# Your favorite Royalty Free libraries.



## Valérie_D (Mar 6, 2015)

Hello all,

I started putting a couple of tracks recently in Pond 5 which seems like a good royalty free site.

On musiclibraryreports, lots of RF sites, even some that has been around a long time like RevoStock, MusicLoops, TuneFruit, etc receive really bad comments from composers. ''They're too slow'', etc.

If you feel like sharing, I would be glad to discover RF libraries that earn decent revenues, with a reasonable number of tracks (100-400).

Thank you so much and have a great weekend!

Valérie


----------



## Daryl (Mar 6, 2015)

Valérie, not that I can hep you with your question, but it might be a good idea to specify what you call a decent revenue, because I'm sure everyone will have a different opinion. I have no experience of placing tracks with RF sites, so I wouldn't know what was a decent revenue. :oops: 

D


----------



## Valérie_D (Mar 6, 2015)

Hi Daryl, you're so right!

Ok, if I talk only about up-front fee, no back-end royalties included in this amount, maybe between 500 $ and 1000 $ a month, which I heard is possible.

Of course, I am absolutly not putting my eggs all in the same basket but I though these libraries might be a possibilities to sweeten the annual earnings 

Thanks!¸

Valérie


----------



## SillyMidOn (Mar 6, 2015)

Hi Valérie

There are probably many many posts on this site discussing whether royalty free libraries are a good thing or not (I certainly think they are a very bad thing). 

I wanted to point one thing out: if you work for royalty free sites, then many of the "big" libraries will not work with you, as quite a few have a policy of not working with composers who work with royalty free libraries.

As a newbie it can be a minefield to navigate around all of this, so pm me if you need any help with this issue.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 6, 2015)

SillyMidOn @ Fri Mar 06 said:


> Hi Valérie
> 
> There are probably many many posts on this site discussing whether royalty free libraries are a good thing or not (I certainly think they are a very bad thing).
> 
> I wanted to point one thing out: if you work for royalty free sites, then many of the "big" libraries will not work with you, as quite a few have a policy of not working with composers who work with royalty free libraries.


That's an easy one. Use a pseudonym. Sorted.

D


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 6, 2015)

Daryl @ Fri Mar 06 said:


> That's an easy one. Use a pseudonym. Sorted.
> 
> D



True!

The same when we here in Germany write for something where the GEMA is not desired ... .


----------



## Valérie_D (Mar 6, 2015)

Hi SillyMidOn, Yes I use a pseudonym and I went many months back in the Working for the industry forum but could not find any specifics threads, which I would be very interested to read.

As for if the RF libraries are good or bad in themselves, I think for me, I could find interesting to diversify my revenues with them, as well as the other libraries with sync fees.

I'm really not looking for opening a debate here, although, feel free to do so, I'm just looking for everyone's experience as to which RF libraries were profitable.

Thanks again!

V


----------



## AC986 (Mar 6, 2015)

RF are not bad at all. That is total bollocks and the sort of crap you hear from people that think they're a better musician than that. :roll: 

I have an RF account(s) and I'll play anyone under the table any place any time. If I'm not currently being asked to do anything specific for the Exclusive non - royalty library I am attached to, then putting out 10 tracks or so for an RF library is not that bad a pastime. 

Like Daryl mentions, Pseudo is a good idea if you're worried. 

RF accounts can pay you monthly. If you have a fair number of tracks that you have accumulated, where let's say speed was a factor, as opposed to taking more time over something slightly more special let's say, then a good RF account/firm can be very useful.

Try MusicLoops or say Audio Jungle. Amount is important based on pricing of course. But that doesn't have to mean you have to totally compromise quality just because of quantity.

