[MichaelL]

What Mark said.

[MichaelL]

@Lupo, unless the stats have changed, about 30% of YT videos get 99% of the views. About half the videos get less than 500 views, and many get less than 100 views.

At about $.012 per view, the vast majority of people will make very little money, even if everyone on the planet is watching YT.

Probably a great tool for promoting your band. Not so much, right now, if you write production music.

BTW..RF is not a new business model. I produced over 20 RF collections in the 1980’s. It’s been around a long time.

From a legal perspective, the only thing that will change copyright law, as we know it (in the US), will be legislation or litigation. How do you envision YT changing copyright law? We’ll have to accomodate piracy becuase so many people are doing it? I don’t see SCOTUS or the US Congress going down tha road.

_Michael

[MichaelL]

Not assuming anything Lupo. Here’s what the LA times articles says:

Scott Schreer, the composer behind the “NFL on Fox” theme, has written scores of instrumental pieces that people use for free in their videos. With Audiam, he now can collect money from videos that use any of his 2,000 songs, such as the slide guitar-fueled rock piece “Misfit.” In his first four weeks using Audiam, he said, the service collected about $40,000 from YouTube videos using his music.

Here’s what the BusinessWeek,com article says:

A May Audiam search for just one of his 1,700 songs, a two-minute, saxophone-heavy acid-jazz instrumental called Love Doctor, revealed 100,000 video plays using the song without paying for it over a period of 11 days. That search netted Schreer $120 in licensing fees from YouTube, he says. He’s collecting about $30,000 a month overall from his music catalog.

I highlighted the important points. If you read closely, you’ll see that, yes, he is making $30,000 to $40,000 per month, but not from just one song. He makes that from his entire 1,700 to 2,000 cue catalog. He made $120 in 11 days from 100,000 views of a video using “Love Doctor.” So, that would be $360 in a month, for one song. Mr. Schreer has 1,700 to 2,000 songs, some of which are well known. That’s where the 30 to 40K is coming from.

Both of these articles are examples of the kind of press release that record label publicists do. I know, I owned a label. Mr. Schreer is not a starving composer, who has new found riches, thanks to Audiam. He is one of the owners of Audiam, and the purpose of the articles is to attract composers to Audiam, by implying that they will have similar success. While you may possibly see some benefit, it is analogous to suggesting that by wearing Nike sneakers, you’ll be as successful as Michael Jordan. In the realm of production music, Mr. Schreer is a Michael Jordan.

Would I, or will I, use their service? … quite possibly for TV themes that I own that might be getting unauthorized uses. But, with respect to the RF part of my catalog, I’m steering clear of content ID, unless those cues are exclusive (in accordance with YT’s TOS).

_Michael

[MichaelL]

I prefer to work from the midi of the original full length version, that way I can add pick ups and change the tempo slightly if necessary. Sometimes a cymbal crash or roll needs to go, little tweaks like that make the edits less jarring.

+1 That’s the way I’ve always done it, unless I don’t have that option. For example, I may be re-mastering some old cues, with live players, for which I only have stereo masters.

[MichaelL]

I switched to BMI from ASCAP on January 1, 2012.
I just accessed my account, and read my July 2013 statement online.
Maybe you should contact ASCAP. Could be just a quirk.

Cheers,
Michael

[MichaelL]

The important thing to take away from it is that Scott Schreer is not making 30K a month from a Youtube video. He made $120.

The 30K per month referenced in the article comes from his 1,700 cue catalog, which reinforces what has been said here previously about the number of cues it takes to do well.

It should also be noted that a lot of that 30K per month most likely comes from numerous high profile TV themes, that Mr. Schreer has written, including the NFL and NHL on FOX, etc, which reinforces what has been said here about multiple revenue streams.

All of this is important to understand, when making a decision about content ID, which could jeopardize writers’ relationships with many libraries.

I read the article here: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-07-11/a-new-way-for-musicians-to-make-money-on-youtube

_Michael

[MichaelL]

Looks like I’ll be chopping my catalog up. 🙁

I’d like to know which RF libraries are NOT participating in content ID, so I don’t violate anyone’s policy.

_Michael

[MichaelL]

Mark… I shouldn’t be surprised by your experiences. When I was practicing law, I never ceased to be amazed at the things people thought they could get away with.

I’m not sure if my question about “B sides” is one of quality or merely style, and of course new technology v. old.

Also, I often created cues created for things like manufacturing scenes and converyor belts, etc. One client used to call them “forward motion” and “pallet movers.” That stuff can be repetitive and minimalistic, i.e. “wallpaper.” To me that’s different than more involved cues that I’ve done for sports, historical or motivational use, which I value more.

Thanks,
Michael

[MichaelL]

There is also the issue of composers who actually do think that simply changing the title of a song or using a pseudonym will get them around these rules and requirements. Changing a title or composer name does nothing. It is still the same music.

Rolling eyes…shaking head….that kind of thing is just dumb sumb dumb.

you should just use your real composer name, pick your price point for your music and stick with it.

I sometimes wonder about that. For example, would it be beneficial to market you “B sides” under another name. Also, in my case, we’re thinking about marketing our TV library, as a stand alone catalog. I’ve got other writers involved there. So, I’m thinking about using the entity name.

A newbie in another thread asked if there was any way to get around the submission rules and regulations of each of the libraries.
I would suggest not lying to music library owners would be the best start to your production music career.

++1 I understand that for many people their catalog is a limited resource, and they want to spread it everywhere. But Mark is 100% correct.
Deception is never a good way to do business.

I know that some libraries don’t mind if you sell on bargain sites, if it’s completely different music. Again, I sometimes think of a car company analogy, e.g. Lexus and Toyota. They have the same parent company but sell in different venues to different clientele.

I strive to make most of my music in the “Lexus” category. But, there are some cues that are maybe at little more “Corolla.” Again, I wonder about selling “B sides” under a pseudonym at a lesser price….mainly to preserve my “brand,” whatever that may be, while still monetizing the lower end of the catalog.
Here’s perfect example: I own all of the RF cues that I did back in the 80’s and 90’s, about 200. Some were converted to CD. Some have live musicians, and others use, “vintage” instruments, or a mixture of both.
Most of these cues can be pumped up with a little remastering. Some of those cues are very good,and some I’d probably rather use a pseudonym.
So, I guess my question is, do we abandon lesser material, or monetize it through a lower end portal?

BTW..a few hundred cues that I did for an exclusive back in the 90’s, were sold to a larger company, that now sells all of those cues via an RF portal, with no composer credits / identification (or money) at all. Just pointing out that is one way a large company is dealing with its older catalog.

_Michael

[MichaelL]

@bbastos… just to clarify: copying, or being “inspired by” a work is one thing and writing in a “style” is another. There isn’t a trailer composer on the planet who isn’t “inspired” by Two Steps from Hell.

As Mark Lewis pointed out in another thread, a long time ago, it’s possible to produce soemthing in Jimi Hendrix’s style without actually copying one of his songs.

I’ve written in John Williams’s style without actually copying one of his works. (Of course, Williams is writing in the style of, and often quoting, a lot of long dead composers whose works are PD, which is a possible defense to infringement)

U2 and Coldplay are probably the two most immitated bands in the library world. So far, no one has posted any warnings about receiving cease and desist letters. (Which doesn’t mean that you won’t get sued if you copy one of their songs too closely). It may just be that none of the immitations has had a high profile placement, or been detected by tunesat. (it’s getting harder to go unnoticed)

I’m not advising you to go ahead and immitate a style, but it is different than copying a specific work.

_Michael

[MichaelL]

This question cannot be answered adequately here. Just a few quick thoughts:

1) In the US, it would be very difficult to argue that a chord progression is a copyrightable element, because there are few if any totally original chord progressions. Only the parts of a work that are original expressions of the author are protectable. The same can be said of arrangements, and key hooky riffs. And,even then, there are exceptions (library music wouldn’t be one of them).
2) There are several tests that US courts apply including substantial similarity and the ordinary observer test. The first deals with the kind of analysis that a musicologist might provide as evidence. The second is based on the listener’s response, and more or less whether or not they hear/recognize/respond to the alleged infringed elements. In other words, if you write a library cue called Monday Bloody Monday, and you copy the chord progession, and other stylistic elements from Sunday Bloody Sunday, and an ordinary observer would think it’s U2, you have a problem.
3) Musicologists are not lawyers. They can provide evidence, but that is different from knowing the law.
As far as your song bbastos. I cannot tell you. Even copying just a bassline may be infringement if it is a central element of the infringed work. Look up Vanilla Ice, Ice Ice Baby and Under Pressure by Queen and David Bowie.
As far as merely copying a style goes, without literally registering something a trademark, you cannot protect a style. For example, Miles Davis wasn’t the only trumpet player to use a Harmon mute, and Edge isn’t the only guitarist to use 16th note delays. You can’t have a monopoly on that sort of expression.

_Michael

[MichaelL]

Thanks for the kind words soundspot.

Cheers,
Michael

[MichaelL]

Soundspot, I really can’t say for sure. I was a writer member AND a publisher member. I publish my works and the works of others.

If you only assign publishing to yourself, and did not have a separate publisher membership, it may be that those works leave the ASCAP catalog with you. If you are not a publisher member, there is no member in interest remaining with ASCAP. I would contact ASCAP about that. In that case you would not get paid for publishing.

[MichaelL]

MichaelL, dont you think that when the internet will become the main resource for those shows and media content that are now broadcasted mainly on TV then BMI and ASCAP will get more in licence fees from the internet sites at the same rate that now is being paid by TV networks? Internet royalty rate are low because it’s not the main thing, there is still tv channels around that are attracting a lot of viewers, when it will end then the internet site will be required to pay their fees like the TV networks did, if they are attracting the same amount of viewers and generating the same amount of revenue as a result.

In short, no. I think that is wishful thinking. If the tribunal bases internet royalty rates on what internet users pay for sync licenses, like they do for TV, the picture isn’t rosey. What are internet sync fees now, compared to TV sync fees? The internet is a cheap medium.

[MichaelL]

And let’s hope that basing royalties off sync fees would be too complicated to even implement.

I think you’re missing the point. There is already a connection between sync fees and royalty rates. This is not something new for the future. But, as gratis licensing increases, the aggregate amount of sync fees decreases. As such, the royalty rate may decrease,for broadcast.
Remember, there’s two sides to every equation. On one side you have the PROS and PMA members fighting to keep royalty rates up. On the other side you have broadcasters arguing that they should pay less, because the amount that they pay in sync fees is going down.
As I said to music pro, if internet royalties are tied to internet sync fees, like TV rates, its not a rosey picture.

[Author]

Posts