What youtube pays.

[MichaelL]

For anyone rushing into a YT monetization scheme, giving up rights and hoping for a big payday….

What YouTube Really Pays… Makes Spotify Look Good! #sxsw

[woodsdenis]

Crikey

[Mark_Petrie]

Sounds about right, I’ve heard it’s around $2000 per million views.

[ChuckMott]

How does this break down (just curious) if you are the backing track for someone’s vid….

[Edouardo]

I stay away from YT monetization schemes, by respect to my customers, my products need to stay clean. However, I wonder: if one of my tracks is used on YT on a video by an individual (that purchased a licence on a RF) and it goes viral (multi-million views)…

The individual paid for the licence, that’s fine. but YT did not, and draws millions to their site and their ads. I sign no contract with them because it is IMHO abusive and can be damaging to my licensees.

Nonetheless, not signing a contract does not deprive me from my rights to get royalties… So how would I get paid?

[Desire_Inspires]

I don’t know what to make of it. Is this supposed to be a bad thing?

I thought that the copyright holder could also monetize his music through other means as well. Multiple payments, no matter how small at first, can grow and grow over time.

[MichaelL]

@DI …seriously? $.00028 per view! Yes, those hundredths of a penny really add up over time! 😛

@Chuck…the blue part of the chart is for content that is owned 100% by the person posting the video…say you post a video of your song.
The orange part of the chart represents 3rd party / partial ownership, which is what you refer to your music is the background for someone else’s video.

These number are based on 1 million plus views over two years. So, that $280 figure for 3rd party content, becomes $140 per year.

What the article doesn’t do is talk about how many views they average YT video gets.

Here’s a link with some data. Take it for what it’s worth.
http://techcrunchies.com/youtube-average-views/

But, around 29% of all YT videos have less than 100 views. Another quarter have between 100 and 500 views.
Only 1.73% have between 100K and 500K views, which will net you a whopping $14 to $70 per year. And that magical 1 million mark, that will net you $140 per year (for 3rd party content)…less than 1% of all videos… on third of one percent or .33%.

These are the numbers that you have to weigh before you make decisions that may affect your relationships with some libraries, and before you sign up with anyone who purports to keep track of, and collect, all of your YT royalties for you.

[ChuckMott]

Thanks for the info. Not pursuing that persay. YOutube stuff should be it’s own seminar. Not sure where this all overlaps with content i.d. So now if your track is in one of these vids, it gets tagged with this youtube content i.d. Not sure if I’m correct in this, but a library sells this to a provider who is, say a video producer. SO then the library per your typical contract hets a 50% piece of that pie, and your track, being involved with the content id , pretty much takes it out of the running for placement anywhere else? Yet other libraries say that their youtube agreements are not part of the content ID thing. Confusing to me. Any links anywhere that explain this whole thing clearly?

[More Advice]

There has to be some motivation to do this as a company in NYC, FP music (I am using initials due to the rules), is basically focusing their entire model on this YOUTUBE opportunity and they indicated to me that meaningful money was being earned every single day. I also keep getting mixed signals about royalties, I have heard royalties can hit $10 for every 1000 views…

A lot of information flying around but hard to sift through what is fact and what is fiction.

I almost pulled the trigger on up-loading my catalog to ADREV last week but I have resisted. All the big boys are using ADREV including Warner Chappel, Extreme, Megatrax. So there has to be some opportunity.

[MichaelL]

@More Advice, I think you figured this out before. Yes, if you are a library, or a company that controls thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of cues those micro royalties add up, but for individual composers, maybe not.

Yes, it’s hard to say. There’s a lot of conflicting advice. But weren’t you very anti-Adrev in a different thread?

Copyright Fiasco at YouTube

I think that your exact words were:

The entire situation of monetizing silly YOUTUBE videos is an insane mess!

Composers who sign up for this garbage are just stupid.

Maybe that was the other “More Advice”

Why the change of heart?

[More Advice]

Back to sarcasm ML? Please put your red highlighter away permanantly so people don’t take micro quotes out of context. It’s amazing that you have time to dig up old quotes from tucked away threads. Technology and issues and opportunities change every day in this business. I am still sorting out, as is everyone, the pros and cons of youtube monetization.

