# Another source of revenue for artists could go extinct



## Madrigal (Jul 17, 2020)

Adobe has announced a partnership with two subscription libraries to include an extensive catalog of music in their service: 









UK musician bodies criticise Epidemic Sound / Adobe deal


In June, creative-software company Adobe announced the launch of a library of royalty-free music and audio with Epidemic Sound and Jamendo.




musically.com





What this means, is that anyone using Adobe Premiere will now have access to a plethora of music at their finger tips with ZERO revenue being redistributed to artists when their songs are used in a film, commercial, TV series, etc. 

From the article:

_"In June, creative-software company Adobe announced the launch of a library of royalty-free music and audio with partners Epidemic Sound and Jamendo. Now two bodies representing musicians in the UK have attacked one of those deals.

The Ivors Academy and the Musicians’ Union aren’t happy about Epidemic Sound’s business model of paying composers upfront in ‘full buyout deals’ which do not earn them royalties in the future.

“Epidemic Sound CEO Oscar Hoglund claims that musicians will benefit from being discovered on Adobe through Shazam. This exposure narrative forms part of a widespread exploitative model that the music industry has difficulty shaking. Exposure without royalties doesn’t pay the bills,” said the MU’s Naomi Pohl.

“Companies seem to believe that they are faced with a great challenge in trying to devise a fair yet profitable model for paying composers for screen. But that model already exists – royalties. Royalties and related rights exist for creators to share in the revenue generated by their works proportionally to the works’ success, be it high or low,”_


Adobe & Premiere are everywhere in the audio-visual world, I can't overstate how potentially damaging this could be for the music publishing and licensing industry.


----------



## SamC (Jul 17, 2020)

And the CEO himself uses the age old ‘exposure’ tactic.

“Epidemic Sound CEO Oscar Hoglund claims that musicians will benefit from being discovered on Adobe through Shazam.”

Discovered through Shazam? It almost reads like satire.


----------



## nolotrippen (Jul 17, 2020)

I wish this was a Babylon Bee piece.


----------



## tsk (Jul 17, 2020)

The exposure justification is just disgusting. God I hate this industry sometimes


----------



## karelpsota (Jul 17, 2020)

When it comes to sync placements, I have yet to see a model where subscription benefits the artists.
It seems like it's continuously devaluating assets in order to reach a larger audience.
Companies are also exploiting artists' ignorance - as most don't know that sync fees can be in the thousands.

I've seen it with MusicBed, Splice...

What worries me the most, is that it's not just amateur tracks like pond5.
There's some legit sounding music.

Gonna be very hard to compete in a few years.


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 17, 2020)

It seems like composers are the easiest targets to make lots of money from nowdays and just give them the dregs to make it look like they care about them.


----------



## Madrigal (Jul 17, 2020)

karelpsota said:


> When it comes to sync placements, I have yet to see a model where subscription benefits the artists.
> It seems like it's continuously devaluating assets in order to reach a larger audience.
> Companies are also exploiting artists' ignorance - as most don't know that sync fees can be in the thousands.



This is something much worse than any other devaluation or business model change that happened in the past. All of Adobe catalogue's will be royalty free, bought out. Zero extra income for artists. 

Anyone familiar with the workflow of editors and production companies will understand the impact this will have. The catalogue's size and quality might be sufficient to avoid some concerns of hearing the same generic tracks everywhere in the first years. After that, the damage will have been done. 

I suggest anyone who's member of a PRO to voice their concerns with their representatives, it's the least we can do for now.


----------



## SamC (Jul 17, 2020)

Madrigal said:


> This is something much worse than any other devaluation or business model change that happened in the past. All of Adobe catalogue's will be royalty free, bought out. Zero extra income for artists.
> 
> Anyone familiar with the workflow of editors and production companies will understand the impact this will have. The catalogue's size and quality might be sufficient to avoid some concerns of hearing the same generic tracks everywhere in the first years. After that, the damage will have been done.
> 
> I suggest anyone who's member of a PRO to voice their concerns with their representatives, it's the least we can do for now.



What’s even more troubling is that it isn’t even just a royalty issue, it’s a sync issue. There’s virtually no monetary gain for composers.

