deal with a library, and they all have free access to the libraries. I know it because I work for many well known libraries.

I did not know that getty images does the same. As far as I know they are not allowed to do that with the soundcloud music and it is technically not possible.
The customer can listen to the song and get in contact with getty images/pump audio if he wants to license the song. After he pays the fee he can download the track.

[quango]

Hey, anyone had any results from the Getty/Soundcloud hookup?

[Happy Ears]

-“can make their original content available for licensing simply by adding the “license” button from Getty Images Music to their SoundCloud player”

Instead why not just add some tags yourself that says something like “To license this track contact the artist @….etc”

If someone finds your track on sound cloud and wants to license it, why send them to Getty? Unless you just want to have them to handle the admin perhaps but the job of a music licensing company is to GET the clients either by having a an outlet where clients frequents or by pitching your music. This way the client found YOU without Getty’s involvement so why not just handle the licensing yourself. And then you don’t’ get the devaluing of your music by being associated with Getty Images Music 🙂 but that’s another discussion…

[Music Writer]

Exactly Happy Ears. Everyone set up their own publishing company at a pro so if a show wants to use your track as a cue they can file YOUR NAME AS WRITER and YOUR PUB CO THAT YOU CREATE AS PUBLISHER. Then when the cue sheet is filed you will collect 100% writer and 100% publisher!

Getty Images (Pump Audio) is simply becoming a greedy, leech in this deal w/ soundcloud and getting their name on the cue sheet as publisher. That is if I understand the deal correctly. Now if Pump is required to fold the track into their catalog by soundcloud users enabling “send track to Pump Audio” and then they do all the tagging and admin work etc….they are entitled to publishing. But, to have a deal where they just conveniently scoop up publishing from our soundcloud tracks is absurd. They are not doing any work. The deal is kind of like this : We get free royalty money thanks to you clicking the enable button! At what point do composers stop enabling vultures and leeches and bottom feeders our “Lion’s Share”?

Yes, Everyone on soundcloud should include info in your track desicription where you list Composer Name and IPI # at Pro and Publishing Company Name and IPI # at Pro.

This really is an interesting development because Soundcloud can ultimately cut off the middleman entirely. Soundcloud can become the world wide search engine that finally allows buyers direct access to sellers. We should all be writing to Soundcloud to allow for this.

Then again, it makes one wonder….why didn’t soundcloud just become a publisher where they collect publishing on everyone’s content? This really is a fascinating development!

read the FAQ carefully so you understand this deal:

http://soundcloud.gettyimages.com/faq

[Desire_Inspires]

I don’t see it being a big deal. The deal seems more beneficial to a band that wants to make a few extra dollars from licensing without learning the details of music licensing. No copyright is transferred.

I really do not add music to my Soundcloud since I am not trying to attract a fanbase. I only put a new song up there when I am trying to get a song into a music library.

[music_pro]

Music Writer, if you can have the same connections pump have, then go ahead and collect full publisher share and sync fees, good luck.

[Author]

Posts