Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Shared from a friend… Please make the tweet as suggested below (copy/paste). If you don’t have a Twitter account, it takes only a few minutes to create one. Spread the word!
https://variety.com/2019/music/news/discovery-networks-composers-music-royalties-1203434924
The Your Music Your Future community needs your help, right now. Discovery Networks is planning to cut composer and songwriter income by 90% as of December 31st. Variety even called them out on it. So we’re rallying together to take immediate ACTION to help stop them.
Action step: Please tweet as early as possible TODAY, Monday, December 16th. Here’s a tweet you can copy and paste:Happy Holidays, composers! @Discovery Networks found a way to cut your income by 90%. RT if you want composers to be paid fairly. https://bit.ly/2qZ423k @Gold_Rush @DeadliestCatch @StreetOutlaws #DiscoveryGreed #yourmusicyourfuture @yrmusicyrfuture
Whatever you decide to tweet, please use the link (https://bit.ly/2qZ423k) and include the same hashtags (#DiscoveryGreed and #yourmusicyourfuture) for maximum impact!
Discovery is even pressuring composers to take the 90% cut going backwards for shows that are already on the air. The threat is that if they don’t take the deal, Discovery will strip these composers’ music out of all their existing shows (!), and the composers will never work with any of the networks again.
If we don’t take a stand right now, this practice will spread to other network groups and everyone will be paid much less money in the future—both composers and songwriters. And where will great composers come from when they can no longer make a living?
At the time of this email, YMYF has signed up more than 6,400 composers. As a community, we have formidable power if everyone tweets. But we all need to take immediate action. Be proud of the community you’ve helped create. Now let’s put it to work.Creator groups from around the world, inspired by Your Music Your Future, have pledged to tweet with us in support of composers TODAY. Please be sure to do your part!
Yes, the ripple effect would be huge. Anyone who depends on PRO revenue for placements on this network’s channels will get royally screwed.
Even worse than changing this arranged for future music use, Discovery is considering replacing all the music on previously produced shows with direct licensed tracks. So those people currently making revenue on reruns would also lose out on that income stream.And as someone else already said, sign into https://yourmusicyourfuture.com and speak up.
Yes you would need your co-writer’s PRO and CAE/IPI#.
If the song is self-published and either of you have publishing companies, you would need those company names and CAE/IPI#s as well.BMI allows you to collect the publisher’s share as “excess clearance” without having a publishing company. I assume your co-writer is PRS. I don’t know if that’s true with them or not. If we have any PRS members here, they can chime in.
You should be able to contact BMI for assistance on how to fill out the online registration.
Good luck!
I’d stay away from these folks. One red flag for me is when the service (such as X-Ray) splits the submission frees with the listing client. Total conflict of interest. I don’t know anything about CMI but any service that relies on submissions through X-Ray is majorly suspect to me. BJ also shares submission fees, BTW. There ARE some honest services though YMMV. Don’t ask me for names, because I won’t get into that.
ASCAP doesn’t accept Tunesat detections either.
Tunesat has helped me with info I went back to the LIBRARY with who in turn contacted the production company about the cue sheet issue. Libraries have a vested interested since they get 50%.
It can also clue you in to where to look to get actual video of a broadcast which the PROs do accept. For example, if it picked up a use on a show that reruns a lot you can look for that to run again and take video. (I’ve never done this so theoretical).
None of these are frequent occurrences. Not at all saying Tunesat is the royalty savior. But having information is always better than not.
And yes, few can afford the paid version. Only worth it for publishers and composers with maybe 100K income or more per year.
Art has the right approach. Keep finding new ways to make income from your music as things change in the industry. Not saying it’s pretty or easy or that everyone can do it. Evolve or die. You can’t change the big machinery in most cases, you learn to work around or despite it. Full disclosure, I do not make a living on production music by any means. But I do know a number of 6 figure production music guys and they are always keeping an eye on changes, diversifying, etc. And though they do note problems, I rarely hear them complain and never at the level of intensity I read on here.
As far as PROs, there may be a lot of production music broadcasts but many are small paying (cable, etc) and (Don’t know for sure!) it probably is small potatoes compared to broadcast of pop hits, dollar-wise. Money is always the driver. Calling for a “production music only” PRO is like calling for all composers to magically unite and form a union.
