Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You do not have permission to view this content.We have gigged together for years and I want to pay him fairly.
The last friend I hired was a clarinet player, he played a written melody and improvised solos on two songs. I paid $200. That said I often work on trade with friends and find that works real well. As in you contribute something to my project and I’ll contribute to yours. Why keep passing the same $200 around?
Back some years ago I and I think a few others here would give the RF version a different title, but that just doesn’t seem to matter anymore and makes keeping track of things more work. So I don’t bother now.
Interesting question, I’d like to see what the responses are. For me, I’d say no sense starting a relationship with this library by being evasive or distrusting. Acknowledge the NE library. It is what it is…
It never stops. I just got another email from a company yesterday telling me my music is in CID even though I told them it wasn’t. And my music shouldn’t be. I’ve not entered it, nor have I given any library permission to. At this point, I’m convinced most of my older catalog, tracks that have been out there for some time now is in CID. Anyway TechNoiZ, good luck with it. AdRev has helped me out in the past also.
The other non-RF agreements are also non-exclusive, correct?
Hi SirDort, what do you mean by semi-blindly? If you’re thinking about submitting without understanding their agreement, their Content ID policy, their reversion clause, their pay structure and all, it’s not a good idea.
Thanks. That’s an important article to share.
Exclusive deals with no advance (up-front money) usually do pay 1/2 of sync fees, like in this case. Exclusive deals that do pay up-front usually do not share the sync fees.
If you wanted to take a chance on this deal, I would suggest negotiating for a reversion clause and not giving them the rights in perpetuity.
RM, Unfortunately with the new layout @ ASCAP you usually can’t see placements for international royalties
John, you can always download a PDF or CSV of your statement that lists all the placements. From the choices on the left side of the screen click on “Statements”. It’s in small print right underneath “Earnings”.
Having many of these tracks in RF libraries like P5, Audiosparx, Crucial etc… will my future clients get the content ID issues when they get my track?
Only the copyright owner (which is you) is allowed to enter tracks into content ID so non-exclusive RF libraries like you mentioned should not be entering your tracks. Meaning that no, your future clients will not get content ID issues.
If you read some back posts though, you will see that there are often problems with non-exclusive libraries “inadvertently” entering tracks in to content ID when they shouldn’t be. It’s happened to me and more than once. I don’t think the ones you’ve named would do so. Crucial is very careful with legalities. Audiosparx actually requires your music not to be in content ID, so they won’t be putting it there. And pond5 hasn’t ever been a problem that I’ve heard about.
The comments of this video are interesting:
Hey, great to hear! Always nice to get a prime-time network placement.
I’ve been a member fo years but I rarely post stuff, haven’t been there in a while, actually… I’ll go and check it out again.
Great. Like I said, there is not much back and forth, just people promoting their music (good and bad) and services. I do monitor and comment/delete when needed. We encourage activity with “Music Months”, blasting a message to the whole group once a month asking for posts in a certain style. See ya there..
I manage a forum on LinkedIn. The group owner is a friend and someone I collaborate with. The group is called “Original Music for Media” The groups intention is for sharing music content with other composers, music supervisors, producers, and film and video editors.
There’s not much dialog, mostly just music creators posting links to their songs. There are 13,000 members. Feel free to visit.