Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You might want to contact Robert Alexander. He’s a composer in that arena and is a truly good guy who is very open to exploring how he can connect with others (“Discovery Chat with Robert Alexander — 30 minutes — A discovery chat to learn more about each others business and/or personal endeavors. Let’s see where there may be some potential synergy! Looking forward to connecting with you!”)
He has a lot of his music placed/released in various spots.
Tell him Gael MacGregor referred you. His music really helped me as I was recovering from a fractured tibia.
Yes. Some beats and sounds packages allow you to use them for your personal purposes (music you make for wedding videos, etc.), but don’t allow them to be used commercially.
Others, like Soundation, allow you to use them in your recordings, with no limitations on your ability to sell the tracks in any form (download, CD, vinyl, etc.); HOWEVER, you’re not allowed to resell the beats or sounds themselves as separate entities. Basically, it’s a simple “OK to use these sounds, but don’t try to sell the sounds outside of your recording.”
Problem is, a lot of folks don’t pay attention to the licensing agreements, but just click on the “I Agree” button (there’s a South Park episode about this. 😉
That’s pne of the reasons why supervisors want to carefully vet their music sources.
A few things, because I don’t think you really ‘got’ my points and overall concerns regarding the levels of licensing:
* We receive submissions from around the world, not just the U.S. It’s a fully global market these days. And as an FYI, some countries have very strict laws regarding re-titling — as one library that went out of business as a result found out. As such, when your music is in others’ hands, you need to know they’re not pursuing avenues that could potentially affect ownership of your works.
* I never said, or implied, that composers shouldn’t reach out on their own to license their work. If they are business savvy and I don’t have to babysit during the licensing process, I prefer dealing directly with the creator because they then receive the full upfront license fees.
* I am not saying you shouldn’t pursue multiple revenue streams; I encourage it. I don’t necessarily think you do yourself any favors by using the same track with six different libraries with six different titles, however. If you take the same composition and create different master recordings — say using the French horn in the melody of one recording, the cello section in another recording, etc., — you’d have unique masters to provide to different libraries and there would not only be less confusion for the supervisors, but would also expand your offerings without an exorbitant amount of extra effort.
* I license my own music for film & TV, so yes, I am pro-artist. In fact, a cadre of composers sent me to D.C. to attend the World Copyright Summit for the specific task of advocating for their rights. My philosophy is that if I wouldn’t sign the agreement, I certainly wouldn’t encourage anyone else to do so. I’m not giving my publishing away for nothing, and don’t encourage others to do so either. If the library is paying me to create the composition and pay for its recording, then we’ll talk. But that still does not mean that as a creator I don’t have options to spread my work around.
* There is no one-size-fits-all in licensing. But keep in mind that the reason more supervisors are eschewing re-titled non-exclusive works is purely from a CYA standpoint. Anything that even remotely smacks of possible future litigation or discrepancies is going into the “no thank you” pile. And a lot of work coming to us these days is problematic because of the licensing of the sounds & beats used, which is a totally different issue from the simple (in comparison) non-exclusive library merry-go-round.
Most of us are advocates for artists and composers because we live in both worlds as composers and/or artists ourselves (past and/or present). But we also have commitments to those who hire us to make sure no one can enjoin the picture because of a music licensing tug-of-war.
All the best to you.
The multiple titling of non-exclusive tracks has always been a pain in the ass for music supervisors. In the past — when folks sent us CDs — it was simpler. We date stamped all correspondence & he who got the composition first to us got the gig.
But we still got multiple submissions from multiple sources using the SAME recording with multiple titles. Sometimes we caught them; sometimes we didn’t. And that caused more than one headache during the licensing process.
It’s even worse now, partly because technology has evolved so much that pretty much anyone can out there can slap together some beats & sounds and call it a cue. There are underlying concerns from a licensing standpoint because depending on where the composer picked them up, they may not actually have the right to license the recordings in which the beats/sounds were used.
That is part of why supervisors are becoming fussier about their sources. We don’t want ownership issues cropping up and creating a situation that will sully our reputations. It’s why many refuse to license so-called “royalty free” tracks. Too many potential down-the-line legal problems.
Licensing has become more complex, and filmmakers want assurances that the music we give them is free from outside encumbrances. That creates another level of research for the supervisor. If we aren’t comfortable with the source we’ll get what we need from a source we’ve used, and has proven to be trustworthy with respect to clean ownership/administration of both the composition and its recording.
Bravo, David!
We learned from the generosity of others. And there is a place for in-depth learning via a student/teacher or mentor/student which, at a certain point does deserve compensation. We can’t possibly go in depth with everyone who asks, but we can be gracious and help — and even give recommendations for where to go for more info.
