Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
In my opinion PPC is not acceptable. Why should I be forced to honour an agreement placed when the rules where different?
I’m not sure what you mean #tag. [removed by moderator – might be inflammatory]
You’re not forced to participate in PPC. It doesn’t cost you anything. I think that client psychology is beyond our control. There is only so much one can do to polish crap into gold, and I don’t think PPC will do the trick.
If, as you suggest, the buyer will move on after hearing 5 or 10 crappy versions of Jingle Bells, the AudioSparx client is more likely to move on to MusicLoops or Shockwave, rather than DeWolfe, because they want a RF license. In the case of MusicLoops (don’t know about Shockwave), the field is smaller, and Mark IS selective, so maybe the buyer will find something better, and still get a RF license.
But…what if my version of Jingle Bells is next in line, or 5th in line, AND the client buys it? I’ve got a sale AND a new client, who may represent repeat business.
One thing that I’ve heard over and over is “my music doesn’t sell at AudioSparx, BUT it sells elsewhere. I want to remove my music.” One potential, but simple, explanation is customers who shop AudioSparx, but buy elsewhere. So what happens, if you remove your music? You lose some potential sales AND exposure to the buyers who shop elsewhere, and could become repeat customers. (of course if you re-title all of your tracks and use pseudonyms for every library that doesn’t apply).
Ultimately, the customers aren’t AudioSparx customers, they are YOUR customers. No matter where they first hear your music, if they like what you do, they will find you.
There are a ton of useless and/or here today gone tomorrow libraries that I would never sign up with. But with 250,000 clients, AudioSparx isn’t one of them. That kind of exposure is priceless.
I think removing racks from AS because of PPC would be shooting oneself in the foot.
_Michael
Other people were making this topic big and giant and you were one of those.
Actually, quite the opposite. PPC doesn’t matter to me one way or the other. It’s not something I’d be likely to use. I think there are better ways to spend money.
I am a sucker, however, when it comes to the logic of an argument. The biggest argument against PPC seems to be about whether or not it’s fair, that is whether it makes the “playing field uneven.”
It just strikes me that those arguments go against logic and reality. First, as I said, there is no such thing as an even playing field. Even if everyone has an equal chance at having their music heard that’s where the equal playing field ends. There is always going to be someone better or worse, if that even matters. Second, does it really matter if someone’s cue gets heard first if it’s “trashy,” to borrow your word. If the client can’t tell the difference between good and bad, and/or is too lazy to listen to more tracks, there’s not much we can do about that.
Every time we work longer, invest more, and polish our metadata, update our bio, change our photo…aren’t we trying to tilt the playing field in our direction? What about writers who pay someone to keyword for them? So, the big deal for me is that I don’t see the logical difference between any of the things that we ALL do to be competitive vs. PPC, which is just one more spin of the roulette wheel.
Do you understand now? I wasn’t arguing for or against PPC. I was questioning the logic of demonizing this particular method of competition vs. everything else that we ALL routinely do to compete.
Much ad-do about nothing IMO.
_Michael
@Wildman..one of the things coaches teach competitive runners is to not look back at the other runners, but to keep focused on the finish line.
There’s a very “Big Blue Ocean” out there . I wouldn’t worry too much about the “hobby dudes,” making “trashy” music, anymore than General Motors worries about every kid who builds a go-kart in his basement.
Sharpen your skills and invest as much as you can in quality equipment and software. I don’t spend a second thinking about the “hobby dudes.” It’s composers who are better, and more successful, than me that I focus on.
With respect to PPC, it may or may not be something that benefits my business. As the “CEO” of my business, I will decide where its money should be invested. If buying another high-end sample library, adding more processing software, or hiring live players,will do more to improve my work and to give me a competitive edge, that’s where my money will go.
_Michael
All of the talk about quality sounds a bit pompous anyway.
Anonymous, you are 100% correct, it’s very pompous. Sometimes ego makes up for lack of other things. Too often the discussion here devolves into a schoolyard shouting match of “my library is better than your library.”
If you want to hear some very good music on AudioSparx, search Jason Bradley Livesay, and David Gosnell. Very very good, accomplished and professional, composers like Jason and David are comfortable putting their music on AudioSparx AND they don’t engage in petty and, to a degree, irrelevant comparisons of libraries that represent different tiers and business models.
