Thought I would revive this conversation. One of our readers e-mailed me and mentioned that YouTube no longer pulls videos for copyright infringement if music a client purchased elsewhere, is used on a YouTube video but YouTube has the rights to the same music via a 3rd party deal. In this case our reader has a deal with Rumblefish and states that the video producer will simply get a letter stating that Rumblefish has the rights to the music and that would be the end of it.
Anyone else know about this? Has YouTube changed their position? I was under the impression that YouTube was pulling videos for copyright infringement if the music conflicted with their third party deals.
Here’s a link to the previous thread and it’s worth reading the comments. GoDigital Thread
[Update 01-18-2012]
This was recently posted by Lee from Audiosparx and seems to answer the exclusivity question. Until Rumblefish or YouTube specifically answers some of these questions we will all be a bit in the dark.
Lee said:
YouTube’s stated requirement is that only holders of exclusive content can submit such content to their Content ID program.
By requiring exclusive content, this avoids the scenarios where Rumblefish earns money from music licenses sold by other libraries, and gives an affected client a clear path of who to communicate with if they receive an email notification that their video may have content that is owned or licensed by XYZ (e.g. the company they licensed the music track from).
In other words, YouTube is saying that the Library XYZ must be the ONLY licensing source for a track if they are submitting that track to YouTube’s Content ID program, not that the track is available for license at multiple libraries and Library XYZ happens to be the only library submitting the track to YouTube’s Content ID program.
——————–
[Update 08-12-2013]
FYI – The following companies are known to be involved with the YouTube Content ID Program:
AudioMicro
AudioSocket
AudioSparx “Internet royalties” program
CDBaby “Sync licensing” program
Crucial Music
Fine Tune Music
GoDigital & Social Media Holdings
IODA: Independent Online Distribution Alliance
Kontor New Media
Magnatune
Music Beyond
Music for Productions
The Orchard
The Music Bed
Rumblefish
SourceAudio
I hate to say it, but it looks like non-exclusive libraries and the Youtube Content ID program are the future of library music. It is all about making money from ads these days.
That is what the music game is about now: selling stuff.
This is why Coca Cola has an interst in Music Dealers. The demand for music is at an all-time high, but the value of music is at an all-time low. It just makes more sense to make music that will be used in advertisements. That is where the money from music will come from.
It is time to embrace the future and stop fighting it. It is no use. The labels tried to fight against iTunes but eventually had to give in to the digital revolution. Music library composers are going to have to give in and add their music to non-exclusive libraries that participate in the Youtube Content ID program. You have to adapt.
I completely agree with you Synth Player.
All non-exclusive music libraries should indeed submit their music catalogs to the Youtube ContentID system (even though they are required to exclusively own their content as per the Youtube TOS).
Then when a customer legally licenses a piece of music to use on their youtube channel they will be immediately hit with 10 or 12 copyright infringements notices in their youtube account from a wide variety of companies.
Once all music libraries comply with your suggestion of inevitability then musiucloops.com and partnersinrhyme.com will be the only youtube-safe music library on the market.
Great suggestion, keep up the good work with your passionate campaign.
Nice sarcasm.
Anyway, more music libraries will start participating in the Youtube monetization program. Non-exclusive music will be used forTV placements and exclusive music will be used for the Youtube deals. If I started a library, I would have all non-exclusive music for TV and all exclusive for the Youtube deal. Why miss out by taking sides? Doing both would allow for a library to make more money!
The hybrid method sounds the best to me..
“Anyway, more music libraries will start participating in the Youtube monetization program. Non-exclusive music will be used forTV placements and exclusive music will be used for the Youtube deals”
I really dont see your logic at all here Synth. If I were to sign an exclusive deal it would be to a high end library, that I would have judged by their track record would have a history of high end placements. Thats the whole point of it, the client gets a track that is exclusive and pays accordingly. Why would anyone sign exclusively to sell for $1.99 and get pennies in royalties.
Its a system that benefits libraries much more, as they are making pennies off thousands of tracks, but the individual composer isn’t just by the nature of the scale.
Apart from anything else the internet and technology moves at an alarmingly fast pace. What was popular one day is gone the next. My-Space, AOL etc disappeared virtually overnight. Who knows where we will be getting our Video from in future and if You-tube will still be there.
I opt to keep control of my catalogue, and if I give up control, at least have a fighting chance to reap some reward from it. That being said I have no problem with the Youtube ContentID system as long as non exclusive libraries dont mess up their composers by including them in it without their permission.Thats just greedy, unfair and totally against what a proper non exclusive agreement is.
