Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Are these deals negotiable?
Sure. Ask for what you think is fair. Be polite but firm. If they reject, don’t sign the deal. There is no reason to sign a deal that you are uncomfortable with.
It does seem that you would get 25% of sync fees over $1000. But what if the sync fee is under $1000? You would get nothing?
Plus, you would only get 10% of any mechanical license fee? They would keep 90%?
That sounds a bit unfair.
“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!
As for opening up doors. Everytime I was told that in my career I got a raw deal in the end. The times people treated me decently were the ones that turned into successes. The only doors that get opened with this kind of deal – in my experience – are the bank’s doors for the library owner.
Sad but true.
It may open up doors, but more than likely, if they can get you to work that cheap, they won’t ever pay you more.
Truth!
The upfront is a lot less than $500. Closer to something like $100. lol.
In that case, no. F*** no! that is nothing to “LOL” about. That is sad. 🙁
They want to pay you $100 to create an original album’s worth of music? Please say no.
It’s hard to say.
I guess that the question for you is “do you want to earn sync fees?”.
If so, you may have to pass on the deal. If you can live with only getting the upfront fee and the writers royalties, it may be a nice deal.
You also have to factor in the time it takes to make each track. Sometimes the work that you put in demands more money upfront and demands sync fees for usages.
It does take a lot of work to create a full album.
I like Soundcloud because it is pretty mainstream and is free.
Most music libraries know about Soundcloud. Even if I were to create a new custom piece, I would just submit it directly to the client. My own website would not really help.
I look at it on the amount of traffic. Soundcloud will probably get more traffic than I can with my own site. So I go to where I can get the most traffic. That is the same reason why I put my music in libraries instead of selling it myself.
I work at making music. Libraries work at promoting and selling music. I want to work with people that can help me instead of trying to do it all myself.
That is what smart business people do. They outsource what they can unless they feel that they can perform a function better than other people and make more money at it.
Nope. Just get a Soundcloud account.
I put up songs there to provide links for music libraries. All of that bio info and other stuff doesn’t matter to them, at least initially. They want to hear the music first. Soundcloud is a simple solution for hosting a few songs for audition..
Oh cool.
He seems sincere, a bit unpolished, but someone that has a work ethic. He could make a career for himself as long as he works hard and keeps his nose clean.
Good luck Clark!
I simply do not care if customers need to jump through one final 3 minute hurdle to use the track on YOUTUBE when they legitimately license our track.
You don’t care about convenience for the customer?
That is sad on so many levels. Why bother to sell music if the customer’s needs come after your needs? I have never heard of a successful and sustainable business that put the customers’ needs and preferences last.
That is dangerous rhetoric and would immediately make me run away from any composer or library that stated such a thing!
Dave, are you going to sue Peppermayo?
DI, I can not have an intelligent discussion with you. Do more research or better yet test the ADREV thing out with one track. Sorry, but I come from an opinion that we have an opportunity to police licenses sold for YT usages through ADREV. As I stated before, I was very much against and distrusting of the entire scheme and service until I tested the waters and uploaded a tune to ADREV. It’s fascinating finding out:
1. Who is uploading your music on YT.
2. How many views is it getting.
3. How many videos are using that track on YT.
4. Of course it’s fun collecting some money.The uploading to ADREV is not nearly as painful as it is on some sites in terms of meta data entries.
So you use the service to monitor usage of your music, not to make money. You seem to be truly concerned with illegal usage of your music. That is argument is understandable. Your argument about making money is not understandable.
It’s a 2 minute process. I am sorry, but a small business media producer paying $20 for a license should not feel hassled because they need to prove they bought a license. Why sell a license in the first place?
Why buy a license from a library that participates in the process at all?
I don’t want to spend an extra two minutes doing anything. I want completely royalty-free, hassle-free, and stress-free purchases. There are enough libraries and composers out there that do not participate in ContentID, ADREV, and YouTube royalties.
If any person that bought a license gets hit with a claim, that person is entitled to a refund. If I made a video, I would not want advertisements on it unless I was making money from the ads.
There is no justification to be bothered with the system. There is so much great music out there to purchase that is hassle-free. Dealing with any copyright infringement claims at all is not even a reality for me. I would never, ever, ever, ever do business with a company that got me into any trouble or caused any problems. One problem is totally unforgivable and intolerable in today’s marketplace. This is a buyers market, not a seller’s market. The customer is always right in this case. The library must obey the customer and the content creator must obey the library.