Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“> Is library music still worth pursuing seriously as a main or side income stream?
If you’re content to spam out 100s of mediocre tracks a year, NO.
If you will do what it takes to compete with the best that’s out there, and get into the best libraries, then yes.”Mark, this is really on point. The low-hanging fruit which made the side-gig aspect of library music attractive and feasible are less viable. A significant percentage of composers, for various reasons, are not in a position to “do what it takes to compete,” which requires both a time and financial commitments.
@Monkeyman99, it depends on what you mean by “profitable.” If you are making zero dollars now and you generate enough future income to cover the costs of production, etc., plus a little extra, is that profitable? Technically yes, but in a meaningful way, no.
Saturation was already causing diminishing returns before AI arrived. Now, sample developers are dropping prices dramatically. Every day is like a fire sale. YouTube production music gurus are shifting focus…to who knows what. That suggests that some people have already decided it’s no longer profitable, or will no longer be profitable in the not too distant future.
AI is a disruptive force. One can debate whether or not they want to keep changing horse shoes or learn to fix cars. Either way, as Darwin said: “The one that survives is the one that is able to adapt to and to adjust best to the changing environment.” It’s too late to turn back, to maintain the status quo of a fading business model. Libraries across the board are not asking “How do we stop this?”, but rather, “How do we adapt?”
@LAwriter’s analysis summed it up pretty well. For most, music may return to being “An avocation, a hobby for personal growth and satisfaction – not a primary profession.” It comes down to what your expectations, motivation, and needs are, what your responsibilities and risk tolerance are.Question: You asked “is it still realistic to think of library music as a profitable pursuit over the next few years?” Does that mean you are looking for short term income and not concerned about the more distant future?
I see so many some of my favorite music software vendors blowing out their products. They must be feeling the same pressures we all are.
I’ve noticed that too Art. A lot of “fire sales” going on. They might be cashing in/out while they can, or they could be preparing to release new, AI equipped versions of their products. Imagine instruments, like strings, that offer realistic, emotional dynamics and vibrato based on prompts or genre.
It’s gotten to the point where I look at every expense and wonder if I’ll make it back. I’ve actually unsubscribed from numerous vendors who fill my mailbox daily with promos for sample libraries and plugins.
You’ve got to wonder: 1) how that will impact composers who have music in all three libraries, and 2) if AJ will start accepting new composers?
The situation now is almost the reverse of what it was in the past. In the early 2000s, I was told to switch from ASCAP to BMI because BMI paid better for TV performances. In 2011, I was in a position with co-writer to see that BMI wasn’t necessarily paying more than ASCAP per performance, but that ASCAP’s survey system was often missing as much as 60% of the performances, compared to BMI. I switched from ASCAP to BMI and royalties for the same tracks (TV theme music) more than doubled. Three years later, in 2014, BMI changed how it calculates royalties to include, among other things, a show’s ratings, and royalties tanked, despite having the same number of performances for several long-running syndicated TV shows. The result was an absolute disaster. Royalties dropped 75% and quite literally forced me to choose another path. Recently, I noticed another drop and contacted BMI. They did, in fact, discover an error, but also said that broadcasters are no longer paying the same amounts that they used to. Whether that’s a different variation on BMI’s previous explanation regarding its change in methodology, I don’t know. I’d be tempted to switch back to ASCAP, but knowing how many performances slipped through the cracks makes me hesitant.
A track of mine was used in a national radio ad (I think for Miller Lite) in 2017/18. It ran around 800 times and paid about $300.
FWIW, Crucial has announced that it will “disallow the use of AI as a compositional tool for any music submitted to our catalog. Anything that is partially, substantially, or wholly composed by means of AI will be rejected”. Other libraries have made similar decisions.
Hi Boinkeee2000. Art advised me that the PM function has been deleted. I sent you an email.
Hi boinkeee2000. I’ll send you a PM.
So far, the U.S. Copyright Office has already shot down registration of AI works.
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/ai-generator-art-text-us-copyright-policy-1234661683/
But…
https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/16/ai_art_copyright_usco/
“So I conclude, with or without AI….there still will be a competition to see who can create the best sound recordings that people will want to buy.
I agree. So what are you worried about?
This is the exact question that I was asking, as expressed yesterday in Music Business Worldwide.
Thoughts on Ghostwriter, Drake, AI… and why the music industry shouldn’t panic
“The problem of course is that MILLIONS of individual splices of music are already being used to hone AI music modeling.
Unless it’s blindingly obvious or self-disclosed for marketing purposes – as in the case of the Ghostwriter track – how do you prove, as a creator, that your work has been used as source material for AI?”
To refine this, how would you prove, as a creator, the your work was THE source material for any given AI work, unless your work was completely unique and the AI work was substantially similar?
“You are missing the point on no transparency with what Shutterstock is earning from this lump sum, lease arrangement.”
Somehow we’ve morphed from an intellectual property argument to a contract argument. On both issues, you need to be able to state a “legally cognizable” claim. So far, the defense would have good shot at prevailing.
“Additionally who cares about PD music? The media production community is not screaming for PD music on a daily basis.”
You’re kind of missing the point. Think of the entire history of music as an encyclopedia that contains all of the musical knowledge necessary to generate new AI music. What I’m saying is that AI platforms don’t need to ingest vast amounts “McMusic” when they have access to the totality of musical history, most of which is PD.
“AI learning models can learn how to create similar music from our music.”
So can any reasonably competent composition student by simply listening to it.“The proof is right there in front of our face. It’s happening before our eyes. shutterstock (owner of p5) is selling our sound recordings and keyword/ title data to AI companies for a figure we do not, nor ever will get access to so AI learning models can learn how to create similar music from our music. Why else do AI companies want the entire shutterstock catalog?”
What is that proof of, copyright infringement? No. How are you going to prove that a specific piece of AI music infringes on a specific piece of your (registered) music, when AI is creating music based on an amalgamation of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of composers’ music? And remember that a significant portion of that music is already heavily influenced, if not based-on, others’ music. Who gets to sue when an AI platform spits out a corporate track, the composer who ripped off U2 or The Edge? How about a jazz track that starts with an instantly recognizable Tom-Tom beat, the composer who copied it or the estates of Benny Goodman and Gene Krupa (Sing Sing Sing)?