“If I were to sign an exclusive deal it would be to a high end library, that I would have judged by their track record would have a history of high end placements.”
There is only one problem with that statement: There are no high end libraries anymore!
I have been in the game long enough to sense that there really is no upfront money for most composers. Even if composers do get a sync/license fee, it will be a few hundred dollars at most. Most libraries do not pay composers to acquire their music. The only compensation that music libraries offer these days is back-end royalties, via the writer’s share.
There aren’t very many individual composers making a living from music licensing, let alone from upfront fees. I know it may be hard to hear, but the possibility of making a living off of music licensing is slim to none. It could happen if someone worked at it for at least a decade and made some great inside connections. But most composers will never put in work for a decade just to make as much as a college grad at an entry level job.
Some of the “exclusive high-end” libraries are struggling. They are beginning to offer their music to clients through blanket licenses, meaning no sync fees for songwriters. Some exclusive libraries have placed their catalogs through non-exclusive libraries (Sony/ATV through Getty/Pump Audio). Other exclusive libraries offer their catalogs to TV networks at no charge. This only leaves back-end royalties for composers, which do not pay a lot per single placement. If publishers are fighting to make things happen, it is even rougher for the average composer.
Youtube monetization isn’t going to make things that much better for composers. But it is definitely a new route to generate some passive income.
I think you’re right about that Synth. I haven’t been in this game as long as you, but I recently got some placements on “Keeping Up with the Kardashians”. NO up front money whatsoever, and I went straight to Bunim Murray to get that, no library middle man. They told me straight up they don’t pay up front money, you just get your royalties. So they paid me $1 per sync fee, which is the same up front money I get from Rumblefish-Friendly Music! Actually, I get more up front from Rumblefish, because Bunnim Murray didn’t even pay me my 1 dollars. And Bunim Murray didn’t care that my music was already on some rinky dink youtube videos. Same thing with Jingle Punks library, they get me T.V. placements, but nothing up front. And I make way more from youtube than I make from JP.
Sorry Synth I am even more confused now. Lets assume you are correct and the the old “exclusive ” model is dead.
You say that upfront money synch licenses are more than likely to be hundreds of dollars and that composers only real income is back end. This may well be the case this is not what the discussion is about.
Why then would anyone sign an “exclusive deal” with your hypothetical library to sell for 1.99 and get micro royalties rather than a “non exclusive” one for which the
at least the synch fee would be better by your own admission and the back end would be greater. Also of course the composer is not restricted to your library.
You are right in saying that making a living from music licensing is difficult.We all know that.I have been in the music business a long time and in this area for the past 2 years. I make a five figure income from licensing so far.I dont think that would be remotely achievable from your exclusive model library.
“There is only one problem with that statement: There are no high end libraries anymore!”
One thing that they hammered into us in law school was to avoid speaking in absolutes — because NOTHING IS.
I’ve been in this business as long as you have Denis. 🙁
And, I don’t even PRETEND to know as much about it as these younger writers with ALL the answers.
It’s very risky to draw conclusions and speak generalities in about others’ business practices. The speaker might be wrong, because their perception is based upon their personal experience, which may differ vastly from others’.
Maybe I’ll get it after another 30 years. 😆
Michael and Denis,
Sometimes all you can do is smile and nod. 🙂
Just a head’s up.
It appears that Magnatune has now entered their entire catalog into the youtube contentid system via IODA without the expressed permission of the composers.
As a result Magnatune have apparently been flooded requests from composers asking why they did this without their permission and to remove their music from the IODA and youtube contentID system databases.
IODA also ends up selling the composer’s music for $0.99 a track on iTunes and Amazon, the same music the composers are trying to sell for more than $50.00 on music library sites.
If you have tracks in the Magnatune database you might want to contact them to find out the status of your catalog.
-Mark
Partners In Rhyme
Thanks for that Mark. I’ll make a note in Megatune’s listing.
Thankfully I dont have anything in Magnatune, I just find this behavior really reprehensible. Surely
Magnatune must know the ramifications of doing this before they submitted their content, and to do so without consulting their composers, shows a complete lack of regard for them. Also as discussed to death earlier in this thread Youtube requires exclusivity, but yet again another non exclusive library seems to get away with it. Sad business practice IMHO
I guess we now have to proactively question a library about its practices.
Ha Ha, Hee Hee, Poo Poo, Pee Pee. Here’s what happened with the birds sounds. For some reason youtube’s system matched those bird sounds with an actual song from one of their artists. It was contested on a Friday, Sunday afternoon it was discovered to be a mismatch, within 3 hours of verifying that, Rumblefish got the claim released. And they apologized for it. Rumblefish does not have their sound effects catalog in content ID, but they do have 5.3 million song roaming the content ID system and with that much diversity of sound there will invariably be some mismatches. However, the amount of mismatches like that is extremely low when you consider how many songs are being processed. Much ado about nothing really.
Do you work for Rumblefish by any chance?
Otherwise, why/how would you know all of the details regarding the incident?
Ha, I was wondering when somebody would ask me that. Makes sense it was the lawyer 😉 Good question. Honestly Michael, NO, I don’t work for them at all, I just really love these guys. And believe it or not, even though they pay out millions dollars a year to their artists and I’m just one little “Rumblefish” in a huge sea of Friendly Music minnows. The staff there are remarkably accessible to me and answer all my questions, in fact Paul, the Ceo is a blast to talk to. I just love learning about this niche and when I see a comment on MLR, I just ask them about that along with whatever else I’m trying to figure out and it’s my pleasure to share what I learn with you guys. After all, I learn so much from your comments all over MLR.
But to be even more frank, the reason I am so supportive of them is a personal reason which is…
When I started trying to sell my music, I had other options to do other things. I didn’t know if people liked my music, if it was worth it, you know, the typical things you’d feel starting out in this biz. But RF was the first library to make something happen with my stuff, they put it in audioswap, and the first check I got I asked them, “Well, how many people have my songs on their videos?” And they showed me it was approaching a thousand, and I thought, wow, I have a reason to make music. Not only that, but I don’t have to wait to get a placement and make money, I can do my own projects in this marketplace.
So these guys inspired me to create and pursue this because they developed this avenue for artists. And that’s why I love these guys. Besides the fact that they also happen to be really cool people…up there in Portlandia 🙂
Hi Dhruva.
That’s recovering lawyer. 😆
Do you sleep?
Cheers,
Michael
PS. If I had that much support from a library early on, I’d be passionate about them too.
Yeah they gave my career life…and that’s the second question I was waiting for someone ask me 🙂 I guess you didn’t notice in our discussions there is a period I go radio silent. Usually from 7am to 3pm…that’s another great thing, getting to work at home 🙂
I do run up to the roof in my undies first thing when I wake up to get some sun…sorry Art if that’s TMI.
Passion about music is a good thing. Joking aside what software is used for this. Is there watermarking or is it a Tunesat sort of thing. There seems to be a few glitches to be ironed out if you go through the reddit comments. Confusing bird song with a music track is pretty wide of the mark
http://www.reddit.com/comments/q7ag1
And more.
https://www.google.com/support/forum/p/youtube/thread?tid=55df85c8372461a6&hl=en
Check this out. Rumblrfish claiming copyright on birds singing in background. Funny, but goes to show how flawed the system can be. Crazy.
Hey Denis,
Social Networking is THE future. Just because Rumblefish is smart enough to come up with system to monetize bird songs and the birds weren’t smart enough to do it themselves, don’t blame Rumblefish. I mean why should bird songs be left out there in nature where people can just hear them for free… forever, with no backend. Is that fair? Rumblefish is doing a great job creating opportunities for the birds that other libraries just don’t. I hear they’re even working on a program to monetize the birds’ tweets! So, stop bashing Rumblefish.
Cheers,
Michael
I thought the funniest one was the video of the guy just riding his motorbike and was told he was using a piece of Rumblefish music !! They didn’t however tell him which piece, which would have been fun.
No Joke..true US Supreme Court case. Harley Davidson tried to register the sound of its motorcycles as a trademark. They lost.
But I’m sure Rumblishfish would claim the content! 😆
I wonder if those birds got written permission to use those “chirp samples” from EastWest first? If not, they are opening up a whole new “can of worms” (pun intended). 🙂
(You started this Michael!)
I heard the birds offered them chicken feed, but East West said it wasn’t enough scratch.
sorry.
The important thing to remember is that Rumblefish claimed it was an ID for a piece of MUSIC they control. Please can we hear what it was, pleeeeeaaassse. That being said I am busy remixing my entire content and adding bird sound, animal noises and various types of cars, motorbikes and industrial machinery so I can be on top of this. Content ID is the way of the future an I don’t want fo miss Piggy out. sorry bad Muppet joke.
Hi! I know this is somewhat off topic but I was wondering which blog platform are you using for this website? I’m getting sick and tired of WordPress because I’ve had issues with hackers and I’m looking at options for another platform. I would be great if you could point me in the direction of a good platform.