RF accounts really want you to make money. :wink:


----------



## Jaap (Mar 6, 2015)

Most important thing to make profit from a RF library is to dig into what is selling and see if you can adjust to that style. A lot of RF libraries have a lot of corporate stuff (happy clappy, weee, doing it again, be happy, live now!). If you are willing to adjust then you can make nice money.
I did the last years a lot of RF stuff, but I have stopped and putting my focus on exclusive libraries. Not that I think RF is bad or below my standard, but the kind of music that made money, combined with the relative big amount of time spending on uploading, tagging etc, burned me down. 
Also very important to generate money on RF sites is not only making the right music, but also how to tag correctly. You have to be found and even if you have a large catalog around there, if your metadata is bad, sales will be hard.

Beside composing take your time to create a good document with all the metadata in it, so it will save you time and also makes your life easier when submitting them to multiple libraries.


----------



## David Donaldson (Mar 6, 2015)

The only way I'd consider doing library music is if I owned the Library. As usual it's not the musicians making the money.
And I'm growing really tired of hearing "We'd love you to score this but we only have enough budget for library music, if you are willing to do the job for that amount we'd love you to do it."


----------



## Daryl (Mar 6, 2015)

David Donaldson @ Fri Mar 06 said:


> The only way I'd consider doing library music is if I owned the Library. As usual it's not the musicians making the money.
> And I'm growing really tired of hearing "We'd love you to score this but we only have enough budget for library music, if you are willing to do the job for that amount we'd love you to do it."


You are correct that the companies make more money than the composers. However, if library music is suitable for the gig, then it should never have been offered to you in the first place. If your music is that important, the production company will find the money. If they won't, then you're not that important.

D


----------



## germancomponist (Mar 6, 2015)

Daryl @ Fri Mar 06 said:


> David Donaldson @ Fri Mar 06 said:
> 
> 
> > The only way I'd consider doing library music is if I owned the Library. As usual it's not the musicians making the money.
> ...



..., true. The way how it works ... .


----------



## David Donaldson (Mar 6, 2015)

Daryl @ Sat Mar 07 said:


> David Donaldson @ Fri Mar 06 said:
> 
> 
> > The only way I'd consider doing library music is if I owned the Library. As usual it's not the musicians making the money.
> ...


It's those bread and butter jobs that keep us ticking over that are effected by this.
I think that some of the time it has been used as a way to try get us to do the job for cheaper ("we don't really need you anymore")
Another thing that has started happening for us is "we'll use library music for half of the job and can you guys just score the dramatic bits"
The last time this happened the Producer said at the end "I wish I had got you guys to do the whole series" well so do I, we still lost half the work on a six hour series and had to try and fit in with some very dodgy library tracks, done purely as a cost cutting measure further up the chain, not because library tracks were "suitable for the job" they weren't.


----------



## Kralc (Mar 6, 2015)

Valérie_D @ Sat Mar 07 said:


> Ok, if I talk only about up-front fee, no back-end royalties included in this amount, maybe between 500 $ and 1000 $ a month, which I heard is possible.



I'm seeing around this on Audio Jungle, some months it'll be 4's, some (when there are hits on some of the larger licenses) it'll be closer to the thousand. I'm hoping once I get more in Pond5, that'll pickup a little, cause in comparison, the cut from AJ is abhorrently low.

I'm also giving TuneSociety and LuckStock a whirl. So I'll see if they get any action.


And +1 to the pseudonym. ~<0


----------



## Daryl (Mar 6, 2015)

David Donaldson @ Fri Mar 06 said:


> Daryl @ Sat Mar 07 said:
> 
> 
> > David Donaldson @ Fri Mar 06 said:
> ...


Of course. So call their bluff.



David Donaldson @ Fri Mar 06 said:


> Another thing that has started happening for us is "we'll use library music for half of the job and can you guys just score the dramatic bits"
> The last time this happened the Producer said at the end "I wish I had got you guys to do the whole series" well so do I, we still lost half the work on a six hour series and had to try and fit in with some very dodgy library tracks, done purely as a cost cutting measure further up the chain, not because library tracks were "suitable for the job" they weren't.


