Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Runners run. Cyclists bike. Lawyers argue. Writers write.
Hey, I don’t always argue! 😀
Getting past the “art” part of music and into the “craft / business” aspect of GETTING IT DONE, is where the professional side of things starts to come into play. You can call that good, you can call it bad…but that’s the reality of it all.
Absolutely spot on.
I mean Non-Exc libraries that that reports to PRO´S. In your opinion, there’s no problem with putting that same music on RF sites?
If the agreement is truly non-exclusive, there’s nothing contractually to prevent you from putting the same music into RF libraries. As far as reputation goes, if you’re talking about the kind of libraries that send their catalog in bulk to editors and music sups, I’m not sure that anyone cares if you have the same tracks in RF libraries.
An issue could arise if you belong to a non-US PRO that has the exclusive right to control the music that you’ve registered with them and does not allow members to direct license their music.
In your experience, is there a problem with using the same music in traditional libraries, and RF sites?
Question on nomenclature: what do you mean by “traditional libraries?” A “traditional” library, in the original model going back decades, would be an exclusive and usually work-for-hire arrangement. You could not put the same music in other libraries without breaching your contract.
All in all, titles are eternally a PITA!…. LOL! But a “title strategy” is needed for each site.
@Music1234, with all those differing titles, how do you handle PRO registration and copyright registration?I mentioned first it all depends on the terms and conditions of the site you uploaded to.
Normally, in an RF situation it’s the composer’s responsibility to register their tracks with their PRO. Some, not all, RF libraries offer publishing admin and will register your tracks for you, if you designate admin to them. Some RF libraries that follow a performance free model require that your tracks not be PRO-registered.
But your question appears to stem from this issue:
if I give a track to a RF library it’s prohibited to deposit this track to my PRO.
The answer to that depends on the country in which you live and the PRO you are affiliated with. Particularly in EU nations, the PROs may be quasi-governmental agencies with exclusive rights to control the music that you register with them.
Again, this is one reason why joining a U.S. PRO may be advantageous.
He said to me that if I give a track to a RF library it’s prohibited to deposit this track to my PRO.
Wall_E, it has nothing to do with the terms of the various librarys’ contracts. It has to do with where you live and which PRO you are affiliated with.
In the U.S, our courts have ruled that composers have the right to direct license their music. In other countries that is not necessarily the case. Depending on where you live and which PRO you are affiliated with, your PRO may have the exclusive right to control the tracks that you register with them and, as such, you may not be able direct license those PRO-registered tracks through RF libraries too.
This is one reason why it can be advantageous to join a U.S. PRO, even if you aren’t a U.S. citizen.
1983 or 1984.
Fox News only does direct licensing, usually in the form of blanket deals. So no royalties, and usually nothing to the composers
Maybe not completely. I received royalties from FOX Business on my most recent BMI statement.The music came from an exclusive PMA library.
I think that’s not 100% accurate, MichealL: my PRO is asking me if I’d rather negotiate the synch fee by myself, or if I allow GEMA to decide fee according to their method.
Are you a member of a US PRO? If you are in the EU and not a member of a US PRO then you are quite correct and this may be an effort to comply with the recent EU Directive which allows rights holders to negotiate rights individually.
Something does not add up though as it would seem that the sync license had to be purchased from some entity already.
But isn’t this happening after the fact and you have already licensed your track to the German Licensee? In that case, are they suggesting renegotiating something that you’ve already agreed to?
Music1234 is correct. US PROs do not negotiate sync fees. They collect performance royalties. So, something doesn’t quite add up.
.@Wall_E that’s a bit of a complicated question. In the US, by virtue of a few Supreme Court decisions, agreements between composers and our PROs are non-exclusive. This allows composers to direct license their music. However, check your PRO agreement and you will likely find that you are required to report to them any track that you have direct licensed.They are basically asking you if you have negotiated a direct sync fee, as GEMA is asking you to confirm.
And, yes, Music1234, many European PROs are very militant about direct licensing, as well as neighboring rights. Many EU PROs treat their agreements with composers as exclusive, which was supposed to change under a recent Directive but old habits die hard.
