- This topic has 56 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Hi Soph,
Me too.
Del, what is correc then and where did you hear it? I heard that figure direct from a PRS employee. They also only pay on UK views. Even worse.
It’s obviously not the $1.5/1000 views you get if you run ads on your own video. I’m not talking about that.
It looks like PRS was never allowed to say exactly what the revenue split was due to their agreement
This is about as specific as they got:
“This means that YouTube videos will generate ‘micro-payments’ in royalties and it will therefore take many of these micro-payments (ie streamed works) to equal £1.”It also looks like the PRS agreement with Youtube ran out in June 2012 and they don’t mention it being renewed anywhere so it is possible the program no longer exists:
http://www.prsformusic.com/creators/helpcentre/Pages/YouTubeDealHelp.aspx#7As for Youtube “Royalties”, BMI and ASCAP have no arrangements that I have ever heard of where they pay actual royalties to composers. They may pay part of ad revenue (and many people simply call that a “royalty”) but there again you have to sign up for youtube contentID system in some form and choose to monetize your music from the clients you’re selling your music to.
Here is the big “Youtube Royalties” offer from last year
http://www.youtubelicenseoffer.com/
If you click on What is a Royalty?
http://www.youtubelicenseoffer.com/faq#Q4
You see that it is just ad revenue and another form of contentID system except managed by yet another 3rd party system (instead of simply doing it yourself and earning 100% of ad revenue instead of 15%).Here is BMI’s statement on what they are doing with licensing music to the internet
http://www.bmi.com/creators/royalty/internet_music_mobile_entertainment/detail
No mention of Youtube that I can see.-Mark
Thanks for the additional information Mark. For us in the UK, I think we can conclude that PRS’s payments for youtube views, assuming they even still exist, would only be worth it if you had into the 10s of millions of UK views (not global). This will only apply in very specific cases.
What I still don’t understand, having read the youtube content ID thread here, is how to use that as a composer. It seems like it’s the best way to get revenue from our music on youtube but I can’t sign up myself, so what do I do?!
@RecHead, Youtube content id probably is the best/only way to get some kind of Royalty from Youtube BUT and this is a BIG BUT, you must treat the track that is submitted as exclusive to whatever library that operates this, otherwise it
1. Breaks Youtube’s own terms regarding this
and
2. Will start to generate take down notices for clients who have purchased a license from a different library.(if you have the track in more than one non exclusive lib.)
If the PRS could somehow track Youtube plays it would get rid of content id as an option for composers, but it doesn’t seem to want or be able to.
Thanks for the reply woodsdenis, very helpful to know!
@Rec Head
” but I can’t sign up myself, so what do I do?!”any content owner can sign up…
http://www.youtube.com/content_id_signup
But I would heed @woodsdenis’ advice very carefully before doing so.If you have a bunch of music that is not available via music libraries that people are using on youtube and getting lots of views then the program might be worth signing up for.
But as mentioned it can cause huge legal hassles if your music is being licensed via lots of non-exclusive libraries.This is very helpful information.
so to clarify—
1) if the same song [re-titled or not] is part
of two different RF librariesand
2) a customer buys the song from library #1
and
3) uses it for a youtube video
then
4) the customer might get a takedown notice from library #2
because library #2 uses some sort of internet royalty/Youtube content ID monitoring systemWow.
For those composers wanting to spread their work around many different RF libraries, it seems like there are only 2 solutions:
1) Only work with RF libraries who explicitly do not track/monitor Youtube either themselves or via a contentID partner like Rumblefish, CD baby, Adium.
2) Never give the same song to more than one RF library,
so there can only be one ‘source’ of the song for the customer.If there’s a middle ground way in between #1 and #2
I’d love to hear about it.@clp
Your clarification of the situation is perfect, simple and straight forward. I might use it in the future if you don’t mind.
In regards to your solutions they are correct but just to clarify even further.
Only libraries with exclusive content or exclusive digital distribution rights to the content can upload music into the youtube contentID system. So unless you sign an exclusive agreement with a music library then they absolutely cannot upload your music into the the youtube database, it would be completely against the youtube contentID terms of service.
So, in theory there should be no issue whatsoever. Only music libraries that have exclusive rights to your content can upload your music into the youtube contentID database.
In practice though it is something completely different.
Many libraries, out of sheer ignorance or because some shady third party has sold the library a pack of lies in regards to the youtube contentID system, join the program and start uploading everything on their hard drives without the composer’s consent or knowledge and without exclusive rights.
This is bad and the offending libraries usually pull out of the system as soon as they realize what they have done and see all the customer complaints and threats of legal action arrive in their inbox, but it does continue to happen.There is also the issue of composers who actually do think that simply changing the title of a song or using a pseudonym will get them around these rules and requirements. Changing a title or composer name does nothing. It is still the same music.
I understand why some composers would want to do it but in my opinion you should just use your real composer name, pick your price point for your music and stick with it.A newbie in another thread asked if there was any way to get around the submission rules and regulations of each of the libraries.