Right. They thought that you weren't important enough, but found that you were. So maybe next time they will have learned their lesson. Or even actually find some good library music, rather than the dodgy stuff. :wink: 

D


----------



## JohnG (Mar 6, 2015)

Hi Valerie,

Consider making an effort to work with a library that DOES give royalties. You can make far more than $500-1000 a month from that if you are good. And a bit lucky as well!


----------



## Valérie_D (Mar 7, 2015)

Hi John, yes of course, it's part of the plan as well, the idea of the RF was to pieces that were not necessarily my ultimate best work or that were not in an album.


----------



## cAudio (Mar 7, 2015)

Hi Valérie,

I submitted my first tracks a couple of months ago, so not sure of how much help I can give.
I'm with some exclusives also, and submits to the RF libraries using pseudonyms.

I have music in the following RF libraries: Pond5, MusicLoops, AudioJungle, Tunefruit and Production Trax.

I have had most sales on AJ, but you can't set your own price and the standard price is really low. But they offer other licenses that costs more and can potentially give more money. 

On Pond5 and Musicloops I have set the prices much higher than AJ, and have also seen ok sales there. 

TuneFruit and Production Trax have given me nothing.

Combined I'm not too far from 500 a month, and hope to reach 1000 within the next 6 months. But I would never count on this income for a living, and don't want to use to much time on music that is submitted to RF libraries.


----------



## Guido Negraszus (Mar 8, 2015)

I can confirm the numbers of the previous post. It seems to me that the best RF sites out there are Audiojungle, Pond5, MusicLoops.

I started the whole RF thing only last year in April and this are my figures if it its of any help:

AJ: 609 sales
Pond5: 129
MusicLoops: 55
ProductionTrax: 10
Tunefruit: 0
MotionElements: 0
LuckStock: 0

So all in all I think its worth the extra money. I have around 50 -75 tracks listed on RF sites. For me its around $1200.00 on average per month.

Good luck!


----------



## kfirpr (Mar 8, 2015)

Guido Negraszus @ Sun Mar 08 said:


> I can confirm the numbers of the previous post. It seems to me that the best RF sites out there are Audiojungle, Pond5, MusicLoops.
> 
> I started the whole RF thing only last year in April and this are my figures if it its of any help:
> 
> ...



Are you exclusive seller in the Envato market? as I understand you can't upload your tracks in other RF sites


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 8, 2015)

JohnG @ Fri Mar 06 said:


> Hi Valerie,
> 
> Consider making an effort to work with a library that DOES give royalties. You can make far more than $500-1000 a month from that if you are good. And a bit lucky as well!




Don't be mislead by the term "royalty free" it does not universally mean no PRO royalties.
It means that the buyer pays a one time sync feee and can use the music as many times as they want. Many RF libraries require their buyers to file cue sheets, if the music is being used in a broadcast production.

But...keep in mind that many (maybe most) RF customers are non-broadcast producers, like in-house corporate producers, industrial video makers, etc. for which US PROs, at least do not collect royalties.

Many RF customers produce youtube videos. Be very careful that you opt out of content ID, otherwise many RF libraries will not accept you, or they'll drop you. Not all youtube videos are amateur crap. Tony winning actress Laura Benanti licensed one of my cues from an RF site for a short holiday comedy film that she produced. They used (and edited) the bed mix from 8:03 to the end. http://parade.com/360906/jerylbrunner/l ... edy-video/

@jaap is correct. The best selling music is happy clappy ukelele and U2 / Coldplay knockoffs. So far, I haven't done either. 

I'm not sure that I agree with respect to larger libraries not working with you if you are in RF libraries. The mid-level exclusives that I work with 1) don't care and 2) market some of their older catalog though RF libraries. They're pretty pragmatic and know that you have to earn a living and they do not perceive RF libraries as competition for high end licenses. BUT, what they do not like is composers that participate in retitling libraries, like Jingle Punks, etc. If was going to that that, which I haven't, I'd use a pseudonym for sure.

Good luck.