But the generosity of other music supervisors when I was situationally and unexpectedly thrust into the arena saved my behind on the first project for which I was responsible. After it was successfully completed I took the sup who had been the most generous with her time out to lunch. We’ve remained connected over the years and continue to suggest artists to one another. You just never know how relationships will evolve, but being kind, helpful, and generous with your knowledge will often lead to unexpected friendships.
This is “the rising tide lifts all boats” philosophy and has served me well. There may be many who do what you do — but HOW you do it is uniquely YOU. Never underestimate what your impact can be.
But so many so-called “experts” litter the landscape. One with a large following sent out a post on the MLC that was so filled with inaccuracies that a lot of folks contacted the top dogs at the MLC to tell them to contact the guy to educate him & stop putting out disinformation. ?
Ya gotta sift through the sand to get to the gold. Always be skeptical of people who promise you the moon by taking their overpriced course. Vet THEIR credits and claims. And remember that in this music business race, it is a marathon, not a sprint.
Gael MacGregor
Sorry … I didn’t log in when I made the above post, so members may not recognize that Gael MacGregor is me. ?
I think we’ve all had similar experiences.
I’m pretty open to passing along a lot of what I’ve learned, as others have been generous to me over the years. I figure we’re all in this together & that lifting each other up doesn’t mean we ourselves will sink — sort of “the rising tide lifts all boats” kinda thing.
That said, and since cookie-cutter solutions aren’t the answer for everyone, and in-depth career plans can be time-consiming, you can always hire yourself out as a consultant to those seeking guidance. It’s not selfish or greedy to be compensated for your work. Most don’t understand that it’s not a one-size-makes-anybody-famous world any more — or that fame doesn’t necessarily mean monetary success.
Maybe putting out a short how-to guide with tips & pitfalls from your experience might be in order. Digitize it & if a person asks for advice, give them the bare basics, then tell ‘em you have a .pdf they can buy. Depending on length & how detailed you make it, you could charge between $2.99-$9.99 or more. But it can be tricky. What we used 10-15 years ago may no longer apply in today’s marketplace. So any advice needs to be presented with caveats that in the rapidly changing landscape new roads are opening or closing every day. We (sort of) laughingly say that if you can find it in a book it’s probably out-of-date. ? So by having full control over content & not having to deal with a publisher or vendor (like Amazon) you can make updates quickly and keep current with the info you put into it.
Anyone using any sample should have to pay. I mean, Eddie Money, for the use of Ronnie Spector’s voice/track, “Be My, Baby” in his “Take Me Home Tonight” from the 1980s certainly did. In today’s mash-ups, though, I defy even the most hardened musicologist to ascertain 100% what tracks/songs are being used.
Now, from what I’ve read, Moby advocates that artists make SOME of their music available for free downloads and use (as he has) — in response to the crazy RIAA that has gone after college students with a vengeance… while many bulk copyright infringers go off scot-free. I mean, suing a college kid downloading tracks for his listening pleasure and fining him $250K is ludicrous. Sure, there should be some sort of penalty for an illegal download, even if it is for personal use, but the RIAA has their priorities skewed and keeps going after the little fish, letting the big ones float around with impunity.
If Moby did, indeed, use samples without permission, though, he should have to pay.
What troubles me about the Madonna case the article references is that a judge ruled that “no reasonable audience would find the sampled portions qualitatively or quantitatively significant in relation to the infringing work.” Bad form, and glad the decision is being appealed.
In my book, it doesn’t matter how much of a work is used… if it’s not YOURS, you need to pay, or get permission, or at the very least — if you’re unable to find or contact the rights holder(s) — acknowledge the original source material with some sort of “lemme know if you’re out there” on your liner notes. 😉 (And, then, hold some money to the side in an escrow account to show good faith in the event the rights holder eventually surfaces — this can often circumvent any litigation because you’ve shown “due diligence” in attempting to find the rights holder[s], and no reasonable “intent to defraud” can be levied.)
“I have been told more than once by ASCAP officials, including a board member, that they simply don’t trust the honesty of their members.”
I don’t know what distresses me more… that ASCAP is so corrupt they can’t believe the majority of their members are not *or* that they think composers are so stupid they don’t know how cue sheets are created and filed, and by whom.
So for all you “board members” who don’t trust your members, here’s how it goes most of the time (and you know this, but it bears repeating):
Cue sheets are prepared by music supervisors or coordinators, using information the music editor supplies, along with info from writers/publishers for any licensed works being used. Yes, some of the score cue info is supplied to the editor by the composer, but the music supervisor then verifies the accuracy by timing all the cues and noting how they are used (BV, BI, FV, Theme, etc.). Yes, a lot of us actually still sit with a stopwatch and make sure that a 1:30 cue isn’t noted as :30. We also take great care in placing the right designation for a cue. Once cue sheets are completed, they go to the production company, which then files the cue sheet with every PRO that has a writer or publisher noted on the cue sheet.
