Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It’s my understanding that HFA will pay rights owners “streaming Mechanical” royalties (from Spotify, YOUTUBE, Google Play, Apple Music, etc.) and yes ISRC codes and UPC codes are required to match the streams and get paid.
The MMA sets forth the creation of the Music Licensing Collective, a non-profit governing body that will oversee the creation of the world’s largest, publicly searchable database of musical works. The Register of Copyrights has not yet named the Music Licensing Collective. It is the MLC that will be collecting and distributing the new Mechanical License royalties from Digital Music Providers. It may well be that the Harry Fox database will be eventually incorporated into the new MLC’s database (as its letter suggests) but Harry Fox is not the designated creator or overseer of the new database.
When all is said and done, I think the MMA is highly geared for commercial releases to the DSP’s. I still do not know how the MMA impacts our bread and butter revenue streams (TV, film,TV commercials royalties from the PRO’s) So if anyone knows what the MMA will do for composers/ songwriters/ publishers as it relates to ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc…please chime in.
You are correct. This is aimed at commercial releases to DSP’s for interactive streaming and digital downloads. It’s somewhat analogous to the mechanicals that songwriters receive for manufactured physical copies of records and CDs.
The MMA states:
A person may by complying with the provisions of this section obtain a compulsory license to make and distribute phonorecords of a nondramatic musical work, including by means of digital phonorecord delivery.
Although the original copyright statute does not define the term “nondramatic musical work” it is understood as being a song or musical work that is not incorporated into something else, like a film or theatrical production, etc. Because our “production music” cues are incorporated into other productions, they most likely do not qualify as nondramatic musical works, when in that context. However, on their own and released to a DSP as independent works not within the context of another work they would be nondramatic musical works.
So, to answer your question Music1234, I do not think that composers will see any additional income for production music via the new Mechanical License, unless, as Art is doing, they also release their tracks to Digital Music Providers, like Spotify, etc. Note that even in that realm if the DMP does not offer interactive services, or if the DMP provides both interactive and non interactive services, composers will only receive mechanicals on their interactive streams and downloads.
This part jumps out:
HFA’s services will continue uninterrupted until the creation of the mechanical licensing collective (MLC), two years from now.
And after the MLC is established:
(i) IN GENERAL.—The mechanical licensing collective is authorized to perform the following functions, subject to more particular requirements as described in this subsection:
“(I) Offer and administer blanket licenses, including receipt of notices of license and reports of usage from digital music providers.
“(II) Collect and distribute royalties from digital music providers for covered activities.
“(III) Engage in efforts to identify musical works (and shares of such works) embodied in particular sound recordings, and to identify and locate the copyright owners of such musical works (and shares of such works).
“(IV) Maintain the musical works database and other information relevant to the administration of licensing activities under this section.
The MMA authorizes creation of a Music Licensing Collective (MLC) that will be responsible for collecting and paying royalties on the new statutory Mechanical License for interactive streaming and downloads. This is a compulsory blanket license to be paid by “Digital Music Providers,” similar to what broadcasters pay ASCAP and BMI, etc. A Digital Music Provider is an entity that engages in the following “covered activities”:
…making a digital phonorecord delivery of a musical work, including in the form of a permanent download, limited download, or interactive stream, where such activity qualified for a compulsory license under this section.
Under the MMA, composers must register with the new MLC to receive these mechanical royalties. The MLC is to be governed by publishers and self-published songwriters. SoundExchange will continue to represent sound recording owners and performers. The MMA also creates a statutory Mechanical License for producers and engineers, which I believe will be administered by SoundExchange.
At this time, I’m not sure what part, if any, Harry Fox will play under the MMA, because composers are required to register directly with the MLC’s “grand database.”
The Register of Copyrights now has 9 months to designate the MLC. After the designation is made, the Register of Copyrights will publish a Notice “setting forth the identity of and contact information for the mechanical licensing collective.”
To the extent the some production music libraries are now also streaming their content on interactive services, composers should see additional revenue in the future. This would also be true, under most circumstances, for self-publishing composers who also monetize their production music via streaming.
@LAwriter, I’ll send you a PM.
I’ve got people buying instrumental tracks all the time, writing *&^%$#$ lyrics and singing over the track with a CRAPPY voice.
There was a thread about that a few years ago. There’s a guy who does this and sells the tracks on CD Baby. He’s still out there.
Finally, this is the meaning:
“I was asking if I could sample the track for another musical composition. Is it available for this use? “Pretty much what I thought. What he intends to do with the new musical composition (derivative work) weighs heavily here. You are still the copyright owner for your portion of the new work. If, for example, he intends to sell his version of your track in addition to a license fee I would ask for a percentage of sales calculated on the percentage of the new track which is based on your composition. Essentially, you are co-writers in the new work. Other things to consider would be if the new composition might potentially be competing against your composition and if the new composition might trigger copyright notices on the videos of people who licensed your track (if he enters his track into Content ID, etc). If you decide to accept his offer get it all in writing, including fee splits and copyright ownership shares in the new work. You may even wish to include a “moral rights” clause to prevent him from doing anything with the music the you believe would harm its integrity. Additionally, as someone suggested above, the situation is made more complex by the fact that you have live musicians on your track.
“Cleared for Sampling” if selected when you input the track means that the end user who licenses the track can use it to create their own musical work.”