I agree that Tunesat beyond the free account is too expensive for most. But regarding PROs not accepting Tunesat as proof– that’s true but you can take the info to your library and ask them to look into it. I have successfully done that. Since they get 50%, it’s obviously in their best interest.
Both ASCAP and BMI have issues, no doubt. BMI pays better for vocal songs (and many times instrumentals too) and many feel more money is worth the lack of cue sheet visibility.
As mentioned many times – the answer to our problems is a library music based PRO that deals only with production music. Until then, feel free to sit at the back of either PRO bus.
Such a thing doesn’t exist. And probably never will. All we can do is keep an eye on our music (tunesat, etc) and keep contacting our PRO if it looks like they are missing something.
In NO way am I minimizing the problem of not getting paid for our work. And yes, we should contact “up the chain” at our PROs to let our voices be heard. But politely and professionally, while still being emphatic is key.
No arguments, John 😀 … I can’t say I know anything for sure. I got interested in them because in-store airplay is a good market now and they offer that. I’ve probably only dealt with newer management. Right now, to me, it seems $49/year is pretty inexpensive so as long as it’s all non-exclusive, I’ll give it a shot.
Again, I don’t know what I don’t know. If it starts to smell bad over the next 1-2 years, I’ll exit (as difficult as that sounds, LOL!)
Thanks for another cheery post, Music1234. 😀
I think they’re just overwhelmed with recent growth. I’ve had pretty good experiences dealing with their people. My gut tells me your difficulty removing your account was not anything sneaky, just people overwhelmed, growing pains, etc. Not saying whether ST is or isn’t the right thing for anyone, just my impressions interacting with them. Good luck!
I think there IS too much negativity on here and it’s from a select few members. Not usually personal attacks, but a general “the music industry sucks and is out to get you” attitude.
If a newcomer joins and those are the first posts they see, I could see them getting the wrong impression. That being said, there is so much helpful info here from many good people and that’s what I focus on and I know most of you out there do as well.
Music1234
Thanks for the open-minded analysis. As I mentioned, not everything is black and white though I share the concern that this model is part of the “race to the bottom”.It could be that on the right site with a very large number of tracks, this could be on leg of your overall income. I choose not to participate but to each his/her own. Also, I have a smaller catalog of vocal songs, not thousands of RF type instrumentals.
There is a possibility, whether we like it or not, that with the growing demand for music for small budget video (youtube, etc), this model *could* take over the RF world. What if sites like P5 and AS find they can’t compete on a single fee per download and are forced to enter this model to survive? We’ve seen libraries share publishing with TV production companies because everyone else was doing it and they couldn’t compete otherwise. And as you know, no matter what deals WE refuse to sign, there will be thousands of hungry composers who will jump right in.
We’ll have to keep watching what happens here.
No rants. Just discussion. 🙂
Many contracts give libraries a lot of authority to sub out to other avenues. In this case, it was very much allowed. My fault for not reading it more carefully. I’ve signed so many non-exclusives that I’ve gotten into the habit of looking mainly to see the split, if it’s non-exc, and can be terminated (not in perpetuity).
I raised the subject, not to blast the library, but to ask if there ever can be positives to being in a subscription model library. We tend to be black and white about these things. That doesn’t mean *I* thing these are good, just asking.
I can identify the library later on.
Hi Art
For now, I intentionally left the library name out. I wanted to ask the general question.Best
Question. Can this model ever be good for a composer? e.g. If the fees are big enough such that what you get per song sale is “real” money?
Getting my first taste of this. I found out that one of my libraries put my songs on a subscription site. In this case, the subscription fees are way too low for the artists to make real money unless they have thousands of tracks. From $8/month for 5 songs per month to $29/month unlimited. I think you have to sign up per year which makes the range $96 to $348 per year. If someone signed up for the cheapest plan and bought my song, what percentage of that $96 would be mine? And if the songs were put there as a sub to another publisher, their split would have to be figured in. I can’t imagine there would be much left for me per sale.
Music1234, I know what your reply would be, LOL 😀 Other comments?