What youtube pays.

[More Advice]

Denis, I too am quite suspicious of what some NE’s have really done with their catalogs in this scheme. Even ADREV was preaching to me that I should get those tracks up-loaded to them anyway. There is a way to enter the YOUTUBE Monetization scheme in a “go alone” manner and we all just need to figure that out.

But yes, to those who have sold in the RF market, their customers probably get tagged with copyright violations a lot, but I also heard that ADREV has a simple way to remove those violations for customers who purchased a legit license to use the track. So it’s still a very tricky situation.

I’d like to see Google cutting some monster checks to the PROS too to increase the royalty pool. So much production music is heard on YOUTUBE nowadays. They should be treated like a regular TV Network IMHO. The stock is $1200 a share and they are now a 407 billion dollar company.

PS. p5 used one of my tracks (and several others) offered for sale on p5 to create a promo video yet they did not buy a license. Here is the link, beware, you may hear your own track! Maybe they filed a cue sheet? LOL!

[MichaelL]

So, I started this thread by saying that YT doesn’t pay that much, and composers would be cautious when makes choices AND we all end up agreeing.

Now, isn’t that a beautiful thing? 🙂

[Desire_Inspires]

I am interested in finding the facts and seeing if there really is an opportunity to generate another revenue stream.

Me too. As long as I can earn money from my music in other ways, I would not mind participating in the YouTube Content ID program. A small check will not pay the mortgage but could be used to buy some DYI items for small home improvement projects. Why turn away easy money?

[woodsdenis]

@MA what a strange video.

I am not even interested in YT monetization by any means for primarily the very simple reasons

1.It goes against the TOS of the libraries I am in.
2.There is absolutely no money in it. ( maybe thats no 1 LOL)

Lets just say hypothetically there was money in it and ADREV claimed that they could work it for you via some scheme and by very quickly reversing claims.

1. You would piss off the libraries concerned.
2. More importantly ADREV would be struck out of the whole scheme because of the amount of false claims they would be making. See my post above about that.

TBH I dont even think about it, it really is a non starter.

[MichaelL]

1.It goes against the TOS of the libraries I am in.
2.There is absolutely no money in it. ( maybe thats no 1 LOL)

That was the point of the OP. So little money, and you will violate the TOS of many libraries, so why bother?

Content ID makes sense for record labels and pop artists, whose “fans” upload their music into YT vids. It makes sense for major libraries that control a lot of exclusive content.

It does not make sense for the majority of writers here, who market their works through multiple libraries. The fact that ADREV states that it can quickly reverse copyright claims will not help you, if the libraries that you are in, drop you just as quickly.

With few exceptions, the way to make more money in this business is to make more music.

[Author]

Posts