Most supervisors are pretty meticulous, because we know that peoples’ incomes and lives are affected by the accuracy of the information supplied to the PROs. If changes are made (such as bumping a background vocal to a featured vocal) that is done by the PRO, not us, and certainly not the composer. So exactly who deserves the lack of trust? Hmmm?
Piffle.
ASCAP is worried about the truthfulness of their members because their practices have been so unfair, and they have virtually no transparency (which leads to corruption), that they assume everyone else is a liar and a cheat.
A sad state of affairs.
Gael MacGregor
To those who say “let it slide” I have to respectfully disagree.
A friend who was an account rep at a major library said he was watching a sporting event and heard some of the music from their library, but KNEW that the network had no agreement with them because he’d been the one to pitch their catalogue to them. They’d complained that the library was “too expensive”.
Well, they found out just how expensive it could be.
Seems that an editor picked up one of the library’s CD collections and assumed it was part of the “stable” of CDs he was allowed to use. Uh… NO. And the network had used a lot of the music from this particular collection in their various programming.
So the library contacted the network and agreed not to sue — but there were some provisions: The network (1) filed cue sheets for every show/broadcast in which this library’s music was used, (2) agreed to a 2-year blanket license as a sort of “mea culpa”, with the understanding that cue sheets for every program in which the library’s music was used would be filed [the library paid their composers pro rata license fees based on actual usage, even when under blanket agreements] and (3) gave up their suite for 12 events (8 basketball and 4 hockey). The library invited the composers whose music had been used and other folks/interested parties to join them for some fun.
So whether it’s a-dollar-three-eighty or a hundred, or a thousand — you need to monitor your music, where it is, who is claiming to represent it and how it is used. It is YOUR creation, and you should be treating it with at least the same respect you give to your cell phone. 😉
Cheers!
Gael MacGregor
Jay,
Email me directly and I can send you an annotated template for such a contract that you can modify for your particular situation.
Cheers!
Gael MacGregor
Awhile ago, I distilled the info I found at the site and discovered:
Of the “Top 100” songs noted on this list and used in film trailers, 51 of them were for 380 placements in film trailers — from library sources whose catalogues consist of primarily high-end, trailer style music (for film & video game trailers, and other ads).
Immediate Music (http://immediatemusic.com):
14 tracks for 173 placements; high-end trailer music; 1200 tracksRipTide Music (http://www.riptidemusic.com):
11 tracks for 59 placements; 200 composers & artists (incl. old & gold); 15K+?Cinetrax (http://www.cinetrax.com):
10 tracks for 51 placements; small boutique library geared toward trailers/adsPfeifer Broz. Music (no website):
6 tracks for 26 placements; direct, high-end trailer musicBrand X (http://www.brandxmusic.net):
4 tracks for 19 placements; small boutique library geared toward trailers/adsUndetermined Sources:
6 classical pieces for 52 placementsOf the “Top 10” most used pieces of music (for 222 placements), Immediate Music had four pieces with a total of 98 placements — including spot #s 1, 3, 4 & 7 — almost 45% of the market!
Of the “classical” pieces used (not all PD, by the way), the following were used the most:
Carmina Burana: “O Fortuna” – Carl Orff (used 17 times, and in the “Top 10”)
“9th Symphony” (Ode to Joy) – Ludwig van Beethoven (used 13 times)
“Hall of the Mountain King” – Edvard Grieg (used 7 times)
“Carmen” – Georges Bizet (used 5 times)
The Planets: “Mars” – Gustav Holst (used 5 times)
“Requiem” – W.A. Mozart (used 5 times)
45 placements on the “Top 10” list were for two pieces — one by David Arnold, the other by James Horner.
So it might be to your advantage (assuming you write the sort of music these folks are providing to the film, TV, video game & advertising worlds) to approach one of these libraries to see if you can get your foot in the door.
Cheers!
Gael MacGregor
Hey, all,
I posted some of this in another thread, but it pertains to this one as well, so pardon any duplication…
ASCAP used to automatically bump a song with vocals into a FEATURE designation. Songs coming out of juke boxes, etc. (background vocals) were given “featured” status when they were just background elements, yet instrumental pieces used in identical situations were ALWAYS noted as a background instrumentals. Very unfair. This has been the normal practice at ASCAP, songwriters have systematically been overpaid, and score composers have been bitching about it for years (score being paid at 20% of the vocal song rate).
So now, if a song/vocal is designated as a “background vocal”, it will receive background vocal status, instead of being arbitrarily and automatically bumped into a featured vocal status.
Unfortunately, this is not going to make any difference to the score composer, whose work is automatically given “background instrumental” status, EVEN if the instrumental score is over an important montage or other important, featured use (a song will still be allowed the “featured vocal” status for such a use). The only “bump” a composer has ever gotten is if the piece is considered a “theme” or is opening or end title music.
So songs will now be treated as a background element unless they are actually being used in featured positions — the way it always should have been.
Now, if ASCAP were to say that they planned to pay ALL music based on HOW it is used instead of what KIND of music is used, then I might be pulling out the pom poms, because then we’d have real parity.
The other PROs have treated background vocals as background uses — songs with vocals have not been automatically bumped to featured vocal status as ASCAP has been doing for years. Only when a song actually is a featured vocal and noted so on the cue sheet does it receive that designation, allowing it to be paid at a higher rate.
So… what is ASCAP going to do with all that extra money they will have lying around that is no longer being unfairly paid out to songwriters? (overpayments which, by the way, have always been at the score composers’ expense)
Songwriters have been running things at ASCAP for decades, which is why the payments have always been skewed in their favor, when they should NOT have been. So now, perhaps, there will be a push for TRUE fairness for ALL composers and songwriters (and maybe composers will finally stop putting in superfluous “want you, baby, ooh” vocals into primarily instrumental tracks, just to try and get featured status and more back-end).
And until such time as ASCAP comes into the 21st century, dumps their system of “surveys” instead of honoring cue sheets and other proof of airings, and realizes we can track such uses digitally, ASCAP writers (especially songwriters) who have minimal music out there to be picked up in their arbitrary surveys will remain at odds with the PRO. At least with BMI and SESAC, if you show proof of airing, or ad buys or whatever, they will make adjustments to your royalties in your next quarter’s payment. ASCAP digs their heels in and has a lassez-faire attitude of “you didn’t come up in OUR survey, so too bad, you don’t get paid, regardless of any proof you might have of your music’s use”.
Cheers!
Gael MacGregorP.S. I’m a songwriter who believes in parity for all composers and songwriters. I find it somewhat amusing, yet sad, that the powers-that-be are doing such a great job of having us bicker amongst ourselves instead of banding together to fight the real enemy — the corporate & PRO folks who have systematically cheapened the perceived value of our work, and have profited and pocketed so much of what should have been going to the CREATORS of those works.
Hey, folks,
ASCAP is not going to be paying less for songs across the board. What they plan to do is to not automatically bump a song with vocals into a FEATURE designation. Songs coming out of juke boxes (background vocals) were given “featured” status when they were just background elements, yet instrumental pieces used in identical situations were ALWAYS noted as a background instrumentals. Very unfair. This has been the normal practice at ASCAP, and score composers have been bitching about it for years (score being paid at 20% of the vocal songs rate).
So now, if a song/vocal is designated as a “background vocal” on a cue sheet, it will receive background vocal status, instead of being arbitrarily and automatically bumped into a featured vocal status. Which is how it should be, and always should have been.
Unfortunately, this is not going to make any difference to the score composer, whose work is automatically given “background instrumental” status, EVEN if the instrumental score is over an important montage (a song will still be allowed the “featured vocal” status for such a use). The only “bump” a composer ever gets is if the piece is considered a “theme” or is opening or end title music.
So songwriters, don’t go moaning about how unfair the change is. You’re just going to have your songs treated as a background element UNLESS they are actually being used in featured positions — the way it always should have been.
Now, if ASCAP were to say that they planned to pay based on HOW all music is used instead of what KIND of music is used, then I might be pulling out the pom poms, because then we’d have real parity.
The other PROs treat background vocals as a background use — they are NOT automatically bumped to a featured vocal status as ASCAP has been doing for years. Only when a song actually is a featured vocal and noted so on the cue sheet does it receive that designation, allowing it to be paid at a higher rate.
The big question should be: What is ASCAP going to do with all that extra money they will have lying around that is no longer being unfairly paid out to songwriters? (which, by the way, has always been at the score composers’ expense)
Songwriters have been running things at ASCAP for decades, which is why the payments have always been skewed in their favor, when they should NOT have been. So now, perhaps, there will be a push for TRUE fairness for ALL composers and songwriters (and maybe composers will stop putting in superfluous “want you, baby, ooh” vocals into primarily instrumental tracks, just to try and get more back-end).
Cheers!
Gael MacGregor
P.S. I’m a songwriter who believes in parity for all composers and songwriters. I find it almost amusing that the powers-that-be are doing such a great job of having us bicker amongst ourselves instead of banding together to fight the real enemy — the corporate & PRO folks who have systematically cheapened the perceived value of our work, and have profited and pocketed so much of what should have been going to the CREATORS of the works.