_Michael


----------



## cAudio (Mar 8, 2015)

kfirpr @ Sun Mar 08 said:


> Are you exclusive seller in the Envato market? as I understand you can't upload your tracks in other RF sites



You can't upload the same tracks you have one AJ to other sites if you are exclusive, but you are of course free to upload other tracks. You also have the option to upload your tracks non-exclusive, but as Audiojungle doesn't allow PRO registered music I keep the tracks that I submit to AJ separated from the others.


----------



## AC986 (Mar 8, 2015)

kfirpr @ Sun Mar 08 said:


> Are you exclusive seller in the Envato market? as I understand you can't upload your tracks in other RF sites



I would guess, that quite a few AJ members are exclusive. That means as cAudio says, you are not able to put the same tracks up elsewhere. The upside to that with AJ is a better percentage. The downside is coverage. This of course, is all about numbers.

Let's face it though, these tracks don't take forever to do, so if you're in the business of this type of thing (there's nothing wrong with it btw), then you are in a different mind set than say doing higher end Exclusive Library material. Although from my experience, some of the writers on the Exclusive library I am familiar with, can churn it out just as quickly as they would for an RF library.

Let's get this straight. What exactly are you trying to achieve with tracks that you place in an RF library as opposed to an Exclusive library?

I would imagine different folks have differing criteria. 

I'm doing a Happy Clappy Weee (wow painful) track right now and expect it finished, downloaded, titled and key worded later today. Be honest, we have the technology do all this kind of thing nowadays. When I was a starting out session musician, EVERYTHING was booked into a studio and the whole thing took masses of time and money, relatively speaking. I had to practice on Pete Barden's Hammond B3 when he wasn't looking. :mrgreen: 

There were no computers then. Didn't exist.


----------



## Valérie_D (Mar 8, 2015)

Hi Adrian, I don't think I will concentrate my efforts on RF, I am doing an album right now to an exclusive library, but I thought that if I am to put certain tracks from time to time in an RF, I might as well know which one to go for.

One important point that I have never seen mentionned before and I would like to know nore about it, Royalty Free or Exclusives libraries put together : What portion of the income you earn with libraries is paid back in taxes?

I am in Canada so I will investigate myself but if anyone feel ilke sharing, it would be appreciated.

Valérie


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 8, 2015)

adriancook @ Sun Mar 08 said:


> There were no computers then. Didn't exist.




Of course, Adrian and I are "old." We go all the way back the the BC (before computers) era. So, perhaps a lot of what is important to a young composer isn't so much to us any more. :-D


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 8, 2015)

It's a bit like asking who's my favourite loan shark.


----------



## Valérie_D (Mar 8, 2015)

Stephen Rees @ Sun Mar 08 said:


> It's a bit like asking who's my favourite loan shark.



Touché. :D


----------



## Jaap (Mar 8, 2015)

Valérie_D @ Sun Mar 08 said:


> One important point that I have never seen mentionned before and I would like to know nore about it, Royalty Free or Exclusives libraries put together : What portion of the income you earn with libraries is paid back in taxes?



I am not sure what you exactly mean with "is paid back in taxes".
Do you mean, how much you will end up with in the end after taxes? If so, that depends heavily per country I guess and I can't say anything about Canada. Also often you sign contracts with tax forms (the US W8-ben for example) to avoid or reduce tax withholding. Of course you have to pay the taxes then in your own country. How much you pay also depends and for example I work as official business and I can deduct a lot of costs I make, but that varies also per period and per project etc etc. In the Netherlands I pay roughly said around 33% taxes over my earnings from my music, but again that is different for every country.

Maybe I am totally getting it wrong with what you are asking


----------



## Valérie_D (Mar 8, 2015)

Hi Jaap, yes, this is exactly what I am talking about, thank you!


