Forum Replies Created
July 10, 2013 at 8:04 am in reply to: Royalty free music sites and the rest of the world. #10893
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.July 9, 2013 at 6:03 pm in reply to: Royalty free music sites and the rest of the world. #10880
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].July 9, 2013 at 4:21 pm in reply to: Royalty free music sites and the rest of the world. #10876
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 royalties
In 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..
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?
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.
If you are in the music library business as a composer, then the top libraries, for instance: KPM, De Wolfe, Extreme and so on, will only accept your music exclusively. If you have excellent music and want to make more money from music libraries, in general you will need to go exclusive.
If you want to contact sups directly or any such thing, then sure, go non-exclusive with those tracks.
From my experience, I’ve never met anyone who is in non-exclusive libraries only who makes over 100k a year. On the other hand, I know of, and also personally know, various people making much more than that purely from exclusive libraries.
I have no problem with exclusivity provided the library a) pays me something up front to show they’re serious and/or b) has a good track record (you can find this out by contacting other composers on their roster etc).
Do you know how much of that is from overseas royalties?
Well done by the way!
There’s usually a way if you wanted. You could password restrict that area, and you could have people send in their top 3 libraries through a form. Anyway, it was just an idea.
A really simple thing which might be fun is to have a poll just asking, “which do you make more from: exclusive or non exclusive libraries?”
Yea, for me the stories are useful, and so are the numbers. This whole idea for me was about incorporating peoples’ numbers more.
Don’t mind much either way. Up to Art.
I’m also keen to avoid what I posted above: “this library’s so great etc etc” but in fact no one’s made anything.
Lastly, it seems a couple have interpreted this idea as putting ratings on all the library entries and changing the site in a big way. I’m suggesting a small sub section like the polls where those who want to can comment on earnings for libraries. This would take nothing away from you but there are I’m sure others who would find it useful. As you said yourself, YMMV
Sure, there’s no need to get rid of all the discussion at all. That’s not what I’m suggesting. This would be a small addition in some place, like the polls.
The flipside of this coin is that you also get libraries where everyone says how nice they are and how well it’s going, but then you find out that actually no one has made anything from that library. That’s an interesting example too.
I think there could be some way of incorporating a small section somewhere to do with earnings.
As a generalized example: if a composer has the same 200 varied tracks, tags and descriptions in libraries A, B and C, wouldn’t it be interesting to see how they do in each one?