I’m using WordPress for this site. Hackers have not been a problem (as far as I know). It helps to have a good host and using Cloudflare (free) will also help security.
Also it doesn’t matter what platform you use as there’s bound to be problems. Staying ahead of them is ongoing.
Just read the latest post from Mark from PIR. Mark is taking the right approach and it’s very fair, reasonable and rational for everyone involved. It’s probably the best thing to do until everything takes s definite shape with this issue. Good for you Mark , you’re doing the right thing right now that is still fair to both the artist and library owner .
+1
Dhruva said the no one has offered a solution. That’s not correct. I’ve looked at this issue as both a writer, and as an attorney in my OPINION, the best, perhaps only, way to participate in content ID without the potential for problems is to do it on an EXCLUSIVE basis.
The fact is that content ID is NOT analogous to what the PROS do because there are many levels of informed consent and end user participation missing from the equation.
Mark’s solution is highly equitable.
Art…when you finish packing, or take a breather, we need that edit function restored,
so the that I don’t write run-on sentences. 😆
Hi Michael, unfortunately that version of the plugin is broken and the new version isn’t working with the site and the new WordPress upgrade. I’m working on a new site design with a more “compliant theme”. Soon I hope!
I didn’t say no one offered solution, I just said I didn’t SEE anyone offer, its a nuance I think as an attorney you might appreciate (if I was on your side). I guess I missed that offering like a needle in a haystack of complaints. Or it just didn’t sound like a solution to me because…
Since you can’t force libraries to only be exclusive, then this idea of Content ID tracks only being exclusive won’t hold its ground very well. Especially if libraries start to adopt the model I presented which is labeling which tracks in your library are content ID, or not. As a library owner I would message all my composers and say “Hey guys I need a list of all track of yours that are content ID so I can label them for prospective buyers.” And on the ingestion side of the site, I would place a box to check if the track you are submitting is in content ID. Then the system would automatically label it. Problem solved for everybody, It’s a Win/Win. Composers and Libraries can sell more tracks and they never have to worry about a buyer complaining he can’t monetize his youtube video, because that buyer knew ahead of time. You know why you submit to libraries they ask you… “Does this track contain samples” or “Explicit language” Well, they can add one more thing…”Is this track in content ID”.
If you have a track that is exclusive to one library because it is in Content ID then that means that track’s exposure is severely curtailed to get all the opportunities in broadcast and on DVD etc.
That does not seem good for the composer.
For instance, I got my song on a Skiing DVD, they want people to buy the DVD, not watch it for free on youtube. I might not have gotten that placement if that song wasn’t in multiple libraries.
More than likely not, actually.
It also doesn’t seem good for the Library because even if that song was in Content ID the Library could still sell it to the DVD producers that don’t want to put their product on any free social media site.
We have warned our AudioSparx artists NOT to participate in the CD Baby option of participating in the Content ID program by assigning their music to Rumblefish for inclusion the YouTube Content ID program.
In addition, we will NOT accept any new applicant composers selling their music at Rumblefish (due to low-ball pricing strategies that devalues your music) and will delete any composers we discover are participating in Rumblefish’s YouTube program with tracks they have uploaded to AudioSparx.
Just like Mark and Bjorn, we don’t want our clients receiving notices on YouTube that some other music library is the potential owner of the music we license to our clients.
According to the CD Baby FAQ [ https://members.cdbaby.com/faq.aspx#sync2%5D :
—
You aren’t “giving up” any rights, as in assigning them entirely to another company. With CD Baby sync licensing you retain ownership of all of your copyrights. However, you are granting nonexclusive rights for synchronization so that you’re music can be used for sync without your direct approval. You are also granting an exclusive license for Rumblefish to manage Content ID controls (and similar controls) on YouTube and other so-called “User-Generated-Content” Networks, as this will allow you to earn additional revenues that may be payable for the use of your content in videos on such networks.
—
It looks like the content itself doesn’t need to be exclusive, but the Content-ID system used to track the content would need to be. Hmmmmmm…….. HUH?
That’s what I’ve been saying,
one rep per song in content ID
one digi distributor per song on iTunes, etc
and only one PRO for your writer share
These things can’t work any other way
But you can be in as many libraries that will have you 🙂
This is all well and good,but…. If Rumblefish wants to act as a PRO then the only fair thing to do would be to split that content id revenue with the library that sold the track!
They shouldn’t be able to take the whole pie on the library end if they were not the library that sold the track to the end user.