You’re right, this model is great for editors workflow - Epidemic also has a deal with Youtube where you can use their catalogue on upload. What’s also concerning is the harbouring of a creative climate where music is seen as a quick, cheap after thought.

Future Filmmakers and production companies are being taught that music is like an instagram filter you slap on your image to dress it up, and unfortunately there’s a never-ending line of composers willing to give their music away to these services in the hopes of being “discovered.”

I don’t think they understand that there’ll be no industry left to discover them.

I do understand the desire for that and young filmmakers/youtubers should have easy-access to that, but the lack of compensation for composers and attaching it to an industry standard editing software is very concerning.


----------



## Thundercat (Jul 17, 2020)

SamC said:


> And the CEO himself uses the age old ‘exposure’ tactic.
> 
> “Epidemic Sound CEO Oscar Hoglund claims that musicians will benefit from being discovered on Adobe through Shazam.”
> 
> Discovered through Shazam? It almost reads like satire.


I wonder how he’d feel if instead of getting a paycheck, they just posted pictures of him all over the country?

these people are not clueless - they are heartless. As long as they’ve got theirs, they want more...


----------



## José Herring (Jul 17, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> It seems like composers are the easiest targets to make lots of money from nowdays and just give them the dregs to make it look like they care about them.


It's because there are too many composers and some of them very good ready to willingly give their music away for peanuts to some generic online library.

I really wish that if people want to do that they just release their music online on some streaming service or something. Actually for as piss poor as that pays it's better PR and exposure than just dumping harddrives worth tracks into a library. At least you can send around your Itunes links to people and stand to make .99. 

Not that there's anything wrong with library work. Under the right conditions it can be good. But, where they use to pay, now way too many libraries just take your tracks throw it online to see what sticks. We really can't fall for that crap any more. It's a disservice to ourselves individually and as a whole, because some jackass CEO then has access to millions and millions of songs and tracks and then gets the bright idea to just start giving the shit away like free cheese in the 80's.


----------



## Stringtree (Jul 17, 2020)

It happened a long time ago with photography. The art is not dead, you've just got to be really good to make any money at it. We do not make art strictly to make a paycheck. 

Once this heartless art becomes widespread, it will lose its currency and become pastiche, a mark of a given time. You will know it from your privileged couch, and those who don't really care for music will know it from their perches above crowds of dance enthusiasts. 

A producer or director will say to you, "Yeah, don't do 'X,'" a recognized poisoned form. It will quickly be recognized as a spoiled well, and nobody of worth will want to drink from it.

So winter is coming. Everything green will die. Have you never experienced snow? It's awful. Nothing can live in this. But look beneath the snow. Tiny creatures yearning to reach toward the sun. There are living organisms in every atmosphere. You must learn to count yourself among the living or among the dead. 

(All of this should have been read in the voice of Werner Herzog. Go back, do it.)


----------



## Stringtree (Jul 17, 2020)

New Plugin, ‘WernAcular’, Turns Your Speech Into Werner Herzog’s


International voiceover agency Truthtellers has introduced WernAcular, a new speech synthesizer plugin that analyses your voice and transforms it into Werner Herzog’s.



www.synthtopia.com


----------



## Rory (Jul 17, 2020)

Filmmakers with little money are a large and growing market for inexpensive music that is royalty free. The only question is who is going to serve that market. Epidemic Sound is not new. It has just had a lot of success over the last three years or so in serving that market. There are a number of other players, such as ArtList, but Epidemic Sound is emerging as dominant.

The main reason why this is happening is that very low-budget filmmakers have nowhere else to go. The problem with @José Herring's proposal is that the sales that he's talking about do not include the right to use the tracks in videos. At this point, just about everybody making videos for YouTube is familiar with the term Copyright Strike, and a Copyright Strike is not something that people want to deal with.


----------



## Rory (Jul 17, 2020)

If you want to understand what this is about, these videos by Canadian YouTuber Peter McKinnon paint a clear picture. Mr. McKinnon has just under five million YouTube subscribers. He is far and away the most influential person on YouTube on the subject of making videos, which of course is central to what YouTube is about.

