Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don’t know about you guys, but I burn through a lot with keeping the lights on and samples up to date. 75k doesn’t go very far running a music business in the LA area.
Mine typically go a few seconds beyond. As an example a 30 second could be 33 seconds but that last beat will be 29.5 with a ring out of 3.5 seconds.
Me too – this is the way I’ve been taught to do edits. Have them timed so that if an editor has to chop off everything at 29.9 seconds, it still sounds MUSICAL (not super abrupt), this might mean the last beat hitting at 28.5, but also give them the option of letting the tail ring out.
I think the company work on the basis of keeping 100% of the sync fee so I would only get 50% of the PRS payment.
This type of deal is very typical of ‘work-for-hire’ contracts. That’s where you’re getting a fee for each piece of music written, and the library gets to keep any future licensing income.
I think this type of upfront paid deal is ok if:
1) you’re getting a healthy payment – ideally US$800 or more per track
2) the music is destined for mostly TV use (where licensing is less common these days), and the library’s main focus is performance royalties.
Whatever proof you have, share it!!!
I ‘ingested’ (love that term) about 30 tracks into AdRev and they make about $500 – $900 a month. Keep in mind that the majority of these were ‘epic’ tracks, which get shared a lot on YT. They’re not for sale on any RF site.
I imagine there are some high end libraries that make a fortune from content ID. Can you imagine the check Two Steps From Hell gets?!
I think it’s worth getting involved in content ID if you have tracks that are getting uploaded to YT all the time (by trailer music fans etc) and they regularly get 1000s of views.
The higher end of the licensing business is a much better fit for content ID because the clientele – major distributors and promo channels, are all whitelisted (no matched content flags to worry about). The libraries at this level are also usually exclusive.
Non-exclusive libraries (particularly RF ones) and content ID are just not ready for each other right now. Hopefully there will be a solution soon that changes things in that regard.
Of course, they will own the rights to the music
They don’t need to own the copyright to the music. Just a ‘license in perpetuity’ is all they need. As others have said, $100 per minute is not amazing money, and certainly not worth giving up royalties for the rest of your life on (and for 70 years after you die!)
I’ve given up my copyright (which effectively means the publishing royalties, and the ability to license the music on your own) on tracks plenty of times, but mostly at the start of my career (I made my share of rookie mistakes), and more lately, only when it made more sense. For example: being paid on a film project where I received an amount of money I could live on for a few months (and film producers are often determined to own all the ‘assets’). I sometimes still give it up if the upfront money is good – $1000 or more per minute, on projects like games and films. Writing for the top libraries requires it too, but they pay $1000 per track.
What the average writer needs to understand is that Scott Schreer, is one of BMI’s most performed writers, he has over 1,700 cues, many of which are high-profile TV themes, which are just the kind of thing that amateur YT video makers like to snag to put into their videos. Who doesn’t want to make a YT video of their kid’s backyard football game with the NFL on FOX theme right?
Well said!
He wrote practically every Fox sports theme that you’ve heard over the past 15 years.
What that article didn’t mention, was that Scott Shreer is also, wait for it…the CEO of FreePlay and Tunesat.
Seems like a lot of the topics we talk about here revolve around him!
Haven’t had time to think about this. I’ve never done a youtube video.
What’s the process? What software do I need?I just used iMovie to create a one frame slideshow. Uploaded an hour’s worth of music per video.
Dave, I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but forcing your customers to verify they have paid for the music they’re using is putting a tedious burden on them. If you’ve ever tried going through YouTube’s system to challenge ‘matched third party content’ you’ll know what I mean. It can take anywhere from a week to a whole month to get an answer, and very often that answer is ‘Dispute rejected, claim has been reinstated.‘
If someone wants to use the music they’ve just paid for, and immediately start monetizing their video, they’re going to be frustrated to find they have to wait weeks to just get an answer.
The most efficient way to remove a claim / white list a video is to contact the content ID company (e.g AdRev) directly. Some are better than others – AdRev will get back to you within a day but others I’ve contacted, like Orchard and European companies, take much longer.