I would suggest not lying to music library owners would be the best start to your production music career.Mark Lewis
http://www.musicloops.com
http://www.partnersinrhyme.comThere is also the issue of composers who actually do think that simply changing the title of a song or using a pseudonym will get them around these rules and requirements. Changing a title or composer name does nothing. It is still the same music.
Rolling eyes…shaking head….that kind of thing is just dumb sumb dumb.
you should just use your real composer name, pick your price point for your music and stick with it.
I sometimes wonder about that. For example, would it be beneficial to market you “B sides” under another name. Also, in my case, we’re thinking about marketing our TV library, as a stand alone catalog. I’ve got other writers involved there. So, I’m thinking about using the entity name.
A newbie in another thread asked if there was any way to get around the submission rules and regulations of each of the libraries.
I would suggest not lying to music library owners would be the best start to your production music career.++1 I understand that for many people their catalog is a limited resource, and they want to spread it everywhere. But Mark is 100% correct.
Deception is never a good way to do business.I know that some libraries don’t mind if you sell on bargain sites, if it’s completely different music. Again, I sometimes think of a car company analogy, e.g. Lexus and Toyota. They have the same parent company but sell in different venues to different clientele.
I strive to make most of my music in the “Lexus” category. But, there are some cues that are maybe at little more “Corolla.” Again, I wonder about selling “B sides” under a pseudonym at a lesser price….mainly to preserve my “brand,” whatever that may be, while still monetizing the lower end of the catalog.
Here’s perfect example: I own all of the RF cues that I did back in the 80’s and 90’s, about 200. Some were converted to CD. Some have live musicians, and others use, “vintage” instruments, or a mixture of both.
Most of these cues can be pumped up with a little remastering. Some of those cues are very good,and some I’d probably rather use a pseudonym.
So, I guess my question is, do we abandon lesser material, or monetize it through a lower end portal?BTW..a few hundred cues that I did for an exclusive back in the 90’s, were sold to a larger company, that now sells all of those cues via an RF portal, with no composer credits / identification (or money) at all. Just pointing out that is one way a large company is dealing with its older catalog.
_Michael
Separate songs and catalogs with different names or brands are just fine.
The problem comes in when you are selling the same exact music for $0.99 on one site and $99.00 on another.
Or by thinking that by changing the title and composer name of the same song that youtube contentID or any other fingerprinting system will not be able to find it.
We had one composer on our site call himself John Williams for a while.
Another composer used a random name as a composer name that happened to be trademarked by another composer and he was threatened with a lawsuit and we had to take down his entire catalog until he renamed himself.Another recent composer started getting youtube copyright claims against his music from our customers. I told ‘composerZ’ that ‘composerX’ appears to have taken his music and is uploading it to the youtube contentID system. ‘composerZ’ then told me that he is also ‘composerX’. I shut down his account until he could sort it out with the various libraries that had compromised his music catalog without his knowledge.
I think composers should take ownership of their music no matter what the quality. If you are not proud enough to put your name to the music then you probably shouldn’t be selling it.
That is just my personal opinion though. It has no effect on who we accept into our libraries.Mark Lewis
http://www.musicloops.com
http://www.partnersinrhyme.comMark… I shouldn’t be surprised by your experiences. When I was practicing law, I never ceased to be amazed at the things people thought they could get away with.
I’m not sure if my question about “B sides” is one of quality or merely style, and of course new technology v. old.
Also, I often created cues created for things like manufacturing scenes and converyor belts, etc. One client used to call them “forward motion” and “pallet movers.” That stuff can be repetitive and minimalistic, i.e. “wallpaper.” To me that’s different than more involved cues that I’ve done for sports, historical or motivational use, which I value more.
Thanks,
MichaelJust recently a very well known Library exported all their cues, both exclusive and non exclusive to the Youtube id system. Incredible really that any library would be so ill-informed these days to do such a thing.
It was only that Mark alerted me to it that I had any idea. They hadn’t even thought of informing their composers of this !!! I promptly emailed them and very quickly my cues, and according to them all other non ex too were withdrawn.
Mark et al–
Thanks for your detailed replies!
I have a better understanding of the Youtube situation now.By the way, what an amazing site this is.
A lifetime membership would be a bargain at 5 times the price!
Just had to say that…-clp
Looks like I’ll be chopping my catalog up. 🙁
I’d like to know which RF libraries are NOT participating in content ID, so I don’t violate anyone’s policy.
_Michael
Mark Lewis wrote: The problem comes in when you are selling the same exact music for $0.99 on one site and $99.00 on another.
Or by thinking that by changing the title and composer name of the same song that youtube contentID or any other fingerprinting system will not be able to find it.
Mark I’d like to pick your brains on the subject above and take your it a step further.
I did retitling in the past with good success (infact I was asked by a big publisher to do so) but limited to one publisher only.
Now like others here it starts to look like retitling is not a good idea anymore (various watermarking and detection systems coming up) and keeping ownership is important.Could a composer simply sell a track without changing its name through different libraries? that would work probably only with non exclusive libraries not claiming back end royalties.
Basically the library will act as a facilitator/supervivor and get a share of the licensing fee, what do you think?