McKinnon made this video last year with Epidemic Sound, on whose channel it also appears, and Swedish composer Henrik Olsson:

_Deliver a Feeling_




He made this video three years ago, as Epidemic Sound was making a bid to be a major player:

_How to find MUSIC for YOUR VIDEOS!!_


----------



## JohnG (Jul 17, 2020)

Another avenue for young composers seems to be dying. Unless you are Mozart or John Lennon, you need a number of years (5? 10?) of steady work at music to get good enough to have your own voice and create a network of people who know your music and will hire you.

Not long ago, library music -- with orchestras -- offered a great means of learning how to write for ensembles, hear what they are good at, and what is less successful.

Other "apprenticeships" from days of yore also are dwindling -- copyist (not much left); orchestrator (ditto); 'booth guy' or even conductor -- how much is left for a journeyman?

I don't know how the new guys are supposed to learn and reach their potential.


----------



## Rory (Jul 17, 2020)

It seems to me that composers who use virtual instruments to deliver final product are not in a great position to be complaining about this.

In any event, there is a large and growing market for lower cost, royalty-free music, and it's going to be served whether people like it or not.


----------



## Madrigal (Jul 17, 2020)

Rory said:


> The main reason why this is happening is that very low-budget filmmakers have nowhere else to go. The problem with @José Herring's proposal is that the sales that he's talking about do not include the right to use the tracks in videos. At this point, just about everybody making videos for YouTube is familiar with the term Copyright Strike, and a Copyright Strike is not something that people want to deal with.



I agree, this is why the subscription model appeared, to cater to this demand. However, this is something new. We're talking about literally zero residual income for the artist, no matter the usage. Furthermore, having several of subscription sites competing against each other is different than having a complete decent RF library included in the editing software most of the industry is already using.


----------



## Rory (Jul 17, 2020)

Madrigal said:


> I agree, this is why the subscription model appeared, to cater to this demand. However, this is something new. We're talking about literally zero residual income for the artist, no matter the usage. Furthermore, having several of subscription sites competing against each other is different than having a complete decent RF library included in the editing software most of the industry is already using.



I wonder whether Adobe Premiere has as much market share as you appear to believe. As for the impact among Premiere users, it would be helpful to know how successful Adobe's stock photo service is vis a vis competitors. Is it marginalising competitors or not?


----------



## Rasoul Morteza (Jul 17, 2020)

José Herring said:


> We really can't fall for that crap any more. It's a disservice to ourselves individually and as a whole, because some jackass CEO then has access to millions and millions of songs and tracks and then gets the bright idea to just start giving the shit away like free cheese in the 80's.


Also let us thank the many business schools out there that do not teach one ounce of integrity to their students. We keep witnessing this familiar pattern of some goon with some tech/industrial investors pumping their "bright" ideas into all aspects of society. Could we profit off of desperate musicians with plan A? Let's do it. Could we make phenomenal profits putting some synthetic ingredient in practically all food people eat, even if it makes them sick? Let's do it. Who cares as long as the bank is buff.

Sometimes when I think about this whole mess I'm quite thankful, that most of our respected figures in this niche domain of film scoring are putting their soul into their craft, and we tend to follow their example and work ethic. That's not always the case elsewhere, especially when the mindset is only focused on those god damn green papers.

Last thing I would like to mention to all fellow musicians and composers here, is to truly try your best to interact with actual performers. One of the reasons why such music libraries exist in the first place is because the majority of the music out there can be easily replicated by somebody else in the south pole. But a master performer can not be replaced. A great mind of composition can not be replaced. That European cellist or that Chinese Erhu performer who play their instruments with such passion can not be put into some catalog, replaceable at any moment by some clone working for peanuts. When we have tried to poorly imitate the music of others without thinking about "how can I take this to the next level", then that's when these music libraries keep popping out of nowhere. I am guilty too, but I'm trying my best.

I still have hope though! These stories are not new. They said the same thing when the piano roll came out (no I'm not that old).

Cheers


----------



## Bman70 (Jul 17, 2020)

_"Royalties and related rights exist for creators to share in the revenue generated by their works proportionally to the works’ success, be it high or low.." _

This is interesting, I think perhaps unique in the music industry vs other arts? Or maybe only more widely applied. 

I'm a visual artist, writer, and musician who has made 'some' money with all three. I find it interesting how the arts are thought about somewhat differently. Sure we all like royalties, but I don't think that is the ONLY model with any viability. Painting a watercolor, I can sell it to a single client, or make prints and sell many but for less value. Which one ends up earning more? It's always a guess. And also what the artist's immediate desires and needs are play a part. If I want a lump sum, I might jump at an exclusive single piece sale. 

I don't think a movie or video using my music is "my work" exactly. At that point mine is merely supporting a larger work. Do I want royalties, which are a gamble on future success of the endeavor, or a lump sum which is more certain but finite? I think it's good to have the choice. Some artists paid generously by Epidemic might never have earned that amount in speculative royalties. Some might earn more. 

With books, it's always a matter of selling duplicates. That's different. 'Royalties' there really means a percentage of sales made by a publisher / distributor. Every time someone buys a copy, I get some money. That's more akin to stock music, in that every time someone buys a copy of that song, I get some money. I'm not clear on Epidemic's compensation, but if they're buying the rights totally, that's like me selling a book basically as a ghost writer: Giving up interest in it. Viable for the right pay, but needs careful consideration. Anyway I'm not feeling like new markets are automatically a threat.. the main threat is our own management or mismanagement of our resources, including how we sell our creativity.


----------



## Stringtree (Jul 18, 2020)

@Bman70,

What you wrote reminded me of the physicality of a book. I thought back to some great reading I did, and how intertwined that experience of the story was with the physical object I spent so much time with.

After all, many hours are needed to get through the thing start to finish. It is in your hands. You put a scrap piece of paper in it or rudely splay it on a surface when you need a break.

Its pages and binding and dust cover soothe the fingertips. There's a sound when its pages turn unique to it. It might see you naked at some point. It smells a certain way. Mind wanders and you might admire the scalloped edges of the leaves, or the pebble-grain waxy finish of the cover.

I had the same experience with many audio recordings. Reading album covers and cassette jackets, looking for clues while I listened over and over. The physicality of what I brought home.

@Rasoul Morteza makes an excellent point. Interact with real performers. Authenticity will never go out of style. People making a musical connection with others. I've seen it happen with something stupid-simple as someone hitting a cardboard box with a hand.

It's not the end of the world in music for media. Is it? Cultivation of smaller ecosystems that don't rely on fast food will always have an advantage and an allure. In a world of bad taste, people still thrill at authentic cooking.

Today's world is weird. Listen to YouTube music library tracks that accompany videos. This may be enough for some producers. Shreds and repetitive samples. Or even narration that's done by a person who has no idea how to pronounce words important to the story. Or by a computer that sounds like a person.

Fast food never had a chance of destroying the real chef. It leveraged its cash, but that's not enough.

To the point of the OP, I used Adobe products for years in a professional capacity. With all the other offerings today, they are no more than a urinal cake to me now. Endlessly nagging and sucking my cash away while providing little in return that isn't offered somewhere else. I see this latest predatory scheme in buying up creative content as another slap in the face by manager types to capitalize on their IP. Away with you.


----------



## Bman70 (Jul 18, 2020)

@Stringtree well Adobe has certainly not endeared itself to most with their subscription model. I'm personally still using the CS6 Suite. Urinal cake though? Lol. I detest the turn toward subscriptions by so many companies.. even music software now! But it seems to work for some. 

I don't see Adobe's move as predatory though, given that 'stock' everything is increasingly popular. As a stock artist, I find Adobe pays one of the best percentages per image sold. Epidemic has a unique model where they found artists willing to sell their work 'for hire' (the exact thing we were cautioned not to do in the past!). They started with 200 composers out of 5000 applicants, and soon became a top media music supplier. The composers were paid an average of $500 per work, which suited them and they knew the terms before signing. Having a fully owned library of music, Epidemic can sell or license it to whomever they want. If anything it's Epidemic being predatory, but Adobe can't be faulted for buying rights to that product. 

