- This topic has 8 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
I’m toying with the idea of signing up with AdRev to track a good number of my cues which are out there in the wild, through various libraries (big and small).
But I’m also constantly bombarded with ads from Tunesat, Songtrust, Audiam, SoundExchange, and Symphonic Distribution and other similar companies.
I’m always a little unclear about what each of these tracking companies do, and which are “compatible” with each other and which are competitors to each other. Obviously this is all in addition to PRO (BMI/ASCAP/SESAC) royalties.
Has anyone given any thought to this and perhaps written an article summarizing all these various forms of tracking and what they do, and which one(s) are competitors?
“What exactly are they tracking?”
“Why do you want to sign up with them?”
“Do they charge money for you to work with them?”
“Will these companies help you to make money?”
“What are the legal consequences for choosing one company over the other?”
Those are serious questions that need to be answered before taking any actions!
“Will these companies help you to make money?”
“What are the legal consequences for choosing one company over the other?”
SoundExchange is not a for profit “company”…the rest are. SoundExchnage is a PRO authorized by the US Library of Congress to collect certain types of royalties.
The others are for profit companies that perform a a variety of monitoring services, some, like tunesat, for a fee.
You can get this information from SoundExchange or Wikipedia.
SoundExchange is designated by the Librarian of Congress as the sole organization authorized to collect royalties paid by services making ephemeral phonorecords or digital audio transmissions of sound recordings, or both, under the statutory licenses set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 112 and 17 U.S.C. § 114.[20] As of January 1, 2003, SoundExchange is designated by the United States Copyright Office to also distribute the collected royalties to copyright owners and performers entitled under and pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 114(g)(2).[20]
Hello All,
AdRev is a company based solely on protecting and collecting YouTube ad revenue on behalf of copyright holders of music, film and self-produced content. This revenue generally comes from AdRev claiming uses of your work in other YouTube videos without your permission.
If you deliver a piece of content to AdRev, we will ingest it into the YouTube Content ID system and actively manage this “asset”. We will collect all ad revenue generated from videos using your intellectual property and pay it down to you. There are ZERO fees with AdRev – we work entirely on an administrative fee. We can of course protect sound recordings, but we also can go after publishing rights.
I hope this helps clear up what AdRev does for content owners. Visit our site, http://adrev.net for more info. If you would like to speak with me directly please reply to this post with your email and I will get in touch with you.
Hi Matt,
Thanks for dropping in to explain some things about AdRev.
Many of the composers here have the same music in numerous non-exclusive libraries, some of which are “royalty free” libraries.
Part of the marketing of some of those royalty free libraries is a promise to their customers that the music they purchase will be free from copyright claims on youtube.
How is it possible:
1) for writers in RF libraries, who promote their music a free copyright claims, to collect money through AdRev, without triggering copyright claims?
2) for writers who have music in non-exclusive libraries to comport with the youtube’s Terms of Service, which requires exclusive content?
Your input might help to clear up some concern over theses issues, which is considerable.
Thank you,
_MichaelHi Matt,
Thanks for dropping in to explain some things about AdRev.
Many of the composers here have the same music in numerous non-exclusive libraries, some of which are “royalty free” libraries.
Part of the marketing of some of those royalty free libraries is a promise to their customers that the music they purchase will be free from copyright claims on youtube.
How is it possible:
1) for writers in RF libraries, who promote their music a free copyright claims, to collect money through AdRev, without triggering copyright claims?
2) for writers who have music in non-exclusive libraries to comport with the youtube’s Terms of Service, which requires exclusive content?
Your input might help to clear up some concern over theses issues, which is considerable.
Thank you,
_Michaeland a deafening silence from Adrev……………..
and a deafening silence from AdRev……………..
The answer may be an admission that they don’t want on an open forum.
If I recall correctly, AdRev was designed to make money by detecting illegal or unauthorized uses of music, someone who’s using, for example, a Katy Perry song as the soundtrack for their video, without a license or permission.
AdRev probably works well for legal uses of music, where the rights holder participates in contentID.
What AdRev most likely has difficulty doing, without extra steps by everyone involved, is dealing with non-exclusive licensed music, that the consumer purchased with the guarantee that it would not get caught in the copyright notice net.
Non-exclsuive RF writers are in an unusual position because they’ve agreed to bypass YT royalties for the benefit of their buyers.
By analogy, AdRev might be like the tuna fishermen who also catch dolphins because their nets can’t tell the difference.
One poster, suggested that RF libraries need to be “educated.” Maybe its the other way around. Maybe the purveyors of contentID collection systems need to learn to tell the difference between dolphins and tuna.
I totally get that AdRev is a perfect match for Record Companies and the like, but why come on to a composers forum and give the company line then. Surely they know by now, even by perusing this thread that Content id can cause problems for us.
….but why come on to a composers forum and give the company line then. Surely they know by now, even by perusing this thread that Content id can cause problems for us.
Perhaps lack of concern for the problems that it can cause, or complete misunderstanding of those problems.