That said, I agree in principle that the creators of the music should be the ones to get the content ID income and not people who use it illegally. I’ve given AdRev a trial run with some of my higher end trailer music (which isn’t in any RF catalog). Of all my music, it’s the most pirated and uploaded to YouTube, so it seemed like a good place to start trying out Content ID.
Hopefully this technology finds a solution soon, because the system is definitely broken right now. Audiosocket is working on something.
I could just beg someone already famous on YouTube to use some of my music in their videos and wait for the money to roll in.
A successful YouTuber is going to want to monetize the video, so you wouldn’t get any AdRev money.
does anyone know an approximate figure of how much a track would sell if someone wanted exclusivity on it?
More and more libraries (especially new ones) won’t pay anything for music.
Especially if they are splitting the license fees with you.
However, if you don’t mind doing a work-for-hire deal (where you keep your writers royalties but give up licensing), then the rates vary from about $200 a track (for reality TV focused libraries) to $1000 for the major companies (who usually commission specific music they are looking for). I’ve even heard of one trailer focused company that pays $1500 a track (the tracks have to be trailer quality and over three minutes long).
I think this is the meat of it:
The producers claim that Freeplay offers producers free music for YouTube videos, then demands “outrageous” license fees when video producers use its music. They say Freeplay then sends a “shakedown demand” threatening litigation and demanding more payments.
It sounds like the main issue is Freeplay is letting people use their music for free in YouTube videos, but enrolling it in ContentID, effectively blocking anyone from monetizing their videos. The license fee for monetizing is $250 per year (from Freeplay’s website). The YouTube video producers consider paying for an annual commercial license ‘extortion’.
However, here’s the other side of the story:
https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/any-lawyers-in-the-house
Long story short – a guy used FreePlay music on his website, they then sent him a letter asking for $15,000 and then settled for $750.
I think he meant this one: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/youtube-networks-sue-music-service-772420
People will pay for what they perceive to be a premium product. If you position yourself in the budget demographic, you will only find those looking for music on a discount budget, or for free.
Great advice Rob!
When I started out writing full time, I was pumping out tracks at a rate of at least one a day. Needless to say, the work wasn’t my best and I was falling into the trap of compositional shortcuts that come from working in an assembly line fashion.
About five years ago I transitioned to focusing full time on trailers and other higher end licensing. The music had to be much, much better and forced me to spend a week or more on just one track. Through doing such intensive work, I improved both my composition and production skills. Eventually I made more from writing just one high end track a week than I did from writing 10 or more reality TV type tracks.
It is absolutely unacceptable to give up any part of the writer’s share in my view. No compromises for anyone or anything.
So if a TV composer comes to you and says they need help with a show, can you write 50 cues for this reality series and I’ll pay $100 for each cue and take half the writer’s share, you wouldn’t do it? I realize this isn’t a library deal, but many times this music ends up in a library (the composer getting the music back after the show has had its run).
What if he/she is hiring you to build up a catalog for the show – i.e. they don’t know how much of the music you write will actually end up on the show or just go straight in their library? This happens all the time on reality gigs.
I agree with the principle of not sharing writers on library gigs (unless you actually co-write a track!), but sometimes the distinction of what constitutes a library gets a little blurry.
I don’t like sharing any of the writer’s royalties, but every now and then it’s made sense to do it.
Smaller libraries, usually run by a reality TV composer (I’m sure many here have written for them!), often involve getting paid a little upfront money and splitting the writer’s royalties. This is because the music is usually going directly to a TV show and the owner of the library has to give up or share the publishing with the TV production company. The other reason they do this (other than getting more royalties) is to give their clients the impression they had a hand in writing it all. And yeah – to win all those ASCAP or BMI awards 🙂
Unfortunately, you’ll find that these TV composer run libraries still take half the writer’s share even when they get all the publishing (when operating more like a library and not a TV composer). It’s probably more a matter of ‘old habits die hard’ though, rather than greed.