One new aspect of stock music I like is being able to write and sell 5-second to 30-second pieces, 'bumpers' and 'stingers.' Perfect for someone with creative ADD like myself. To me that's potentially unlimited 'royalties' as a percentage of each sale. Yet I also still like the idea of producing a quality CD of hand played acoustic instruments, and selling it for a premium. Would I sell all rights to a work, like Epidemic's composers? Maybe for the right price. I can always compose more and my best stuff is always still to come, at least the most interesting.


----------



## X-Bassist (Jul 18, 2020)

Rory said:


> I wonder whether Adobe Premiere has as much market share as you appear to believe. As for the impact among Premiere users, it would be helpful to know how successful Adobe's stock photo service is vis a vis competitors. Is it marginalising competitors or not?


As an editor looking for work in LA, most paying clients are looking for a Premiere editor. There are still some Avid projects, but fewer and fewer each year. And many paying clients still see FCPX as a poor man’s editor app, even though it has more third party plugins (most under $90) that extend it’s abilities into graphics and post visual fx (and no monthly fee). 

Though there used to be a growing number of pic editing apps, now with most others dying off (Sony Vegas?) there is only three I can think of that are still used widely:
1. Avid- older, more established production companies
2. FCPX- newer editors with much less prod $.
3. Premiere- Everyone in between.

Which do you think is the most popular one? Ok, it’s FCPX. But take out the editors not earning any money (hobbyists) and it’s clearly Premiere.

Personally I don’t love any of them. Compared to Pro Tools or Cubase they lack versitility, customization, and shortcuts. They all work one way, which must be learned and adhered to. Almost zero flexibility compared to sound programs. I have no idea why besides Avid making their first version ridiculously simple to not intimidate editors coming from a flatbed in the 90’s. Then everyone else copying their layout. I wish Adobe or Apple would take it to the next level.

But like Aputure or Tesla, it will probably take a third party with money to build a new mousetrap, built around modern editor workflows and flexibility. Ironically Pro Tools (bought by Avid from Digidesign, who were innovators) is probably the closest to where things should be heading. Flexibility and many ways to do something. Avid has no idea that they should be reinventing themselves around this and new ways of working with picture.


----------



## Rory (Jul 18, 2020)

X-Bassist said:


> Though there used to be a growing number of pic editing apps, now with most others dying off (Sony Vegas?) there is only three I can think of that are still used widely:
> 1. Avid- older, more established production companies
> 2. FCPX- newer editors with much less prod $.
> 3. Premiere- Everyone in between.
> ...



I think that DaVinci Resolve is both well-entrenched and probably the fastest growing editor. The questions are, who is Epidemic Sound's market and what impact will easy access within Premiere have on both Epidemic Sound and Premiere? I'm skeptical, and would like to know what the impact is of Adobe stock photo. Just how much does convenience affect decision-making? As I understand it, one of the reasons that YouTube is abandoning its Music Policy, which was basically a way to license music for free from within the YouTube dashboard, is deterioration in take-up.

I also think that people making videos for YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and the web generally are an important part of the market for both as well as for Final Cut and Resolve. In that market, I think that iMovie is more widely used than people recognise, and that LumaFusion is growing. For people who want to push content fast, LumaFusion is very attractive.

The unknown in all this is whether Final Cut gets ported to the iPad.


----------



## VladK (Jul 18, 2020)

Premiere Pro dominates the indie market with 60% market share based on various unofficial surveys. Avid is still Hollywood No.1 yet. But if/when Adobe releases quality asset management solution, this may change as well.


----------



## Madrigal (Jul 18, 2020)

I agree with a lot of the points made here. There will always be a place for amazing, innovative, beautiful art. 

But I do think that this situation will significantly affect the livelihoods of a lot of bottom/middle tier artists and composers and will cause an important perceptual devaluation of music among the next generation of filmmakers. All this because a CEO wanted to cash out. I'm simplifying here but I think it does represent the real motivations at play unfortunately. 

And to be clear, I was not starting this thread to complain, I think having these discussions can bring awareness and help us educate ourselves about our industry, which can sometimes be the most powerful tools to avoid situations like these.


