Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Jay:
What kind of Sound FX are you selling? What sort of price points?
I have a bathroom sound that sold for errr a couple of bucks. My only ever FX sale!
There are two types of royalties:
Mechanical and Performing.
Royalty free means no mechanical royalties to be paid. Mechanicals are needle drop, meaning each time you want to synchronise the track to a production you have to pay a license. Royalty free means you only have to pay once and you can synch it to as many productions as you like afterwards. This would be paid by the production company.
This is completely separate to performing royalties which are paid by networks.
More Advice:
Now I hear how you describe it, if I was you I probably would have lost my mind over that. To hear it so much would be beyond my coping abilities..
I also asked Mark the same sort of question and am waiting to hear, since in the UK at least none of the major broadcasters would be interested in non PRO music above PRO music as they pay the same amount to the PRO whatever they air. It’s all pre agreed regardless of cue sheets.
To put it simply, if the BBC played 99% music with no PRO representation and therefore filed no cue sheets for that 99%, they’d still be paying the same overall amount to the PRS anyway.
More Advice:
Yes, they should pay promos properly and without needing you to get involved. But they don’t. Life is cruel and unfair. I’ve felt exactly like you so I know how demoralising it is.
You have to accept that this is how it is, and if you want your money you are going to have to chase some of them down. If it’s worth it because there are a lot of plays, go for it. Otherwise give up and move on.
More Advice:
The synch fee has nothing to do with the broadcast royalties.
The library determines the synch fee with the customer. The PRO determines the royalties with the network.
I can’t comment on your individual case in much detail since I don’t know the channel or PRO.. but maybe they just didn’t file a cue sheet? Could be as simple as that..
I understand your frustration.
Yes, I’m pretty sure that is common knowledge here.
I’m not sure what the purpose of this statement is. I was addressing the comment above me by More Advice. He clearly did not have this knowledge.
I’m not sure why some composers seem to get so worked up over their misunderstandings of non-PRO music distribution systems
I find this statement disappointing. All I see above is a few composers discussing PROs and royalties, without much more than the desire to help each other out. Certainly More Advice seemed to be feeling concerned, but I don’t think we got worked up in this thread.
In all seriousness, I have no problem whatsoever with your library’s business model. I have no agenda at all – in fact I have tracks in both sides of the library world. It’s just another case of the market deciding… and that’s totally fine with me.
The area I am lacking knowledge in, is in which countries the broadcasters benefit from using music which is not PRO represented. Here in the UK, it makes no difference – the broadcaster pays the same amount to the PRS whether they have music with no cue sheets, or music with cue sheets. It would – genuinely – be interesting to hear more about this as it may help me and other composers to sell our music more effectively in those markets/countries..
P.S Art – I apologize for putting the library name in, I keep forgetting about that outside the library sections. I’ll make sure not to repeat that.
Exactly: RF is no needle drop or in other words, no mechanical royalties to be paid.
Also, from what I understand, cue sheets are not always absolutely necessary for a composer to get paid: if the producer can just name the composer and track the network can report that and the PRO can use the global CAE database to determine the composer’s CAE and home PRO to send monies too. This is especially effective if you have a unique name as they can be sure it’s you.
We’ve gone over the cue sheet thing before in terms of the libraries: most libraries don’t require cue sheets to be filed with them since it’s the networks they need to be filed with. So when [removed by moderator] says they don’t require cue sheets, it seems unnecessary for them to say it. But their client base is most likely either not aware of how cue sheets work, or using the music in non broadcast e.g. youtube. So for those clients it sounds like a nice thing which makes them feel more secure buying from [removed].
RF doesn’t mean broadcast royalty free. The networks have to make those payments to PROs whether they use a track they made themselves in their backyard, a track from an RF site, or a track from a major library. That structure is not likely to go away in the developed markets anytime soon.
All that happens is that if a network airs a track for which there is no PRO representation, then the other tracks which are PRO represented get a proportionately higher percentage of the blanket fee paid to the PRO each year by the network. That fee is set outside our library world, it doesn’t depend on whether they use RF or anything else, it is what it is, and it is divided up among all tracks with cue sheets or for which PRO rep and so on can be determined.
In short: Producers aren’t the ones paying fees to PROs, networks are.
I know the above because:
1. I’ve spent literally hundreds of hours speaking to PRO staff
2. I have tracks in RF sites generating broadcast royaltiesIn answer to bigg rome: no, I certainly am not going to sit back and let the libraries do that with my music. This is why Art’s site is so great. For example: I will not send any of my music to JP now I’ve read others’ experiences with them. A few hundred more composers making these decisions… who knows what could happen.
Some of my foreign placements haven’t shown after a year, and they were supposed to arrive after 6 months. It’s really uncertain as to when you’ll get them – if at all..
I think we’re looking at different genres. I meant that there’s a lot of KPM music which uses sample packs and midi, though it may well be not in their orchestral series – I haven’t looked much at that.
Outside of KPM I know of people doing trailer pieces for blockbusters using Native Instruments instead of real orchestra recording – some of those tracks get licensed for $10k-20k a pop.
In the end it’s how you use what you’ve got – though obviously up to a certain point.
RF never meant royalty free, and should never have been coined that in the first place. It just means pre agreed license fee, bought once, used forever with no further mechanicals… yea, difficult to shorten I guess!
I’m kind of confused about why you think live instruments are essential – I know plenty of guys making a lot from KPM, ANW etc, who are using electronic / midi / sample packs to create their music. It depends on the style and genre you’re going for..
Heya,
I’m not trying to be difficult, seriously, I just think it’s worth pointing out.
I have tracks on KPM as well as RF sites, and I have no problem with either side of the music licensing business.
ANW’s music is undoubtedly better than most RF sites’ music, however ANW’s business model is effectively RF – license once, use forever.. Apparently that’s partly why they’ve carved out such a large part of the UK market from KPM, De Wolfe etc.
But isn’t ANW effectively RF anyway Mr.composer?
Hi music_pro,
In general I would say no, you can’t do that, but you should ask the exclusive distributor what their rules are having explained to them your exact situation.