What I am strongly against is writers sub contracting or signing up for the monetization program with a publisher who would become the first to collect. Writers would then have to hope that the accounting is done right and wait for the publisher to pay the youtube royalties. Yes I stand by my position that that approach is stupid.

What’s challenging to figure out is how to cut out the middle man or in some cases 2 middle men: ADREV and a Publisher. It’s my understanding that ADREV collects 100% of the royalties then distributes 80% to the writer. To me, there seems to be a lot of room for ADREV to keep more of the gravy in that situation.

The other reason why I was against it, and still may be, is because the clients who use our music may get copyright notices slapped on their videos which is an annoyance to them. Hundreds of people are making videos about this annoyance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x__XfPq_tbA

I am not here Michael L to do your favorite activity which is to argue back and forth. I am interested in finding the facts and seeing if there really is an opportunity to generate another revenue stream.

[MichaelL]

Sorry to rattle your cage…MA. We basically agree.

My point is the composers really need to find the facts before handing their catalog over to a 3rd party, because the revenue, as pointed out in the OP is potentially so low.

I think the your original take, in the other thread, is quite correct. It is the companies who aggregate the tracks that will gain the most, while individual composers may not.

Because some libraries, like Music Loops, will ban you, if you participate in content ID, composers need to weigh very carefully the choice between RF sales, at $50 a pop, vs. potentially hundredths of a penny per view on Youtube, when most YT videos have fewer than 500 views….$50 vs. $1.40 for 500 views.

I understand where you’re coming from. I would guess that you have a large catalog of already recorded quality tracks, with live players, perhaps that were jingle demos, and you want monetize it any way you can. You may, or may not have the flexibility to rework, or transform, those tracks. I would be doing exactly what you’re doing, leaving no possible stone unturned. You’ve got something of value that you need to monetize, while its got legs.

On the other hand, if that’s not the case, I would split things up between exclusive libraries that do YT content ID, and RF libraries that do not. Multiple revenue streams, from all sources. I would just move on and write new cues.

When you get down to it, the same cue can be produced 20 different ways, and sent to 20 different places.

BTW…the “red highlighter” is the default block quote setting. I have no control over it.

[woodsdenis]

Any links anywhere that explain this whole thing clearly?

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797370?hl=en

This is youtube content id explained, different from royalties.From the horses mouth so to speak.

Who can use Content ID?

YouTube only grants Content ID to content owners who meet specific criteria. To be approved, content owners must own exclusive rights to a substantial body of original material that is frequently uploaded by the YouTube user community.

YouTube also sets explicit guidelines on how to use Content ID. We monitor Content ID use and disputes on an ongoing basis to ensure these guidelines are followed. Content owners who repeatedly make erroneous claims can have their Content ID access disabled and their partnership with YouTube terminated.

I believe this is new , maybe they finally got sense and saw the crazy claims going on.!!!!

[MichaelL]

@Denis, based upon what I’m reading, if you’ve already spread your tracks among non-exclusive libraries, you cannot participate in content ID. For one thing, content ID will only recognize “content” not differentiate between titles and publishers.

Under the terms of use, the music must be exclusive. No?

[woodsdenis]

Content ID will match a user’s reference content against every upload to YouTube. Therefore, applicants must have the exclusive rights to the material that is evaluated. Common examples of items that may not be exclusive to individuals include:

Under the terms of use, the music must be exclusive. No?

Yes that is correct, as stated in the text quotes above from Youtube’s specific criteria link. It is in very plain english with no lawyer speak LOL. How any non exclusive library or composer could possibly misinterpret this is beyond me, however a few have tried !!!!

I noticed that they have changed the FAQ page with obvious reference to the plethora of false claims. Mark ML is the expert on all of this.

Bottom line, don’t enter into any kind of monetization scheme unless your music is exclusive to the participating library. There are no if or buts about it, if you have tracks with P5, ML, JP etc etc or any other non ex, you cannot enter into a YT monetization scheme with those tracks.

[Author]

Posts