Likewise one can search DeWolfe http://www.dewolfemusic.co.uk/musicsearch, and depending upon your perspective as a composer, you can find some fairly mediocre material, as well. Particularly, if you search electronica or rock tracks, there’s not much, if anything, that separates DeWolfe from AudioSparx.
The problem with #tag’s analysis is that he/she assumes AudioSparx and DeWolfe serve the same clientele. AudioSparx clients aren’t just looking for music, they are looking for music with a perpetual license. They aren’t going to run to DeWolfe because it’s “such a pleasure to listen to their catalog.” Likewise, the editor, whose employer is paying a hefty annual blanket fee to DeWolfe, isn’t likely to buy music from AudioSparx.
Sometimes quality isn’t what a client is looking for. I always hear songs on TV and commercials that are not hit songs. But they work for the videos in which they are used.
Again anonymous, you are correct. Quality is in the “ear” of the listener. It is what meets the clients needs and works in their project, not some abstract intellectual principle of artistic standards.
My big question for #tag is, what do you mean by quality? ….harmonic structure, melodic interest, high-end sounds, live players? Classical music vs. hip hop? For some people “quality hip hop” is an oxymoron. For others, the opposite is true.
One thing that I’ve learned during 30+ years in this business, is to never second guess an editor/producer/director. I’ve seen “poor quality” music get used more often then not, when it serves the purpose. I’ve seen musical choices that made absolutely no sense. I heard one cue from DeWolfe in which the performance so shockingly sloppy my jaw dropped. I sent it to a session player friend, whose reaction was utter disbelief, yet the editor put it in the show!
You have to look at the big picture when it comes to this business. Different tiers. Different clients. Sometimes, different definitions of what quality means. Trashing others’ work isn’t a good practice.
Happy New Year to All,
_Michael
It could be that your genres just sell better in other libraries.
That’s true for one of the libraries I’m in but for a couple of others the genres that sell are all overIn other words, there’s no magic bullet and no secret formula. The libraries have different models, different clients.
With AS, I think the needle-in-a-haysrack factor is one issue. The other big issue is merely being another face in the crowd. If someone searches for hip hop “Jingle Bells” and 50 hip hop versions of Jingle Bells pop up, what can you do? What are the chances that the buyer is going to listen to more than a few versions before picking one?Arguably, that’s what PPC is for (their argument). But, there’s an old saying in the advertising world…”Advertising works half of the time. We just don’t know which half.” My guess is that PPC, like all advertising, will work for some writers, some of the time. So, what’s new?
Maybe MusicCult will be different, for some, because the crowd is a bit smaller. As with everything else, time will tell.
_Michael]
I would suggest that anyone having difficulty with sales at AudioSparx, or a drop in sales / plays, go into their Knowledge Base and track what genres are selling well.
It could be that your genres just sell better in other libraries. If you’re in a top selling genre then compare your tracks to the top sellers, and compare your metadata to the top sellers.
The AS Knowledge Base is a great resource.
_MIchael
if that was aimed at me Michael i’ve hardly done that..i’m recording new material as I type this and write in 5 styles..my gripe is i’ve done everything they tell you to do there (and my stuff sells other places)
Nah…not aimed at you Jay. Without hearing your tracks, it sounds like you’re doing everything right. I think this phrase “and my stuff sells other places” holds a bit of a key, which I alluded to.
Selling well elsewhere and not so much at AS, is something I’ve heard from a number of writers. IMHO there are several possibilities.
1) Size of catalog: We’re all a needle in a haystack,
2) Price point competition: A buyer has multiple choices: song “A” for $109.95 in one library or song “A” in several other libraries for $39.95. where are they going to go? Plus, you have to factor in the arrival of Musicult and gratis licenses. There has to be a certain percentage of previously paying customers, however small, who are now receiving gratis licenses. I’m guessing that the thinking is that this effect will be offset by new MC customers who do pay. Time will tell on the one.
I’m not going to argue with AS pricing policies but, in the retail world mega stores, like Walmart, tend to offer lower prices than boutiques. With 500K tracks, AS is definitely in the megastore category.
A few years ago AS top artists had catalogs of about 300 tracks. Now it seems you need 900 tracks to get there. I think that it will take more tracks a year from now to do well than it does today. Another change in the landscape.
One of the first posts of Mark Petrie’s (when he was “Matt) that I remember reading, was that he determined AS was not worth the effort. Many feel that way. I’m sure that you’ll hear differently from Denis Woods or Erwin (50 styles). As Art says YMMV.
The jury is out for me, because I’ve only uploaded a few tracks. It’s way too soon to tell. But….different buyers have found the same obscure track twice, which tells me the system works. That’s all I need to know… for now.
Cheers
_Michael
and just to clarify..what I’ve heard is just about little or no plays (all of a sudden) and real slow sales for people who were doing well…nothing bad about the business itself..
I wouldn’t read too much into that, or make a generalization about AudioSparx. Nothing lasts for ever, in this business. People who are doing well now, will not necessarily do well in the future. Catalogs, particularly “trendy” catalogs, have a shelf-life. At some point, for example, fewer clients will be interested in U2 or Coldplay sound-alikes, and those sales will drop. Demand changes with the seasons. The global economy is weak, Maybe buyers are looking for that same tracks on less expensive sites. There are any number of reasons.
The one thing you can’t do is upload a few hundred tracks and assume that you’re set for life.
_Michael
Just heard some more bad news about AS from a top seller there..40% of nothing is still nothing
That’s a loaded statement. Care to fill us in? (or send me a PM).
Cheers,
Michael
I developed and ran a very successful Internet business in the 90s and tried various ways to advertise my products, including PPC. Initially with Goto.com, Yahoo and finally Google Adwords. None of those avenues could prove to me that they were a viable way to advertise.
Which is exactly why I said….
The ultimate question is not whether PPC is fair, it is whether the results justify the expense.
There are, as Art said, other aspects. We did the in-store promotions at B&N and Borders for our fingerstyle guitarist, because his music and their customers fit demographically. On the other hand, we promoted my Smooth Jazz CD at Best Buy, in cities, like Detroit, where it was charting. What worked for us was “target marketing,” and I think that is the best potential use of PPC.
On AS your tracks are already submitted, and you are trying to get more traffic to your tracks. To make you stand out in a field of over 500,000 tracks.
That’s true in a limited way. At any given time, you are only competing with the number of tracks in a specific genre. Your Christmas tunes aren’t competing with another composer’s 4th of July cues. Your Beatles sound- alike isn’t competing with another composers Lil’ Wayne sound-alike. Each track is only competing with the other tracks in its genre. PPC might help by placing your Beatles sound-alike at the head of the line of Beatles sound-alikes, but it’s irrelevant to someone looking for the 1812 overture. Arguably, there might be an ancillary benefit by raising awareness of one’s music, but I think that might be a bit attenuated.
With respect to a level playing filed: with or without PPC, it doesn’t exist. There will always be another composer with more gear, higher end gear, and better skills, who is more prolific. In my opinion having good language skills, being able to keyword effectively, and understanding the potential/likely uses for your music are much more important than PPC. So, if your language skills aren’t the best, or you can’t visualize what the potential uses are for your music, you are at a deficit, which means not on a level playing field. If anyone’s sales have dipped since PPC stopped, I would look at your metadata. Maybe paying someone to keyword for you would be just as effective, if not more.
Once again, Happy Holidays t o All,
MichaelL
I personally will not use the ppc because I was told by a successful friend of mine when I started to never pay to submit my music.
@Sean, that is very old and very good advice. But it doesn’t apply here. That adage came out of the record business where unethical agents would ask for an upfront fee, rather than take a percentage to get labels to “listen” to your music. You are not paying AudioSparx to listen to your music and decide whether or not to promote it. That is more like the Taxi model.Paying to submit and paying to promote are two different things. Paying $5 to FMN or Taxi to “submit” to a single specific job posting vs. paying per click to promote your music to 250,000 potential customers is not the same thing. Conceptually it’s different, and the cost benefit analysis is light years apart.
_MichaelL
Most royalty free sites including AS are just a clearing house. To expect them to be responsible to promote your work based on the size of their catalog and business model is unreasonable.
Among of the biggest mistakes that writers make is thinking 1) that all “libraries” are actually libraries, and 2) that they are, or should be, more or less the same in their relationships with composers.
The library business has a number of tiers. Even the tiers have tiers. I have discussed this time and time again. There are several library business consultants that writers can pay to be told the same thing.
Traditional libraries are like record labels. In fact, Sony, is in the library business. They pay composers for their music and/or the cost of production. You have a relationship.
The non-exclusive retitling libraries are a bit of a hybrid. They don’t pay you upfront, and you can have a quasi-relationship where you get on their “list.”
But, with respect to Royalty Free libraries (with the excpetion of a few), House is absolutely correct. They are, for the most, part “stores” where composers sell their music. Like Walmart and Best Buy, what they offer you is virtual shelf space. It is the composer’s responsibility to promote their music.
I had a record label back in the 90’s. One of our artists was an excellent fingerstyle guitarist from Germany. His music was a perfect fit for Barnes & Noble, and Borders. If you wanted them to “feature” your artist and play the CD in store, or place it near the register, you had to pay for that. It was considered advertising. The same thing applied to listening stations at Best buy. You had to pay X amount of dollars for every store location. We only did it in cities where our CDs were getting a lot of airplay. AND in those days, CDs were $18.00, for which Best Buy paid about $8.00, wholesale. SO, Best Buy made money from selling CDs and from advertising revenue.
If Megatrax, or Extreme said, “we’re going to pay you $1,000 per cut upfront, bet then we’re going to deduct 20% to advertise and promote your music, after you’ve already signed over your copyright, you’d have a gripe.
But, with mega RF companies, like AudioSparx (despite how warm friendly and attentive they are) your music is product…a commodity (which you continue to own). Walmart has no obligation to provide Campbell’s and Progresso a level playing field for their soup. Which one sells the best depends on the effort each company puts into promoting its product…through advertising, which may include subsidized in store promotions.
Each of you is the owner of the business of you. One of the most common reasons businesses fail is because they are undercapitalized….they don’t have enough money to operate and compete. Unfortunately, the library business is no different. There is a certain egalitarian quality to the business in that everybody seems to have a shot. But, just showing up at the game isn’t enough.
The ultimate question is not whether PPC is fair, it is whether the results justify the expense. We sold more copies of our fingerstyle guitarist’s CD in stores where we paid to be featured.
Happy Holidays to All,
MichaelL
There can be some royalties, but you have to be very proactive about it.
+1 You must be extremely proactive with ASCAP when it come to local affiliates.
“Based on your hypothetical, I don’t see how copyrighting “Blue Sky” would have produced a different outcome in the case compared to having “Blue Sky” being a part of an unpublished collection.”
@Tony…good observation. Part of the point was to illustrate the potential risks of retitling. Suppose that the composer registered Blue Sky didn’t put “Blue Sky” into a re-titling library? The most important difference would be that he would now have access to federal court.
The rest of the argument was typical legal hypothetical BS made up of potential defense arguments based upon the premise that so much music sounds alike these days, that sometimes even technology can’t tell one from the other. But, if that wasn’t the case, if “Blue Sky” didn’t use loops, and was very original, it might be obvious that XYZ’s composer infringed on your copyright. What then?
That’s my next point. The reality is that 99.9% of the hundreds of thousands of library cues out there will only make the composer a few hundred, or at best a few thousand dollars, if any, over the course of the life of the cue. So, even if someone obviously plagiarizes a cue, the chances of reaching the 75K damages threshold are minimal at best.
There are exceptions. Trailer cues that can command up to 20K in licensing fees, for example. Once in a while, lightning strikes and a cue like “Mind Heist” can be worth well over six figures. That’s the stuff dreams are made of. For 99% percent of the writers (including me) uploading tracks to RF libraries and to other non-exclusive libraries it’s only a dream.Based on your hypothetical it doesn’t seem like it matters. Apparently what matters is that I have 100% publishing rights to my music and that I own 100% of my music.
Does that mean that you shouldn’t register your music with the copyright office? No. I would never recommend that. What matters, if your going to register your copyrights as a collection, is that you do it properly. If not, you could be wasting your time, and jeopardizing the validity of the copyright.
People mistakenly assume that you can copyright a collection, and then put the tracks into different libraries (that each act as a publisher). That’s not what the law allows. The collection has to go to one publisher. The publisher can be you, or it can be a library. BUT…if you registered the copyright as an unpublished collection, you might theoretically be able to divide the collection later among different publishers, but you would have to reregister each component.
Bear in mind though, that the minute you upload a track to a library, you have published it, so then it’s really not an unpublished collection.
In the case of most , not all, RF libraries, you keep 100% of the publishing. In the case of re-titling libraries, and exclusive libraries, they take 100% of the publishing.
There are any number of pitfalls that you need to watch out for when registering as a collection. For example, technically, in order to qualify as a collection the music needs to be organized in a way that makes sense as a collection, kind of like an AudioSparx soundpack.I don’t think there’s anything we composers can do if a production company uses a temp track as inspiration for a new piece of music composed by someone else.
Unless you can prove 75K in damages, that is a sad reality. The other thing is that it is extremely expensive to pursue copyright litigation, so you need have a very good case. Which, brings me to the final point that I was making. The backend for 20 seconds of music on your typical reality or cable show pays relative pennies, so to speak. (I highly recommend Michael Nicholas’s pamphlet/guide on the subject for an eye-opener). A good sale from an RF library will net you $50 -$100…all of which is a long way from 75K.
So. Tony, I can see why you might think it’s pointless to bother registering your cues. But, what if you didn’t and someone copied your cue, AND it became the next lightning bolt, the next “Mind Heist,” and you had no ticket to get into court, because you never registered your copyright?
When writing becomes your business, registering copyrights is part of the cost of doing business. It’s a business deduction. 🙂
I must say, all of this copyright talk, and the ongoing debate about retitling, has inspired my legal brain. You’ve motived me to join the Copyright Society, where I can discuss these ideas, and the state of the law, with other attorneys. Thanks. (I mean that)
For now. I’ve got a lot on my plate..selling, buying, moving, studio and catalog building…things that will take up a chunk of 2013. Maybe down the road, I’ll incorporate a copyright blog into my website..stay tuned.
For now, Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and a Happy, Safe and Prosperous New Year!
MichaelLI think it most music library deals, the composer keeps the publishing. Please explain.
@Tony, no this is not correct. As I’ve stated before the music library business is a tiered business.
1) The top level exclusive libraries, that operate under the traditional business model, most often acquire music on a work-for-hire, or buyout basis, where the composer transfers copyright ownership to the library.
2) Re-titling libraries operate in a legally gray area. The composer does not transfer any ownership rights to the re-titling library. Instead the re-titling library changes the title slightly or adds a code, so that it can register that title with a PRO, as the publisher, and collect royalties. So, some writers put the same track into multiple re-titling libraries. As a result, the same piece of music, gets registered with your PRO many times under different titles. Broadcasters do not like this practice, among other reasons, because they end up paying for the same piece of music multiple times, when they should only pay once, under their blanket payment to your PRO. I’m not going to argue or debate the merits of the practice. Suffice it to say that many re-titling companies see the writing on the wall and are developing exclusive catalogs.
3) Royalty Free libraries generally do not re-title, and they generally do not act as publishers. It might be easier to think of royalty free libraries really as “stores” where you sell your music.
AudioSparx offers the option of administrating writers’ publishing, in which AS essentially acts as the publisher. This AS option is not a retitling scheme, and it can be non-exclusive. In other words, you can put your tracks in as many other RF libraries as you want (except the “banned” list). This is not legally gray because there is only one publisher…AS.
SO, to finally answer your question, what I mean is that if you are going to register your works (copyright) as a collection there must be single copyright owner. Whether, you act as publisher, or you let a company, like AS, administer your publishing, you still own the copyright.
@Advice…the copyright in your music is established at the moment your work is contained in a fixed medium, be it a recording or on paper. A copyright registration is your ticket into federal court (which is where infringement suits must be filed). You are correct, that you cannot copyright titles. It is the underlying work that is “protected.” However, when a library re-titles, and does not reregister, no registration exists in the new title.One of the most likely scenarios in which someone may copy your music occurs when a composer is given a temp track to work from. That is a nearly standard practice in the industry, where an editor cuts a film, or TV show with temporary music.
I’ll give you a typical law school hypothetical:
You write a song called “Blue Sky” and you register that title with the copyright office. Great. Then you give it to retitling libraries A, B, & C. A retiles it “Blue Skies.” B retitles it “A Very Blue Sky.” C retitles it “Blue Sky C-101.” The retitling libraries do not register the new titles with the copyright office. That would be illegal because they don’t own the copyright.
All of the libraries send out their catalogs gratis on hard drives. PlaidBoy Hipster, the editor for XYZ productions is working on a new reality show about tragic holiday cooking accidents called “Deep Fried Turkeys.” PlaidBoy puts “Blue Skies” from library A into his temp track. XYZ Productions then has a composer write music for the show, based on the temp track.
One night you’re watching “Deep Fried Turkeys” and you hear a piece of music that sounds an awful lot like “Blue Sky.” But, nothing shows up in your tunesat report. No cue sheets are filed with your PRO. You wait 6 months and no backend money arrives (but you already bought that new car!) Outraged, you call an IP attorney and convince him, or her, that you’ve sustained 75K in damages. You give the IP attorney a 10K retainer to file suit in federal court (meanwhile the meter is running).
In response to your suit, XYZ Productions hires a ruthless (me for example) attorney. I depose PlaidBoy who swears under oath that he used “Blue Skies” from library A in the temp track. He’s never heard of you or “Blue Sky.” Next, I depose the composer. He says that he was inspired by “Blue Skies” from Library A on the temp track. But, he says, “Blue Skies” contains so many commonly used loops and sounds that it’s almost generic.
Next, I search the Library of Congress for the title “Blue Skies” and find only one song registered under that title and its by Irving Berlin…not you. So, I immediately file a motion to dismiss your suit on the basis that you have no standing, because there is no registration for the title “Blue Skies” in your name. We never get to hear the underlying work because the judge grants the motion.
Alternatively, the courts agrees to proceed, at which point you write your attorney a check for another 10K. We enter a lengthy process involving expert testimony on both sides comparing your song “Blue Sky” to what XYZ’s composer wrote. Our experts successfully convince the court that numerous composers using the same loops and sounds has resulted in a proliferation of fairly generic music, that all sounds alike, and it would be nearly impossible to prove that XYZ’s composer copied any single work. As evidence we site the number of times fingerprinting detects the wrong title.
Next, I call you as a witness to explain to the judge why you registered your works as an unpublished collection to save a money, but then you published your works using a re-titling scheme, hoping that you’d make more money that way.
Finally, I introduce XYZ’s composer’s PRO statement into evidence, which shows that he made $2.25 for the 20 seconds of music you thought sounded like your song. Upon seeing that your liquidated damages are $74,997.75 short of the federal threshold, the judge dismisses the case. At which point, your attorney hands you a final bill for another 25K including his fees and expenses (experts aren’t cheap).
OK…that was a long winded, but hopefully humorous look at why gambling with copyrights and re-titling may not be such a hot idea.
Now to clarify a few legal points:
There are two ways to copyright a collection. Here’s the language from the law.
(A) In the case of published works: all copyrightable elements that are otherwise recognizable as self-contained works, that are included in a single unit of publication, and in which the copyright claimant is the same; and
(B) In the case of unpublished works: all copyrightable elements that are otherwise recognizable as self-contained works, and are combined in a single unpublished “collection.” For these purposes, a combination of such elements shall be considered a “collection” if:
( 1 ) The elements are assembled in an orderly form;
( 2 ) The combined elements bear a single title identifying the collection as a whole;
( 3 ) The copyright claimant in all of the elements, and in the collection as a whole, is the same; and
( 4 ) All of the elements are by the same author, or, if they are by different authors, at least one of the authors has contributed copyrightable authorship to each element.Note that in both cases, the copyright claimant (owner) must be the same. If you register an unpublished collection you can break-up the collection and reregister the works singly later.
You may find this helpful. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
I’m not going to debate retitling, and/or registering works as a collection. I register works as a collection when I am acting as the publisher, or if I am assigning the collection to only one publisher.
It’s time to go on “sabbatical” now. I’ve got a house to sell, a new studio to build, and a catalog in desperate need of attention.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL
MichaelL