Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Adam, I just wanted to clear something up –
If you write for libraries, or are a library owner, you need to be aware of the dangers of Content ID claims and the companies tempting you with promises of advertising revenue.
“Dangers” is a strong word – it should be pretty obvious to anyone that Content ID is NOT appropriate for NON-EXCLUSIVE libraries.
However, some exclusive libraries, i.e. ones that control all the rights to their music, do really well through Content ID. In fact, one library I write for sends me AdRev checks that have recently eclipsed anything I get from royalty free library sales. We’re talking popular trailer music, so maybe it’s not a fair comparison, but I wanted to mention it because Content ID income can and often does make its way to music creators.
I think it’s important for any library, especially non-exclusive ones, to educate their clients on how Content ID works, so there is less ‘freak out’ when their YouTube channel gets a message saying they have ‘3rd party matched content’ (and by the way, the language YouTube uses when there is a match is now less dire than before, so hopefully that helps clients freak out a little less).
This could be in the invoice the client receives, or spelled out before the customer goes to purchase the files.
No matter how vigilant you are about not getting your non-exclusive tracks placed in Content ID, someone will mistakenly (or deliberately) try it at some point.
All of my UPPM tracks disappeared overnight from my ASCAP catalog. They were there yesterday, today they are gone.
Same here. At least we’re in good company –
http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7318702/umpg-ole-pull-film-production-music-ascap-sesac
As far as the PRO’s are concerned, a publisher’s PRO affiliation has to match the songwriter’s affiliation. For example, a writer affiliated with ASCAP must be signed to an ASCAP affiliated company in order to register their songs with ASCAP and to collect royalties from ASCAP. The same follows for BMI and SESAC. What’s probably happened here is that UPPM has signed a SESAC writer and has formed a new entity in order to affiliate with SESAC.
Sam, you’re right, that’s the way it USED to be : )
I’m an ASCAP writer. Yesterday, all my UPPM tracks went from an ASCAP publisher to a SESAC publisher. (I didn’t switch)My stuff over at Killer Tracks
(click on the versions and edits to see that I’m with ASCAP but the publisher is with SESAC)
So it seems that as SESAC is now collecting the royalties for those tracks, ASCAP writers that have tracks with UPPM might start getting a check from SESAC as well as ASCAP…
The ASCAP statement that came out doesn’t seem to make it any clearer. Maybe we’ll start getting a check from SESAC for just UPPM tracks?
Salary type arrangements for composers are rare, but in terms of ‘libraries’ (I use that term loosely) they exist in three forms that I know of:
– small TV music companies, usually run by the credited composers of TV shows, who need to farm out the work. You have to split the writer’s share with your bosses. You might have to write at a brisk pace, like two completely finished tracks a day. The work might also involve ‘finishing’ the sketch that your boss creates. That type of work is more common in scripted TV, whereas in reality TV land you’re most likely churning out track after track on an assembly line.
– music companies that specialize in custom music for commercials, where you get a salary for showing up to work every day to quickly write two, maybe three 30 second spots. Salary + bonuses for winning spots.
– game companies, where composers are in house. There are some game music companies too.
I mention these companies because very often you’ll just be writing music for a catalog of tracks to go out to the client, so you might as well think of it as a library.
There is a risk that you can burn out doing this work day in and day out, so it’s not for everyone.
On the other hand, maybe you’re asking if libraries pay upfront to composers who still work at home. The answer is yes, and in my experience it’s:
– reality TV composers who need lots of music, and you split the writer’s share for $100 – $200 per track
– buy-out libraries, where you give up all licensing income for $600 – $2000 per track.
No, bad idea! It would have to be so different, to the extent that it sounded like a completely different piece of music, for that to be ok.
My own experience has been that tension cues don’t sell well on RF sites, but they do sell a little. Much better getting those in the hands on TV centric libraries, I think.
Not a stupid question at all – I would definitely get in touch with someone at your PRO. Someone else with the same name as me (different middle name) sometimes gets a few dollars off of my royalties at ASCAP, so I imagine the CAE doesn’t cover everything.
why is it advantageous for a music sup or production company to go with an exclusive library if they are not getting exclusivity?
I think the biggest reason would be that the client’s legal department needs a clean clearance, no weird issues popping up where someone else might claim they own / represent the track. ESPECIALLY if it’s a situation where two or more non-ex libraries have their catalogs on the same show. Who got it on there first?
“Exclusive” in the sense you’re getting at, does still happen for clients, but usually for a limited time. The side of things I usually hear of this happening is in high end licensing – commercials and movie trailers.
A high end track that licenses non-exclusively (the library is the sole owner, but is licensing the track to whoever will pay) for trailers might go for $25,000, but if a movie studio wants a track exclusive for a year, i.e. no other trailer using it, then the fee could be upwards of $75,000.
You’re not the only composer who has been confused by the term ‘exclusive’ before – I had someone write a few exclusive tracks for me, take an upfront fee, then give the same music to ANOTHER exclusive library. D’oh!
Just what Art said – when we say a library is exclusive, it means that the library is the exclusive representative of that music. It’s usually FOREVER as they often OWN the music (masters and copyright), although there are some exclusive deals out there that are for just a specific time frame, which you’ll find listed on this site.
I have a question about “spreading” my music among the libraries as Mark_Petrie suggests earlier in the thread. If you have a song on one site and they price it at, say, $64, and you know another site has an average of $23, do sell the track for the same price on both sites regardless?
I didn’t mean to take the same tracks and upload them to a bunch of RF sites. What I was getting at was that it’s ideal to spread music out amongst all the different categories of libraries.
Here are those categories again – this is a combo of majorising’s and my post:
1. Non Exclusive – Sync fees plus back end
2. Non Exclusive back end only (gratis licenses)
3. Exclusive – Sync fees plus back end (Higher End libraries)
3a: exclusive, well paid upfront buy-out (like $800 – $2000 per track)
3b: exclusive, no money upfront, 50% (or more if you’re lucky) share of licensing.
a very rare ‘c’ as well: some upfront money and a share of the licensing.4. Exclusive back end only (gratis deals)
5. Non Exclusive Royalty Free
6. Exclusive Royalty Free
7. Performance Free
Hi Danny! Feel free to email me at mark @ markpetrie.com
AS is great, I just grew old trying to input all my music. Their system is amazing, but adding tracks is slow compared to other sites.
Last time I publicly recommended a site, they got bombarded with new composers and my income from them dropped 80%. Hesitant to do it again haha!
There are many libraries that are looking for that stuff.
Those styles sell really well on RF sites and are used a lot in reality TV, but are also in demand for trailers and commercials, IF the production quality is top notch, and the approach is modern (cinematic being more like Hans Zimmer / Thomas Bergersen and less John Williams)
So if your music is already polished and ready for big budget projects, aim high and go after trailer music companies, if not quite there yet, many lower tier libraries will still gladly accept your music.
I would agree with Paolo, there’s just a huge range of possibilities. But to attain the higher levels of what he mentioned, with 115 tracks, there would have to be a much lesser dependence on low-tier cable and RF, and more success in high-end licensing.
‘Composer’ also made a good point – many tracks will generate virtually no money, while a few might be your superstar tracks and make up for all those duds.
Keeping in mind that it sounds like you’re splitting quite a few cues with other writers, I think a realistic, conservative ballpark guess would be around $4000 – $10000 per year.
I hope that at least someone swoops in and buys it (Apple? Google?). The compression might not be great but I feel like it’s been hugely helpful to me as a composer and small library owner.
Besides, a lot of composers, sample companies and libraries are dependent on the player working for their demos, it’ll be messy if all of a sudden SC was off-line!