Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thanks for the info Mark.
I can definitely see how for big exclusives e.g. KPM it’s easy to handle, but yes, those smaller exclusives who aim more at the hobbyist… for them content ID seems right now like something they can’t use.
It would work for them if they had a way of say, having the customer put their youtube channel in at the time of purchase which the library could then auto-whitelist on Adrev. But that doesn’t seem to exist..
I see what you mean but there is still a big gap in my understanding.
On a practical level (please correct this I assume it must be wrong):
Customer buys license from exclusive library for use of a track. Customer puts track on youtube video and uploads to youtube. Customer gets claim against them. Customer gets angry, contacts exclusive library. Exclusive library has to manually send Adrev an email saying please whitelist this youtube channel’s URL. Is that really how it works?
If so, that is completely unfeasible for a library selling lots of licenses.
There’s something I’m still not understanding:
How can an exclusive library be using content ID –IF– a large number of their sales are for tracks which are used on customers’ youtube videos?
That would mean that every single customer who buys a track from said library and puts it on a youtube video will get a claim against them and then have to either take the video down or accept advertising on their video. In the case of product advert videos, in fact basically any client video, ads are totally unacceptable if the customer has purchased a license to use the track on their youtube video.
So how does the exclusive library handle this?
Hey Mark,
Actually yea, now I think about it, some of them probably are..But the ones that sell a lot to people who use the music for videos on youtube – how could they possibly handle the constant massive stream of content ID claims their clients have to deal with? I feel like I must be missing something here!
I was beginning to think I could use content ID to get youtube monies for my tracks sold through libraries. But it looks like a terrible idea to me whether it’s non-ex or ex. I wouldn’t do it either way the way things are now.
Based on what I now understand, I would only use content ID for tracks released as commercial recordings, i.e. neither production music nor music for licensing.
But I don’t have much of that!
Also, I’m pretty certain my exclusive libraries aren’t using content ID either.
Very interesting discussion all this… and definitely feels like one part of the future of music ‘royalties’.
Again, agreed on the non-ex problems. Man that must be a hell of a headache.
But on the exclusive ones, I can imagine an exclusive library easily selling 500 licenses a day, most of which end up on youtube videos, but I have no idea how they could be managing that many claims and issues if they were using content ID. I think they simply can’t do so yet, until there’s an automated way to allow a client exemption from content ID.
(Imagine if 10% of clients – a low estimate – contact the exclusive asking why they’ve been flagged… that’s 50 emails a day in my example and 50 problems you have to send Adrev an email about everyday!)
Totally see your point, and exactly what I would want to avoid.
I think the way it currently is, if you have tracks in a library then those tracks can’t be in content ID… because you can’t grant individual exemptions to clients who use your tracks on youtube quickly and efficiently enough.
How do exclusive libraries who use content ID manage this?! Do they have some automatic way of providing their clients with an exemption?
Wow, this is a heck of a mess.
Is there any way to grant those who buy a license to use your music an exemption from getting flagged by services like Adrev?
E.g. I sell a license to someone, they make a youtube video and use my track. I have the same track in Adrev to catch unauthorised uses, so I don’t want my client to get flagged. Is there any way of doing this? If so, does it have to be done manually?
Any update on this daveydad? Would be great to hear what you made if anything in the end.
How would an invididual composer go about getting paid for Youtube videos using their music?
Can you do it directly with Youtube? Or do you have to go through someone like Rumblefish.
Let’s say the composer has 100 tracks.
I emailed some samples for them to stream on the net and then was asked in one case to write a full album’s worth, and in all other cases to provide a few tracks to go on albums already in production.
The original definition of pro (as in professional) is someone who earns their living doing the activity in question. I just stick to that definition. And by earns their living I mean earns the bulk of their annual income from that profession. There needn’t be any connotation attached.
Just want to thank B T Smith for his post. There is a lot I didn’t know there but it makes sense to me now I hear it.
I was considering ANW but if it’s going to rule me out of further work with the MCPS libs I’ll pass – especially given that the fortune making time is over at ANW. Really interesting post, thank you.
I think you’re going to see quality increasing in the RF model, as more professional composers consider it a viable revenue stream. Those composers, may not just send their “B” or “C” work to RF libraries, as well, on the theory that quality will be a competitive edge.
Yea, totally agree. In fact, ANW is a case in point. Also, some of my best tracks are now going into RF libraries, despite me having others in MCPS libraries.
MCPS means mechanical copyright protection society. Needle drop, royalties on synch fees.
It’s the UK agency for collecting those license fees, but it was merged with PRS a while ago.Audio Network has driven a wedge in the UK market because they decided to go down the royalty free model (as much as they would like not to call it that) and avoid the MCPS altogether.
This means clients here in the UK can buy a track from ANW, and use it as many times as they want in as many episodes as they want of their productions without paying any mechanicals. With an MCPS library they have to pay a new synch fee each time they synch it to a new episode etc.
ANW has very high quality music and generates huge PRS income, but has damaged big time some MCPS libraries.
In summary, it’s just the RF model hitting the UK but at a very high quality level in terms of music and production.