----------



## Rory (Jul 18, 2020)

VladK said:


> Premiere Pro dominates the indie market with 60% market share based on various unofficial surveys. Avid is still Hollywood No.1 yet. But if/when Adobe releases quality asset management solution, this may change as well.



Yes, but how big is the "Indie Market" in relation to the overall market, and what percentage of Indie filmmakers are buying their music from Epidemic Sound? I don't know for sure, but I'm skeptical that people making Indie films represent a big part of Epidemic Sound's revenue.

There's a reason why Epidemic Sound has a working relationship with Peter McKinnon and a few other influential YouTubers.


----------



## Madrigal (Jul 18, 2020)

Rory said:


> I think that DaVinci Resolve is both well-entrenched and probably the fastest growing editor. The questions are, who is Epidemic Sound's market and what impact will easy access within Premiere have on both Epidemic Sound and Premiere? I'm skeptical, and would like to know what the impact is of Adobe stock photo.



I understand your point but I think we can agree that Premiere is a very important/dominant editing suite in the media industry. If this gives them an advantage over the competition, other companies will want to pursue similar deals with other libraries.


----------



## Rory (Jul 18, 2020)

Madrigal said:


> I understand your point but I think we can agree that Premiere is a very important/dominant editing suite in the media industry. If this gives them an advantage over the competition, other companies will want to pursue similar deals with other libraries.



I think that you and I have a different understanding of what this is about, what the market is for this kind of music and what the factors are.

I also don't understand how people can talk about editors without talking about DaVinci Resolve, which is a big factor in both commercial and non-commercial work. It is also effectively a requirement for people who want to use Blackmagic's codec. There are workarounds, but shooting Blackmagic Raw and editing in another platform just doesn't make a lot of sense. Personally, I prefer Final Cut, but I also own a Blackmagic camera and it's pretty clear what the path of least resistance is. Not to mention that Resolve is widely regarded as having the best colour grading workflow in the business 

For people starting out or who don't need advanced features, it's also free, which is why it seems that just about every second person on YouTube is using it.


----------



## Stringtree (Jul 18, 2020)

@Rory is right about Davinci Resolve. It's free, and it's fantastic. LumaFusion is also very capable for mobile devices. 

I'm editing twelve handbell players together who played separately using Davinci Resolve. Eazy. 

Coming from 3/4" video in the early 90s, I went through just about every software option. Avid, FCP, Pinnacle, Vegas. Replacing offline, online, A/B roll, CMX, was it called? Yeah, what a monstrous octopus of gear. Pulse generators, DAs, TBCs, Still Stores, telecines. HAHAHAHA... Now a garden variety laptop can do everything. Well, from a nice garden, anyway. 

I appreciate hearing about creators of stock or library music. I never used any because I shot everything and scored everything myself. Worked for organizations on a "for hire" basis, but felt way more involved and a part of the projects I worked on. 

At least I never had to use a ukuleles and whistling track that would subsequently appear in a baby food commercial.


----------



## Rory (Jul 18, 2020)

Stringtree said:


> At least I never had to use a ukuleles and whistling track that would subsequently appear in a baby food commercial.



Got a good chuckle from that


----------



## Thundercat (Jul 18, 2020)

Bman70 said:


> _"Royalties and related rights exist for creators to share in the revenue generated by their works proportionally to the works’ success, be it high or low.." _
> 
> This is interesting, I think perhaps unique in the music industry vs other arts? Or maybe only more widely applied.
> 
> ...


Very articulate post.

there has been a trend in the last many years towards demonetizing composers’ efforts - while the big corporations like adobe and Apple reap insane profits off the backs of those composers and artists.

music for movies is unique. Music is such an incredibly integral part of the creationthat it only makes sense the composer should reap rewards ongoingly for their part. Actors do. Screenwriters do. Why not the musician?

And the music budget is such a small part of the huge expense of making a movie it’s laughable they would see the need to cut composers’ rates.

as a recent post intimated, market forces are at work here in a powerful way. More and more composers means less value for music. It’s just sad but true.