US PROs have reciprocal agreements with foreign PROS to collect your performance royalties. It may be that that GEMA is asking your PRO to have you confirm that you did indeed direct license your track. Hopefully, GEMA will not use that as justification to not collect or pay backend for the German Licensee’s use of your track.Yeah, I get that. My point was that my inbox was slammed weekly about “Modernization” while my actual income relies on their archaic survey system, which they seem to have no plans to address.
That’s because their focus is on traditional pop songwriters. We’re at the bottom of their food chain.
So much for the “Music Modernization Act.”
The MMA has nothing to do with Cable TV. It involves interactive Digital Music Providers (streaming) and digital downloads of music. More specifically, it covers “non-dramatic” musical works, which is generally understood to mean works not incorporated into other productions, like TV shows and films, etc.
I switched from ASCAP to BMI in 2011 because, at the time, I had 140K performances per year of syndicated non-network TV theme music (still only paying pennies per). Cue sheets and air dates were provided to ASCAP by the producer, all of which was easily verifiable. ASCAP, of course, insisted on its survey and missed 70-75% of the performances. BMI was much better at detecting and counting the performances, but then they changed their royalty calculation to include show ratings and my payout dropped 75%. So, for that situation it was perhaps a wash.
The process pgbanker described is fairly accurate. BMI was great at transferring my catalog, even finding decades-old tracks that I’d long forgotten about. With the exception of having to wait for the windows to line up, the process was seamless and there were no missed payments because of the switch.
I totally agree with BEATSLINGER regarding the triplet snare fills. It breaks up the flow. The triplet is too mechanical. Maybe try a different figure and a more organic sound.
I also agree with Michael on the horn stabs. They’re too precise and sound fake. If the notes are quantized, try to randomize and humanize a bit. Try voicing the chord with different instrument combinations, like trumpet and sax or trumpet, sax, and trombone. Also, everything else has a sort of dreamy wash but the horn stabs stick out. Try adding a cool delay and some more reverb. Just from an arranging perspective, the brass play the same chord 24 times without variation. That’s a lot. Try adding notes to the chords, passing chords and altering the rhythm.
As far as genre goes, it’s a Contemporary Instrumental/New Age /World Fusion mix, the kind of track that the might be licensed by Nat Geo or The travel Channel and for documentaries or corporate projects with global content.
I’m not a CPA, but as Music 1234 correctly stated, “Income is income”… the very words used by my Tax Law professor, probably also on the first page of the text book.
Royalty income is a normal form of taxable income that should be reported on your tax return. As a self-employed composer you would pay self-employment tax, Schedule SE (Form 1040)
From the IRS:
Self-employment tax is a tax consisting of Social Security and Medicare taxes primarily for individuals who work for themselves
What reduces our SS retirement benefit is all the deductions that we take in order to lower our tax burden. Essentially, pay now or pay for it later.
In addition to what Music 1234 mentioned, if you have a home studio, look into the rules for home office deductions. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/home-office-deduction
Anyone have any thoughts on my “theory”? Is songtradr, for example, morphing into another CD Baby?
I cannot speak to many of the models that you’re referring to Music 1234. I had to check my Spotify account to confirm and, yes, one of the PMA libraries that I’m in has uploaded my content to Spotify. Of course, that’s their prerogative because the tracks are theirs. I have been also receiving BMI royalties for Spotify streams that could only be the result of “external distribution” by AS.
I often wonder if we’ll see a day where sync licensing can be done via Spotify? i.e. sourced from Spotify.
Considering that CD Baby places music on Spotify and offers sync licensing through CD Baby Pro, it’s not inconceivable that Spotify could create a sync licensing “Button” that loops back to CD Baby or to any other library that controls your music (if they don’t already).
I’ve had the opportunity to review CD Baby and TuneCore contracts. As I recall, their sync and publishing admin options require exclusivity. I’m not familiar with Songtradr’s methods. I can understand the one-stop-shop appeal for artists without music business experience. So, yes, I would not be surprised to see more libraries/licensing agents trying to be everything to everyone.