Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Separate songs and catalogs with different names or brands are just fine.
The problem comes in when you are selling the same exact music for $0.99 on one site and $99.00 on another.
Or by thinking that by changing the title and composer name of the same song that youtube contentID or any other fingerprinting system will not be able to find it.
We had one composer on our site call himself John Williams for a while.
Another composer used a random name as a composer name that happened to be trademarked by another composer and he was threatened with a lawsuit and we had to take down his entire catalog until he renamed himself.Another recent composer started getting youtube copyright claims against his music from our customers. I told ‘composerZ’ that ‘composerX’ appears to have taken his music and is uploading it to the youtube contentID system. ‘composerZ’ then told me that he is also ‘composerX’. I shut down his account until he could sort it out with the various libraries that had compromised his music catalog without his knowledge.
I think composers should take ownership of their music no matter what the quality. If you are not proud enough to put your name to the music then you probably shouldn’t be selling it.
That is just my personal opinion though. It has no effect on who we accept into our libraries.Mark Lewis
http://www.musicloops.com
http://www.partnersinrhyme.com@clp
Your clarification of the situation is perfect, simple and straight forward. I might use it in the future if you don’t mind.
In regards to your solutions they are correct but just to clarify even further.
Only libraries with exclusive content or exclusive digital distribution rights to the content can upload music into the youtube contentID system. So unless you sign an exclusive agreement with a music library then they absolutely cannot upload your music into the the youtube database, it would be completely against the youtube contentID terms of service.
So, in theory there should be no issue whatsoever. Only music libraries that have exclusive rights to your content can upload your music into the youtube contentID database.
In practice though it is something completely different.
Many libraries, out of sheer ignorance or because some shady third party has sold the library a pack of lies in regards to the youtube contentID system, join the program and start uploading everything on their hard drives without the composer’s consent or knowledge and without exclusive rights.
This is bad and the offending libraries usually pull out of the system as soon as they realize what they have done and see all the customer complaints and threats of legal action arrive in their inbox, but it does continue to happen.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.
I understand why some composers would want to do it but in my opinion you should just use your real composer name, pick your price point for your music and stick with it.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.Mark Lewis
http://www.musicloops.com
http://www.partnersinrhyme.com“if you don’t like royalty -free, you are clinging to the old model”
Yes, that was very paraphrased and you threw in a bit of a major Obama gaff there just for good measure. Well done.
I think I said “leave us alone to disrupt your industry”. The two people in the discussion seemed to be so angry and abusive that I was thinking there must be some underlying reason for their vehemence against a business model and a class of composer they have nothing to do with. Why were/are they so angry? I still don’t get it.
It’s that there’s no need for anyone to put down or judge anyone else because of their opinions about differing business models.
Exactly. Maybe you could quote and paraphrase where RF composers are calling names and putting down the musical integrity and business decisions of mr composer.
You will be hard pressed to find any.
On the other hand mr composer seems to have two talents, one to be incredibly successful in his musical career and the other for making anonymous composers who aren’t as successful as him feel like a piece of crap.Producers aren’t the ones paying fees to PROs, networks are.
Yes, I’m pretty sure that is common knowledge here.
So when [removed by moderator] says they don’t require cue sheets, it seems unnecessary for them to say it.
Not sure who you are referring to but on our PRO-free site when we say you do not have to submit cue sheets it of course means to the broadcaster, not to us. We don’t need a producer’s cue sheet.
But their client base is most likely either not aware of how cue sheets work
In our case since many of our best customers are the broadcasters themselves I would assume they know exactly how cue sheets work and are taking advantage of our offer.
I’m not sure why some composers seem to get so worked up over their misunderstandings of non-PRO music distribution systems. There are lots of really successful libraries out there doing it (quite a few of them are our distribution partners).
Hi mikevan. You’ve been a PIR composer for about 10 years?
I am seeing that you have been selling the same 45 songs more or less for that whole time. The songs are all great but they are in a style that is losing popularity and the genre is also being flooded with music from lots of other composers.
I would suggest writing new material, keep the low prices on the old stuff and new material gets higher prices.
Go to ML, sortby popular to get a good idea of what is selling these days.
Gotta keep pumping them out and keep it fresh.I agree with More_advice’s comments on Pond5
I recently joined Pond5 myself to distribute my personal music and sound effects collections. Am taking note regarding upping the prices 🙂
if, and when, the PROs switch to digital detection.
Still, digital detection would only apply to broadcast no? ‘digital detection’, unless it is miraculously efficient in an omnipresent God-like way, would not detect on hold messages, in house corporate videos, powerpoint presentations, convention presentations etc, etc .
and even there they are a very long way off from making just the broadcast function work to the PROs content. PROs have basically said “it will never happen”.But if it does happen, no problem, our company would work everything out as we always have, with the composer, who has a legally binding agreement with us, explaining the situation to the PRO that might have any questions or doubts.
Digital detection is a nebulous hypothetical situation at best. It is definitely not something looming on the horizon that you should be logically basing your music distribution decisions on today.
Good point.
My opinion
Tunesat is fine if you’re finding broadcast uses where the producer did not submit a cue sheet but the broadcaster is willing and able to pay backend royalties. No problem there at all.
However if the broadcaster is the one purchasing the royalty free music (our biggest clients on ML and PIR are exactly that) and a random composer starts going after them for royalties when that composer has signed an agreement to not go after them, then problems can arise.
I think that situation is and will remain pretty rare though, hopefully.you SHOULD NOT go tracking the producer down and asking for a cue sheet.
A big Amen and plus 1 to that.
It makes one wonder how the PROS actually go about
paying the composers in those situations.In those situations they actually do have ASCAP and BMI ‘police’ (or as we used to call them in high school “narcs”) that go into places, bars, restaurants, convention halls, etc, to listen to and take down notes on what type of music each venue is playing.
Most composers do not get paid for these types of uses because, like radio, it is basically calculated on a sliding scale of popularity. Justin Beiber will earn your share of royalties before you will if your track is played in a restaurant… or funeral home.
BMI Corporate Use Licensing
http://www.bmi.com/licensing/entry/532984?q=Corporation+Using+MusicI’ve had many dealings with most PROs (US, Europe, Australasia) on resolving issues where they were requesting royalties on corporate videos, presentations, on hold, etc.
All resolved with the cooperation of our composers who understand what they legally agreed to when they signed on to our library.Just a side note-
When we do give PRO info to our clients we do not claim any publishing shares and of course no writer’s share of the royalty. That is because we are a non-PRO library and we do not deal with that, for us that is solely the business of our composers and they should earn their full backend royalties, both publishing and writer’s, when the opportunity arises and the client wants to submit full cue sheets.@Art
it’s just a joke really. There’s like $1.80 profit on a sale (talk about a bad deal for the content provider).
If you want one for yourself you can open an account at zazzle.com and paste the text into a t-shirt and order it, super easy.I was hoping the irony would come across. that I could make a t-shirt and have it on sale in about 30 seconds while people in this thread are complaining about composers using plugins and loops to create music.
Again, it is a new world out there.
10 to 20 years ago no one ever had a problem paying $250 for a needle drop track
Ah, there lies your issue. You are longing for the earnings from 10 to 20 years ago. Good luck Glen, it’s a new world out there.
Remember me when I finally submit….
yup, free pass.
Sorry to be such a capitalist but…
http://www.zazzle.com/mlr_statement_of_the_year_t_shirts-235710795176672731😉
Post of the year so far ?
+1