Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Tracks are “done”, when they’re “done” and as everyone is saying, sometimes a track that gets composed, mixed, and mastered in 4 hours goes on and earns a lot of royalties and sync fees. Sometimes the one’s that take 20 hours across a few days earn very little. There is no correct answer.
Only the buyers decide what is useful for their projects. If you write 2000 pieces of music over a 20 to 30 year period you are probably likely to have some gems that rise up and earn you a lot of money. At the same time, you will also have tracks that never earn much at all. There always will be happy surprises along the way where, for example, a really old track gets discovered and used in a big project and produces nice earnings when you least expect it.
When all is said and done I would advise that music producers not stop working on a track until they really know it’s ready for release. Never rush work out the door. Just keep tweaking and tweaking until you get everything you can out of the track. I would never advise writing, mixing, mastering and releasing in 1 day. Always sleep on a track and a mix. Listen the next day. If it’s ready, go ahead and release it. If not, keep working on it until you know it’s ready to go.
I always register the original “poetic” or “real” title. Sometimes I register the generic “keywordy” re-title such as “inspirational happy positive corporate uplifting upbeat background minimal ambient underscore for your youtube business marketing presentation and tutorial epic orchestral strings motivation” . …I am kidding a bit but you get the idea.
If I detect one of my tracks on air in a spot using tunesat or if I just hear it on TV while at home, I file the claim with my original “real” title. My focus for PRO registration is the main, original “poetic” title. It’s complicated and a PITA.
One of these days I may very well just register all of these other titles, but I do not see the immediate need to do that right now.
Just want to chime in. I have done quite well with $50 to $70 prices on stock music markets. I do try to have a different title because If someone finds my track on one market, I do not want them to search and find the same title on another market at a lower price. So the solution is to have different titles on different markets. Is this a PITA? Yes, but it also, hopefully, forces the customer to buy the music where they first discovered it. There are other obvious reasons to have different titles on different markets. “Poetic” or “real” titles are ideal for certain markets. Keywordy style titles work better on other markets. One and two word titles work well on some markets. All in all, titles are eternally a PITA!…. LOL! But a “title strategy” is needed for each site.
I agree 100% Beatslinger. If it was true that clients (TV Networks and TV Production companies) are upset about tracks sitting in 3 or 4 libraries and also on Direct Licensing stock sites, I would have been blacklisted and deleted a long time ago. Frankly, I’d be shocked if they were to hear the duplicate track from 2 sources because everyone has different clients anyway. Library owners are trying to build up a nice asset of “exclusive” cues that they claim is owned by them so they can sell it to UMG or Chappel, or some other big company. At this point in the game, I am simply feeding 1 TV cue library my tunes because they get the job done better than all others.
Happy New Year to all. The only reason music libraries seem to become “exclusive” is because weak handed composers allow them to. I have always refused to sign exclusive contracts. I still send music to the companies that have become “exclusive” and simply say I am sorry but I have a living to make and therefore I need to sell my music through multiple outlets. They often understand that and still take my tracks in for TV placements.
The direct licensing market is a very different market than TV cue libraries. From my perspective they do not compete at all. They serve 2 very different types of customers.
Example: I met a guy from Canada on a train during my current travels. He told me he’s in real Estate and that they make marketing videos for youtube all the time and use stock sites all the time to find tracks. The stock sites he’s shopping at have zero to do with TV cue libraries. It’s two totally different markets.If every composer were to sign deals that state “exclusive to tv libraries only” the market would be healthier for all participants. TV cue Publishers reading this note need to realize that they can not create a livable wage for composer’s within the “exclusive” model. They could if they paid $1000 a track advance, but 95% of the libraries out there are not willing to make that investment.
Had I stayed loyal to my best tv cue library and had only them exclusively represent and place my music, I’d be earning 25% of what I actually earn. It is extremely important to have 10 to 20 revenue streams to make a livable wage in the music licensing business.
I have music with 5 TV cue feeding libraries and 2 have sub pubs overseas so I consider the music to be represented worldwide. I also have music with 5 direct licensing stock sites. My tracks are on streaming platforms and registered with Harry Fox, Sound Exchange, and about 250 are in ADREV. I have 14 sources of revenue and every single one of them matters. Each one leads to a situation where I can earn a livable wage.
Music publishers reading this take notes. You are being greedy and unrealistic by making demands for exclusivity. We have bills to pay, kids to put through schools, and build savings for retirement just as you do!
Composers take notes too: If you are going to give your assets up exclusively to one library, ask that they pay you $1000 a track in advance or ask that they allow you to sell on the direct license markets at the same time.
Walden, Do not take that deal under any circumstances. It is horrible on principle alone. I really do not care if you can write a “similar” one in 30 minutes. One just never knows.
Collecting sync fees should be 50% to writer and 50% to publisher. Why would you sign a track over to someone to only collect PRO back end royalties? What if they were to collect several 4 to 5 figure sync fees over the next several years?You really never know what can happen and you certainly do not want to risk missing out.
I would counter in 2 ways: Tell them you’ll accept the deal if they share the sync fees
or if they refuse that, then they should buy your track for an agreed price. This is also known as an “advance” or “consideration fee”. If they really want the track it’s because they probably feel like they can and will generate some sync fees from it. Ask who they deal with? Only TV production Companies? Or are they actively selling to Big ad agencies. If they sell to ad agencies there can be really nice sync fees involved.By just signing this deal you are devaluing yourself and the entire industry by setting a weak precedent. Never be afraid to walk away from deals. I personally would never ever sign a deal like this. It is clearly predatory.
Logika, I have no idea what your contract stated in terms of the rights you granted them. I always gave libraries the rights to exploit my works for sync licensing, TV, Film, advertising etc. But the language of my contracts which are quite old did not discuss streaming and internet radio which increasingly is all about Spotify, Apple, YOUTUBE, Pandora, Sirius, and Amazon. All the other players are just too small to create meaningful royalty revenue.
If your contracts are not exclusive and do not mention exploiting your works in the streaming world you should have the rights to package up your own albums, under an artist name you chose and distribute to streaming platforms to play the consumer listening market.
If you signed an exclusive deal, I am seeing more and more that these publishers feel as though they control the music so they get to release away to consumer streaming platforms. I get this but what bothers me is many do not even credit the artist/ composer. you see these albums released and the “artist” is the library. Pretty shady if you ask me.
I cant speak to Content ID Conflicts as it relates to streaming on Spotify and apple music (for example) but my guess is that is a low risk scenario and only google/ youtube centric.
Never heard of a “buyout license”. Usually “buyout” refers to transfer of ownership and transfer of copyright. But since this is non-broadcast and for DVD replication I kind of doubt you will see performance royalties unless the track eventually airs on TV. Maybe ask the library for a copy of the license they sold.
@LA Writer we’re all here comparing notes for situations where we are USA writers but supplying cues to a foreign library in Canada or Europe. Yes typically a PMA library would publish and register our cues, then distribute to various territories (UK, France, Japan, Australia, Brazil and so on) in a sub publishing context. When we do business direct with companies in Canada and UK (As first original publisher of titles) or really anywhere else outside the USA, We really need to keep our eyes on registrations.
Otherwise, we probably are more protected just using library services right here in the USA where they register, then sub publish overseas. For me, I am just surprised that a neighboring company in Canada would not be wise to set up publishing entities at all 3 American PRO’s in addition to SOCAN. For now the excuse is that their “service” they sub contract called fast track.
“Your cues are registered at SOCAN, which has reciprocal agreements with nearly every P.R.O. in the world. As such, you should not miss out on payments (unless BMI for some reason is not keeping up with their end of the reciprocal agreement.) I’m working to find out why your cues weren’t ingested yet at BMI. They were registered using a different system than the previous ones. With this different system (FAST TRACK), BMI may be waiting to ingest until there are associated payments to send you. I’m also confirming that your untitled A/V cues are being paid to you properly and nothing is missing. I’ll have an answer for you very soon.”
Moral of the story:
It’s important that we not stay asleep at the wheel with the various publishers we deal with. We need to insist on timely registrations, perhaps even put that in the contracts, and then look at our PRO accounts regularly to make sure the works are registered.In 2018 moving forward, I am not a fan of companies registering titles under their silly “code like” systems. I have dozens retitled like this: CCAK_500023_CUE
This tells me nothing on a statement. I can not put the title to the tune. Moving forward, I will try to avoid these scenarios with new tracks.The moment a publisher says “Everything will be ok even if your titles are not registered” is the exact moment you should be VERY CONCERNED and dial up the pressure for them to get the titles registered at BMI or threaten to pull the catalog. These people are full of sheet! It always is much cleaner, more clear, and more responsible when the titles are registered with the Writers PRO. Publishers train of thinking is “cool…we have these tunes, WE registered them at OUR pro, so we are set. The writer…hmmm…well gee that is some confusing work for us to get those registered at BMI and aside from that we don’t collect from BMI so what do we care?”
I really believe that. Personally next week I will dial up the pressure to 10/ very high for the Canadian/ SOCAN publisher to make sure my 2016 and 2017 releases are registered at BMI just as the 2014 and 2015 cues were registered. I will also tell them to look for missing royalty payments. Sorry, but I am not convinced that “I will be paid anyway even if the cues are not registered.”
Folks, this is a publishers job and is exactly why they are taking 50% of the pie for TV syncs. Additionally, we want to see what titles are getting used on statements. If titles are not registered but royalties flow in as ” UK TV PROGRAM CUES” what good does that do any of us? Publishers need to register our cues or go into another business. It’s just laziness and carelessness.
It’s interesting how many publishers do not have their knowledge base in order when it comes to dealing with foreign writers. I am dealing with a Canadian publisher who registered all titles at SOCAN, but I informed them that all of my 2016 and 2017 releases (on their site for their TV partners) have not been registered at BMI. It turns out that they do not even have a BMI publishing entity set up.
They also sub contracted the registration services. It’s my understanding that we only get paid on registered titles. Needless to say I am quite disappointed but this company is moving to get the tracks registered. I just can only worry how many TV placements may have been missed or royalties held back because titles on cue sheets were not registered at BMI.
Canadian and UK Publishers nowadays should not get into this business unless they know how to work on a world wide playing field. They certainly should know what they are doing if they represent USA writers working with USA PRO’s and ideally have publishing entities set up at all 3 to collect faster.
I do think that if you produce four 15 cut albums (60 tracks produced in 1 year) with genres currently in demand, and distribute them to 6 to 10 different licensing platforms you can make $5000 to $10,000 in year 1. If you continue to do exactly that for 10 straight years, you can build your business into 6 figures. But, and this is a big “but” your music has to be really, really good and you need more than one licensing platform bringing in the business.
That article kind of mis-leads people into thinking that aligning with one “major publisher” and writing four 12 track albums a year will do the trick for eventually hitting 6 figs.
I can make a case for writing 100 a year for 5 to 10 years before that really happens and it will take more than 1 major publisher moving your music to get there. Unless of course you are as talented as John Williams or Thomas Newman.No investor needed. Just put in the time yourself and control 100% of the assets you create to license on platforms you are comfortable with.
Very interesting for sure. I have never heard of this bizarre scenario. Quick Question: Was the music sourced in ” RF/ NE” style library? Please keep us posted. There just seems to be so many challenging issues with GEMA as opposed to other PRO’s. Not necesarily bad issues, but it certainly is my impression that they are a very “militant” PRO to the point where I have read articles where they will chase down fees from German Kindergarten Schools making photo copies of sheet music for PD children’s songs. Or even charging composers for using their own music on their own web sites in Germany. I have heard people (buyers of music licenses or libraries publishing GEMA composers) say “we had a bad experience with GEMA”…and so on…
To answer your question though first research what GEMA would charge for this sync license? Ask what it’s end use is? A film? A TV show? an advertisement? If an Ad, How big is the brand? How big is the media buy? Factor in all of those variables and you can then negotiate your own sync license fee. Something does not add up though as it would seem that the sync license had to be purchased from some entity already.
LAW, You need to save your mlr posts before you post! Make that a habit.
But are we really the step child to star songwriters? I don’t know? I have heard folks at SESAC say that TV pays a heck of a lot more than pop songs on radio.
If only we could get a tour of the accounting offices at these pros. That would be fun!