----------



## Daryl (Mar 8, 2015)

Jaap is right. Tax is a matter for whatever country you live in. Assuming that the correct forms are filled in, you shouldn't pay any tax in any other country and then tax should only be paid on the profits you make. The percentage of your earnings that are classed as profits will depend on your expenses, your company/sole trader status and the ability of your accountant. :wink: 

I could give you rough figures for the UK, but they would be meaningless to you.

D


----------



## Jaap (Mar 8, 2015)

It is often wise if you just start out to get in contact with a lawyer who is familiar with the international music business to win some advice. It is an investment but often it pays it self back in time and they can point you towards (positive for you) rules that are hard to find on yourself and/or with complicated contracts and also to avoid problems with Canadian tax office.


----------



## Guido Negraszus (Mar 8, 2015)

cAudio @ 8th March 2015 said:


> kfirpr @ Sun Mar 08 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you exclusive seller in the Envato market? as I understand you can't upload your tracks in other RF sites
> ...



I have two accounts with AJ. One is exclusive and one is non-exclusive. They also don't allow your tracks to be registered with any PRO.


----------



## eric_w (Mar 9, 2015)

Guido Negraszus @ Sun Mar 08 said:


> cAudio @ 8th March 2015 said:
> 
> 
> > kfirpr @ Sun Mar 08 said:
> ...




What exactly is the reason that they don't allow the tracks to be registered with a pro?


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 9, 2015)

eric_w @ Mon Mar 09 said:


> What exactly is the reason that they don't allow the tracks to be registered with a pro?




Direct licensing. 

1) It's option that some consumers prefer. 

2) It's a marketing gimmick that reassures uninformed customers who would not normally be subject to royalty payments that they do not have to pay royalties. (e.g. in-house corporate productions that never see the light of day beyond the corporate walls)


----------



## Guido Negraszus (Mar 9, 2015)

Yeah, I never quite understood the logic in this. It actually doesn't make any sense and has nothing to do with RF. In fact I hear that some clients had problems in Germany for broadcast usage since those tracks weren't registered with any PRO and GEMA apparently is quite rigorous by insisting on PRO track IDs when used in Germany.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 10, 2015)

For those of you registered with a PRO (like the PRS here in the UK) I would recommend that you discuss working 'royalty free' with them before committing your work to any of these libraries.

My understanding of my agreement with the PRS is that I have signed over my performing right to them (thus enabling them to negotiate with broadcasters etc. on my behalf, and collect royalties on my behalf). So, I no longer control my performing right - the PRS do.

I cannot therefore agree with a 'royalty free library' that my performing royalty can be waived, because I don't have legal control of it any more.

This is not a problem for me as I have no intention of working that way, but for those of you that are considering it / have done it, I think it is worth being sure you are not working in breach of your contract with your PRO.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 10, 2015)

Stephen Rees @ Tue Mar 10 said:


> For those of you registered with a PRO (like the PRS here in the UK) I would recommend that you discuss working 'royalty free' with them before committing your work to any of these libraries.
> 
> My understanding of my agreement with the PRS is that I have signed over my performing right to them (thus enabling them to negotiate with broadcasters etc. on my behalf, and collect royalties on my behalf). So, I no longer control my performing right - the PRS do.
> 
> ...


Yes, this is correct, in the same way that you can't offer "buy-outs" of your writer's share of the Royalties.

D


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 10, 2015)

Thanks for confirming that Daryl.


----------



## Guido Negraszus (Mar 10, 2015)

In Australia I am a member of APRA but my performing rights are only represented by them by tracks I register with them. So all the tracks I produce for AJ I don't tell APRA about it, so no drama.

Stephen, are you saying that ALL your tracks, existing and future, are automatically covered by your PRO, not on a per track basis?


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 10, 2015)

Guido Negraszus @ Tue Mar 10 said:


> In Australia I am a member of APRA but my performing rights are only represented by them by tracks I register with them. So all the tracks I produce for AJ I don't tell APRA about it, so no drama.
> 
> Stephen, are you saying that ALL your tracks, existing and future, are automatically covered by your PRO, not on a per track basis?