I agree with LAwriter here. The client appears to be asking if you would clear the track for sampling and, if so, how much would you charge? As LAwriter states, that would indicate that the client wants to do more than simply edit your track to fit his project. I would ask very specifically what his intent is.
Ownership of assets to pick and chose where and how we want to distribute our music is more important than ever at this point in the game.
That is definitely a point worth considering. My current experience is that if we manage our catalogs well we can equal or exceed both the front-end and back-end performance of many (not necessarily all) situations in which composers routinely give up ownership.
One can make a case that everything about this business is “luck”.
Thanks Music1234. The story is anecdotal but a fun, thought provoking read. I tend to agree regarding luck. What we call luck is often a matter of opportunity, being in the right place at the right time. Sometimes, being in the right place at the right time shifts the burden and it’s on us to make the most of it. So, I guess what we do from that point forward determines if it was good luck or bad luck.
I thought that 1 full year with 20 songs was not enough time to understand how things are going with them.
One year may not be long enough to make that judgment. I put 20 tracks into a PMA, money-up-front exclusive library between 4 and 6 years ago. I just started seeing backend money from a variety of interesting placements for those tracks, including network TV (SNL), Major League Baseball, FOX Business, and some theme park attractions. I also received Spotify royalties for tracks in the same library. Additionally, I’m seeing placements for the first time for some 20-year old tracks in a PMA library because they are marketing those tracks differently now.
Make music that cannot be created by loops and one finger sequences, then race to the top and charge big / fairly for it
That’s actually a solid strategy. There are plenty of producers who take as much pride in their work as we do in ours, who are willing to pay for quality (and security). There are business and legal considerations that figure into the equation that separates the buyers who can and are willing to pay for quality from those simply seeking bargain music.
Michael – what constitutes “interactive” in this context? Thx.
As you might guess, it involves the amount of control the listener has over what they are listening to. The interesting thing about this section of the statute is that it appears that even the music a service selects for you, based on what you have requested, is considered interactive.
As is often the case with the law, we infer what something is by the definition of what it is not. 17 U.S. Code § 114(j)(7) defines “interactive” as follows:
7) An “interactive service” is one that enables a member of the public to receive a transmission of a program specially created for the recipient, or on request, a transmission of a particular sound recording, whether or not as part of a program, which is selected by or on behalf of the recipient. The ability of individuals to request that particular sound recordings be performed for reception by the public at large, or in the case of a subscription service, by all subscribers of the service, does not make a service interactive, if the programming on each channel of the service does not substantially consist of sound recordings that are performed within 1 hour of the request or at a time designated by either the transmitting entity or the individual making such request. If an entity offers both interactive and noninteractive services (either concurrently or at different times), the noninteractive component shall not be treated as part of an interactive service.
Keep in mind that SoundExchange collects/pays royalties for performers and master rights owners, not composers. What SoundExchange collects is similar to neighboring rights royalties paid in Rome Treaty countries.
If you want to read unit you pass out, here’s a link to an annotated copy of the full statute from Harvard Law:
This raises the question as to whether creating playlists on subscription services really has an impact? My personal experience is that my SoundExchange royalties have come from services in which the listener has no control in music selection, like cable music channels.
Essentially SE pays only for “digital radio station” type plays. Not youtube, other video based web performances, or netflix, amazon vod, etc..
To be specific, SoundExchange collects/pays for non-interactive digital sources.
I’m pretty sure I know the company being discussed and this does not appear to be true.
Never let facts get in the way of a passionate arguement. 😀
I suspect the subscriptions will take over RF
Maybe. You have to factor in consumer psychology. East West, Avid, and others have jumped on the subscirption bandwagon, yet many still buy their products. People still buy cars, even though leasing might allow them to drive a car that they couldn’t normally afford.
Subscriptions, obviously, are a moot point with respect to libraries that already give content away in pursuit of backend money. Regarding RF libraries, the watershed is long overdue. We’re already seeing consolidation of sales in a few major players.
The RF libraries that survive will most likely offer both options, thereby broadening their consumer base. If I had a crystal ball, I would guess that non-subscription content will be highly curated, better quality music that offers buyers some form of added value. Not everyone going to McDonald’s orders from the Dollar Menu. People are willing to pay more for something that they perceive to be better or to their advantage for any number of reasons.
We’re already seeing the curation effect in RF libraries that are increasingly rejecting new uploads. That offers customers added value in itself because it spares them from having to search through mountains of crap.
Also among the RF survivors are like to be the “ecosystem” companies that offer a variety of visual content along with music and SFX. To a degree, those systems are self-sustaining.
For subscriptions to work on a longterm basis would the music have to be exclusive? It seems unlikely that consumers would subscribe to multiple libraries offering identical content.
Interesting days ahead.
Libraries are concerned because of the recent Eminem case in New Zealand:
That said, the danger is in taking “sounds like” requests too literally and copying a song instead of just capturing its feeling. Too many composers cross the line and literally copy others’ works, only changing a note here and there, thinking that’s sufficient. It isn’t. Infringement has been found in as few as three notes! The problem is then compounded by using titles like “Eminem Esque” or “Star Warz,” which point directly to the work that’s been copied.
Keep in mind that often editors and media types don’t speak the language of music, so all they can do is offer comparisons to express what they want, which is usually just a feeling or mood. This article sums it up fairly well.
Composers need to understand that they are taking a risk. I haven’t seen a library contract that does not require the composer to indemnify the libary for infringement actions, which means that you could be on the hook for potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars.