Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Don’t know what that means. I have two publishing companies registered with them but I did this many years ago so the rules may have changed.
From the HFA website:
“Self-released recordings aren’t considered commercially released by a U.S. based third party (a record label) and don’t qualify a publishing company for affiliation with HFA.”
(Their typo, not mine)
How are you all handling HFA’s “third party” requirement?
The Copyright Society just shared this article about the Blurred Lines decision. It addresses some of your concerns Michael. Yes, it redfines copyright to a degree. https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/blurred-lines-can-you-copy-a-music-genre/
I still think there’s room to work in a genre without infringing. IMO, not everyone who uses certain elements to evoke a “sound” is going to infringe. But when you set out to write a song that sounds like something specific, like “Got to Give it Up,” you’re in different territory because you have intent.
Isn’t just not writing anything simpler
Checked out your site. Very nice (and ironic)! You’re obviously very accomplished, successful, and wise beyond your years. You should be offering advice instead of seeking it! 😀
Best of luck Alvaro!
The advantage of actually working a job for your income is that it keeps music pure and spiritual – the way it should be.
Some people would say that’s naive, that it’s a business and you should just be a “pro” and crank it out. At the end of the day, do they create something more than product that anyone would actually care about or want to listen to?
This is where we venture into discussions about art vs commerce, a topic for another day.
It’s the new-world business paradigm – music for love, job for money.
There are easier ways to make money and better ways to make music!
“And in today’s news”, the “Blurred Lines” verdict is upheld.
The longer you do this, the more your yearly income will be. If that is not happening (especially exponentially near the beginning), you’re doing something wrong, or not suited for the “music biz”.
Somebody mentioned a “code of silence” in another thread with regard to not sharing information about libraries. The greatest code of silence that I know in this business is that nobody will come out and say “Keep your day job. You music isn’t commercially viable.”
No one should shoot down another person’s dreams. But encouraging someone who isn’t likely to succeed may be doing them a big disservice that will cause them far more harm than hurt feelings.
There are not too many greater “Highs” than to be “Your OWN Artist, that has cultivated a unique style…
+1,000! Spot on, BEATSLINGER!
In my experience, and i guess for a lot of us, there are so many inconsistent scenarios.
I tend to agree with Paolo. The “new” business models of the last ten to fifteen years have disrupted older patterns. The bell curve is probably not as appropriate, although I do believe that trend-based music eventually fades unlike “evergreen” tracks.
In the “old days” there was a lengthy time frame for a library to conceive of a “collection,” bring it to fruition, and then get it into the market. There was a more finite amount of content on the market. Music editors physically serached through and auditioned tracks on vinyl!
In the “new” DIY world there are countless variables and so much comes down, not only to the music, but to a composer’s ability to market their own tracks with keywords and appropriate titles.
I’ve had new tracks get instant sales on RF sites and I’ve had re-mastered old tracks enjoy a second life on RF sites. For me it is a bit of a rollercoaster more than a single bell curve.
However, given that variety of business models, it is possible that some content follows a bell curve. I would suspect that the TV focused libraries may be more “out with the old, in with the new” than other models, as editors may hit the “refresh” button more often.
That case has been around for a year or two. Copying other works or making something that sounds like another work is risky business.
Who now actually pays the $600,000 damages?
Every library contract that I’ve seen has an indemnification clause that makes the composer responsible for infringement.
The reality is that most composers are what is called “judgment proof,” meaning that they don’t have significant assets from which the damages could be collected. That, however, may not leave them off the hook. Often, a lien will be entered against the judgment proof party that could follow them for the rest of their life, just in case they win the lottery, inherit money, or start to have success, and then they have to pay.
Damages are only part of the problem. Win or lose you will face the cost of defending yourself if you are sued. Your defense costs could easily be six figures.
Libraries are now turning away from knock-offs. Some won’t even let you mention a well-known work or well-known artist just in comparison.
At the end of the day, is it worth taking that big a risk on the chance that you might make a few hundred dollars selling your knock-off? It’s a fool’s mission. Write your own music.
Everything that you all are describing here is the product of too many people trying to get into an already overcrowded market. It makes no sense, other than it’s something for which the bar is now virtually so low nearly anyone and everyone can participate.
If you consider the amount of time that it takes to produce a decent track against the backend from TV-focused libraries, it’s easy to see where you may be making minimum wage or less per hour invested. And, no, those non-evergreen tracks will not be earning you a lot of money ten or fifteen years from now.
There is an existing Award specifically for Production Music Composers. It is the Mark Award, presented by the Production Music Association (PMA).
we have every intention of making the Modern Music Maker Awards a respected calling card for winners to get through gatekeepers and into more publishing deals.
The “gatekeepers” are those at which libraries?
I had always seen everywhere that a BMI writer’s works have to be in a BMI publishing company, ASCAP writer’s in an ASCAP pub, etc. Has anyone seen this done before?
That is correct. Get more of the details from your wife’s co-writer.
Yes, a BMI writer can have an ASCAP publishing entity. I had an ASCAP publishing entity as a BMI writer, but I was publishing the works of ASCAP writers, not mine.
Some composers who are members of one PRO, which may be the case with your wife’s co-writer, have a family member (like a spouse) join the other PRO and then they establish a publishing entity with the other PRO. Is it legit? I don’t know. Do the PRO’s like it? Maybe not, but it’s been going on for decades.
At the end of the end of the day, I’m not sure what the point is unless you are publishing the works of a writer that belongs to the other society.
If it’s some kind of scheme to double-dip, the people involved will eventually get caught and then the PROs will take their money back (at a minimum).
No need to reinvent the wheel.
Try this for keeping track of things:
and/or Adi Gold’s tag generator: