Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think AI will create another tier of content that will appeal, mostly economically, to a certain group of consumer for whom “good enough is good enough.”
The arguments about AI learning “our music” and “our styles” fall flat and would have a tough time if litigated, IMO. A significant percentage of production music is nearly generic. AI is simply doing mechanically, and faster, what composers have done to each other forever.
If AI spits out a happy corporate pop track with ukuleles and whistles can you really claim to be the originator of that style? Library composers have been knocking off everyone from Benny Goodman to U2 for decades. How are you going to claim and prove originality?
One composer recently posted on this site that he had gotten good at writing in the style of another particularly successful library composer, and he wanted to know which library might want those tracks. Seriously. Sometimes, we are our own worst enemy.
If you want a future, be original, work on a level that AI cannot easily replicate at an economically feasible price point, and find an audience that cares. There will be AI backlash, people who reject AI content. That’s your market.
Be careful with this one. “Group Registration of Works on an Album of Music (GRAM)” is distinguishable from “Group Registration of Unpublished Works (GRUW),” and may not be the best option for library composers who are either shopping tracks to libraries or self-publishing and distributing via online libraries.
For example, check out the potential limitations with respect to registering sound recordings and the underlying music works, as outlined here in the FAQ.
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-gram.html#rmw-faq3I’ll reach out to the USCO for some clarification.
Under the old group registration system, all ten track were registered under a single registration number. My understanding is that under the new system, each track is given its own registration number, which should provide more flexibility going forward, with respect to infringement claims and selling individual tracks.
The 1099-K seems like a “belt and suspenders” tool to make sure that workers with multiple streams of income comply with reporting requirements.
Here’s some insight from the IRS: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/gig-economy-tax-center
Here’s an explanation from Intuit, which is more or less what Art said: https://ttlc.intuit.com/community/taxes/discussion/you-only-enter-your-total-income-regardless-of-the-breakd/01/689118#M277467
“It would most likely be by making personal contacts with TV production companies. That’s how it has worked for us.”
That’s been my experience as well, a combination of personal contacts and luck.
I thought that I read somewhere on Identity’s site that they don’t allow tracks that use loops and certain sample libraries, including BFD. I can’t find that reference again. I understand why loops and phrase-based samples would be a problem for ID, but not BFD. Anyone know if that’s correct?
Thanks, Music1234. Have you opted into SoundExchnge’s international option? If so, has it generated anything meaningful?
Here we are a few years later and the MLC is in full operation. Have you signed up and are you receiving royalties?
“If you’re writing non-exclusively for ‘royalty free’ music / stock music companies, they often insist on you NOT signing your tracks up with CID. That said, there are non-ex RF libraries that are happy to let their composers do it, and have a simple system for white listing customers’ videos when necessary.”
I had a recent conversation with Pond5 re CID. They are encouraging composers sign up with services like Identifyy. I read the same on Audiojungle’s website.
“just thought it was odd that that guy “Adam” – a library owner, would have such an outdated perspective on CID.”
It is indeed an outdated perspective, as CID protects both the licensee and the licensor. Yet, Artlist still markets itself with ads featuring content creators who look like a deer in the headlights, terrified of getting a copyright notice.
Quality over quantity has proven to be a winner for me.
I agree. In the RF market you can have individual tracks that generate 4 figures if the quality is there and your metadata is effective.
I licensed a track through Pond5 that received an IMDB listing.
Highly recommended for any library composer.
Just to clarify, Neighboring Rights/Related Rights involve performers and producers. They are not a composer’s right. Because the US is not a signatory member of the Rome Treaty which applies to performers and producers, Neighboring Rights remuneration is generally not available to US performers and producers. There may be exceptions under limited circumstances. See this FAQ answer from NRG’s website.
WHAT ABOUT U.S. WRITERS? I HAVE HEARD THAT U.S. RECORDINGS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO COLLECT NEIGHBOURING RIGHTS ROYALTIES.
It is true that U.S. recordings and artists/musicians generally have a smaller scope of protection of their neighbouring rights in the world. However, there are countries where you are entitled to receive royalties and we will make sure that we collect on your behalf where possible