That’s a great question Euca and the great answer is – Euca you Ignorant ******** [Dhruva – keep the profanity out of the conversation!] – no kidding, KIDDING! (I still feel bad about that, sorry guys)
It is a great Euca question, it is Eucarific, and it raises the point that all libraries should be a part of content ID and not shun it. Like Crucial Music for example, Rumblefish is collecting for them, right Euca?
I see a lot of people complaining about this situation, but with the exception of my arrogant, hotheaded self, I have not seen anyone put forth their solution.
My solution levels the field so that you don’t have to raise the Eucarific question. The reason Rumblefish will get the dough is because other libraries are giving it away by not being part of this system.
In the near future every buyer is going to know that they are buying a track that is either in the content ID system or not.
And every library is going to be aware that they have to decide whether to sell Content ID tracks or not.
It will be up to both buyer and library to choose what they want.
If libraries decide to sell those tracks, hopefully those libraries will be able to partner with platforms like youtube and rep tracks in the same way that rumblefish does.
Or at least sub contract it out, like Crucial.
If libraries collect content ID royalties instead of saying they want nothing to do with it, then they will be getting a piece of that action.
Like I said before, If I was running my own music library I would play both sides of the fence. I would have a little icon on every track displayed so that the prospective buyer will know if it is content ID or not. That solves the problem for EVERYBODY.
Libraries are entitled to a cut of content ID money if they participate, but they are not entitled to it if they don’t. Libraries don’t automatically deserve content ID money if they refuse to put in the work of managing these systems and doing the accounting work for them. I mean, saying that Rumblefish, which does a lot of work on this, should pay libraries is like saying ASCAP should pay libraries even if they don’t have the publisher share of a song that is getting broadcast royalties. If a royalty free library sells a song, takes their upfront money, and has no publisher share, then they have no claim to broadcast royalties OR content ID royalties.
You remember that girl with the shampoo that said “Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful.” ? Well, don’t hate Rumblefish being smart enough to understand this market and to know what to do about it. In every business, some company gets there first and pioneers the way, then others follow. Don’t think for a second that Rumblefish doesn’t deserve what it’s getting, not only did they take the risk to venture into this realm, they had to do a lot of work behind the scenes to get it to work properly, a lot of Tech work and dealing with youtube. They’re not going around the Starbucks skimming the foam off peoples lattes, they had to help create that foam machine.
Now, now don’t get your dhruva roo’s in an uproar!
Joking aside, how do you expect me to take the rest of your post seriously when you call me ignorant and poke fun at my user name?
I can’t even read the rest of your post. I may be ignorant when it comes to content id but I myself am not ignorant or an *******.
I am pretty much speechless. Name calling is not a good way to present your points.
Sorry you have to be the brunt of Dhruva’s lack of social skills and basic civility euca. He’s very close to being banned no matter what his points are.
Euca I swear to God I like your username, that why I did that, I wasn’t poking fun at it. Euca sounds cool, like a warrior from AVATAR or something, I’m not kidding. My sense of humor just doesn’t translate over text. I’d bet a million if I said that to your face you’d be laughing. My tone is totally different in person. I don’t have problems like this in the real world, I swear, really, people like me. I’ll just be like Drangnet from now on, I’ll just talk like an FBI agent, just the facts, no jokes, no tongue in cheek, no flourishes, no embellishments.
Hey Dhruva, No problem, no worries. I didn’t get that it was a joke at first, I read the post the first time on my phone and replied to the first reading. After I went back and read it again I realized it was just in jest. It’s tough sometimes to tell a joke just in text and it looked like the post had been edited so I figured it had more of a sarcastic tone.
I wouldn’t go all Dragnet, you gotta keep the humor. Sometimes that’s all we have to hang on to, it’s a tough business!!
Phew, thank you Euca, now I can jokingly tell Art I need that edit function fixed badly, before I say something stupid and get banned for life
Unfortunately it’s broken for now.
Can someone please clarify a point for me.
If a library says it’s not accepting composers that work within Content ID, can that composer still then submit tracks that are not with any content ID program?
If not, that seems very unfair. Composers have been caught unaware of this issue as much as libraries.
Sophie
I think Music Loops has changed their policy on this if they are assigned to Audiosparx, as those tracks would be exclusive to them. Check back in this thread to be sure.
Yes, as you said since some composers are being caught unaware by the recent submission of the Crucial Music catalog to the ContentID system without the composer’s express consent so we are simply asking our composers to let us know which of their songs have been compromised and we will only block those specific songs instead of their entire catalog.
We have no issue at all with the program that Audiosparx is now running. All Audiosparx composers are more than welcome to submit their non-exclusive catalogs to musicloops.com.