Good to hear Guido. I imagine each PRO agreement will be different. As far as the PRS here in the UK goes, yes it is my understanding that the performing right in all my work, whether registered or not, lies with the PRS.


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 10, 2015)

Stephen Rees @ Tue Mar 10 said:


> Guido Negraszus @ Tue Mar 10 said:
> 
> 
> > In Australia I am a member of APRA but my performing rights are only represented by them by tracks I register with them. So all the tracks I produce for AJ I don't tell APRA about it, so no drama.
> ...




In the US, PRO agreements are non-exclusive. Our Supreme Court ruled long ago that composers have the right to bypass their PRO to enter into direct licenses.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 10, 2015)

Michael, the PRS system works to our advantage because it means that we can't be pressurised into considering buyouts and also it takes the onus of us for appearing awkward. :wink: 

D


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 10, 2015)

I had a look at the Articles or Association of the PRS just now to see if I could confirm what it said, but naturally it is written in formidable legalese, and now my head hurts so much that I can't remember what my name is, so I think I'll leave it there


----------



## JohnG (Mar 10, 2015)

Stephen Rees @ 10th March 2015 said:


> ...naturally it is written in formidable legalese, and now my head hurts so much that I can't remember what my name is, so I think I'll leave it there



Your secret name is, "Ishmael." It says so in paragraph IV.b.iii.


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 10, 2015)

'Call me Ishmael'. That's quite catchy. Sounds a great opening line for a novel. I thought of it first, so no-one else had better use it.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 10, 2015)

Every year, I look more and more like an enormous white whale.

Maybe you could work that in somewhere?


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 10, 2015)

A white whale? Who'd ever read a novel based around that? Don't be crazy.

No, I live in Wales though so I'll write about that. Write about what you know as they say. Sheep farming; rugby; cawl; beautiful landscapes; under strain NHS hospitals; rain; beer; Richard Burton; gale force winds; no-one ever EVER using their indicators at junctions or roundabouts to tell you where they are going; muck spreading…..


----------



## Daryl (Mar 10, 2015)

Stephen Rees @ Tue Mar 10 said:


> I had a look at the Articles or Association of the PRS just now to see if I could confirm what it said, but naturally it is written in formidable legalese, and now my head hurts so much that I can't remember what my name is, so I think I'll leave it there


It's basically clauses 7 and 8. You decide which categories PRS acts for you, and once you decide that, they have total control over those categories. If you choose to remove one or more categories from their purview, they have no control over that whole category. It can't be done on a work by work basis, so you can't remove certain tracks from their control and not others.

You can also choose which territories they act for you, but that doesn't alter the terms of your initial agreement, so you can be a PRS member and an ASCAP member, for example.

D


----------



## Stephen Rees (Mar 10, 2015)

Thanks Daryl. I'm in awe of your ability to read legalese


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 10, 2015)

Stephen Rees @ Tue Mar 10 said:


> Thanks Daryl. I'm in awe of your ability to read legalese



I wouldn't recommend law school. It's brutal. And we don't even get to wear powdered wigs over here!


----------



## Daryl (Mar 10, 2015)

MichaelL @ Tue Mar 10 said:


> Stephen Rees @ Tue Mar 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Daryl. I'm in awe of your ability to read legalese
> ...


Yeah, and everyone hates you. Wait, that's conductors. :lol: 

D


----------



## MichaelL (Mar 10, 2015)

Daryl @ Tue Mar 10 said:


> MichaelL @ Tue Mar 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephen Rees @ Tue Mar 10 said:
> ...



I think loathe is the word more commonly reserved for we barristers. 0oD


----------



## Daryl (Mar 10, 2015)

MichaelL @ Tue Mar 10 said:


> Daryl @ Tue Mar 10 said:
> 
> 
> > MichaelL @ Tue Mar 10 said:
> ...


The best Baristas can serve a great cappuccino. :wink: 

D


----------

