Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I wouldn’t even recommend Mavericks yet! So many bugs with Kontakt and even weird stuff in Logic. NI are yet to fix a bug I’ve had that made it impossible to use new Kontakt libraries.
No I mean just the licensing. No one should EVER give up the writers share of the performance royalties to a library.
It boils down to this:
When filling out a cue sheet in the US, each writer needs a publisher that has the same PRO. (Unlike with APRA in Oz / NZ where a composer doesn’t need a publisher and can automatically collect both sides of the royalties)
So if you have SESAC, ASCAP and BMI co-writers on your show / library, you need to set up publishing ‘companies’ with all three PROs to match the writers.
One exception seems to be for composers with foreign PROs – any of the US PROs can be a publisher in those cases, at least from my own experience with ASCAP and BMI.
Tbone and DI – I agree in principle, but keep in mind this might be a work-for-hire deal with an upfront fee. The vast majority of paid WFH deals I’ve done (often with the bigger multinational libraries) have cut the composer out of licensing.
However, if there’s not a considerable upfront fee (these days expect at least $1000 per track for a buy out), you’d be crazy to sign a deal where licensing wasn’t shared.
It sounds like they’re almost entirely interested in performance royalties, not giving much thought to the potential of licensing. This probably means they give their library away for free to TV producers. If they get blanket license fees, they don’t want the hassle of dividing up blanket fees amongst dozens of composers.
I hope you’re getting a good upfront fee, because you’re giving up a lot.
I’ve had situations where libraries claimed they never get any licensing money, and then wouldn’t you know it, a trailer editor or ad agency comes along and wants to use a track (they heard on YouTube) for a big TV campaign. The library might not be seeking out sync fees, but there’s always the chance they’ll get tracked down for a one off license. The remote possibility of this happening makes it important to get a share of licensing, because one good fee could be more money than a lifetime of royalties for one track.
What would you do with music that you own but has been re-titled? Come up with new names and register them with the new PRO, to potentially give them to new non-exclusive libraries / projects? Is this ok?
This is a valid concern, and the main reason I wanted a limit on the projects customers could use my library on. I put a cap on advertising budgets at $250,000, which rules out big budget licenses. Most RF libraries either let their clients use the music on any size of project, or have a tiered pricing that still allows big budget projects for just a little more (and nothing near what they should actually be charging).
I think we’d all agree that the vast majority of people using RF music aren’t big budget producers, but if it’s something like one in a thousand, it’d still be worth it to RF sites to have a budget cap, wouldn’t you think?
Last year I had a nice five figure license fee come from an advertising agency finding a track on my RF site, and I immediately removed it from there and the couple of other RF libraries I work with. It was just as a matter of courtesy (and also trying to avoid the situation you were in) – they didn’t ask for exclusivity but I wanted to give it to them for at least six months.
I also had the educational experience of an advertising agency contact me for a $30,000 license which turned out to be for a track I had written for a work-for-hire library (so my cut ended up being zero), but that’s another story…
I’m no help but I just wanted to chime in and say that is a monster rig you have there. My one computer is slower than both of yours, and I typically run about 120 tracks in a session. I have friends that write for trailers that work off a laptop. What are you working on that needs such insane firepower?
I personally don’t have the patience for cutting edits, I’d rather be writing a new track! I like to send my stems to someone who is a much better editor and pay them to make all the cuts for me.
With ultra low budget indies, you’re going to be the one filing the cue sheet. In fact, unless you’re getting a handsome fee, you should be keeping ownership of the music (the agreement would be a ‘license in perpetuity’), so you should be the publisher as well.
If it’s a bigger budget indie, then it’s possible they have their act together and might insist on filing the cue sheet, but you’d be the one filling it out for them, unless there’s a music editor. Even if you aren’t the one filling out the cue sheet, be sure to check that all the details are ok.
Bigger budget indie films often involve producers and lawyers who irrationally insist on ‘owning all the assets’ including music. Again – unless you’re getting paid well (at least $1500 per minute of music), consider how much potential money you and your family will lose out on by giving your music to a ‘publisher’ who has no intention of exploiting it commercially beyond distribution of the film.
Usually work-for-hire implies the library is going to keep any future licensing money, you just get the upfront fee and writer’s royalties.
Some libraries might use that terminology for an exclusive deal where you’re supposed to still get 50% of all the licensing, but be careful with a contract like that and consider getting a lawyer to look over it.
Royalty-free music is expected to be inexpensive. I am considering dropping my prices to fit in line with the majority of other companies. Stuff over $20 seems pricey to most shoppers unless it is super high quality and complex music.
A race to the bottom is in no one’s interest. I actually found I made more money raising prices.
Like the other guys posting, I mix as I go. Some library gigs I’ve done over the years have had the same urgency as commercial demos, TV and film cues. They often need to be delivered immediately. Trailers (with the exception of custom scoring) afford me a little more time to do the re-listening a few hours or a day later.
I have some basic mastering tools on my master fader, tweaking the settings slightly depending on the piece. It’s not pretty but it does the job! When I start a new track, I’ll open the last one I did and delete all the material. This way, the mix and mastering settings (hopefully) get a little better with each new track.
When someone else (an actual professional) mixes a track I wrote for trailers, it can easily take them a whole day. There’s just so much to wade through. I love having a great mixer get their hands on a track, but it’s a big undertaking to get them all the stems they need.
I just got contacted by a UK broadcaster today asking if I was going to be assigning a particular track to PPL.
Has anyone here registered their music with PPL?
From what I can find out online, it would probably cannibalize sales through licensing companies. The rates are determined by the use, not the artist, as far as I can tell. Very different to the way things are done in the US!
I can’t help but think the broadcaster just wanted to use the music for the dirt cheap set rate, and not pay the significant fee this particular (epic trailer track) would usually cost.
http://www.ppluk.com/I-Make-Music/Why-Should-I-Become-A-Member/
The bigger the agency, the more hoops you need to jump through. For example, it’s pretty standard these days for a big agency to insist you are operating as a limited liability company or corporation, and have E&O insurance. That way they can push to make that Coldplay / Sigur Ros / Lumineers ‘sound alike’ as close to the original as they want.
These legal issues and the epic client schmoozing, marketing etc. that is required makes working through a music house really appealing, in my opinion. The only question is whether or not you think it’s a good deal for them to take half the money.