And then AI compose music will become a thing. Not sure when, but it will.

however the greats always rise to the top. Believe in yourself and always give your very best art. A loose quote from the movie The Christmas Cottage - “by your art you can introduce men to their own souls.”


----------



## Stringtree (Jul 18, 2020)

Also, bespoke music over a :30 or :60 timeframe can powerfully support the narrative arc of a commercial or dramatic piece. It is parallel storytelling that can begin small and intrigue, rise to dissonance and conflict, and then POW! Drive home the message and tag the whole thing at the end. 

Using stock is selecting a mood and sticking with it, or pasting disparate pieces together, or picking a predefined arc. Or picking a pop tune people know and pasting a message or narrative together with it. 

Not just demonitizing the music components, but de-professionalizing them. Like insipid stock photos, uninspired stock music created from loop libraries has no individuality, no tooth, no spirit. 

Good stock is good stock. Shifts the burden to selection and editing rather than creation. But collage artists would call selection and editing creation too!


----------



## rgames (Jul 18, 2020)

Four comments (all of which have been posted multiple times in these kinds of discussions):

First, the rise of "pay-up-front" libraries is not displacing anything that was present in the past. ASCAP, for example, has shown increasing payouts for many years, surpassing $1B in 2018. That means that royalty-generating work is increasing, not decreasing. Epidemic sound is not killing anything. They're serving a market that didn't exist 50 years ago.

Second, "pay-up-front" is the way 99.99% of the world works, even in other creative professions. The royalty model is one way to get paid but it's archaic, inefficient and unfair. If you think the PROs have your best interests at heart then by all means use them. But I can tell you that I've had zero positive experiences with ASCAP in fighting for payment for uses of my music and I'd be more than happy to see the PROs disappear and let me decide what fee to charge for a license of my music. We can't do that because the royalty model is so entrenched in the music world. As I've stated many times, painters don't get royalties. Neither do VFX artists. Neither do 99.99% of other professions.

Third, while writing/producing music is a secondary source of income for me, the best bang-for-buck gigs I've gotten have been pay-up-front. By a long shot. Writing an album's worth of music with a guarantee of $500 - $1000 per track is a good deal for me. Way better than the sum of $0.02 royalty payments that show up across hundreds of pages of royalty statements. It's the PROs that are ripping me off, not the pay-up-front libraries. I don't want my music used on those countless $0.02 shows - they have no real impact on my total royalty payments. But I don't have a choice because I'm an ASCAP member. That's ridiculous.

Fourth, if the pay-up-front model is not for you, then you're in luck: you don't have to take part. But I suggest you consider the fact that it makes a lot of sense as of, say, 20 years ago. You can't fight the economics forever. The rise of libraries like Epidemic are proof of that fact.

rgames


----------



## Bman70 (Jul 18, 2020)

rgames said:


> ...I don't want my music used on those countless $0.02 shows - they have no real impact on my total royalty payments. But I don't have a choice because I'm an ASCAP member. That's ridiculous.
> 
> 
> rgames



I was under the impression that if you don't register a work with ASCAP, you can do with it as you will? Only the works in your registered catalog are under their 'protection'?


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 18, 2020)

There is one way to look at it and there is another.
I'm in a situation where i can't get a 'normal' job to give me money to buy the things i want or need for my composing. At the moment i got a roof over my head and a belly full of food and that's it. I look after my 92 yr old mum. She is not disabled so i can't get a 'carers' fee which i did get when i was looking after my dad. Ok, those things you didn't really need to know but, i have shitloads of time on my hands and with that shitloads of time, i write shitloads of music. There are places that we know where i can upload that music and i could get some decent money for every track they feel is worth buying.
Upload it, forget about it, get some income, buy some more gear, upload the next batch.
To me, that sounds pretty good for now


----------



## AlexRuger (Jul 18, 2020)

Four counter-arguments (all of which have been posted multiple times in these kinds of discussions):



rgames said:


> First, the rise of "pay-up-front" libraries is not displacing anything that was present in the past. ASCAP, for example, has shown increasing payouts for many years, surpassing $1B in 2018. That means that royalty-generating work is increasing, not decreasing. Epidemic sound is not killing anything. They're serving a market that didn't exist 50 years ago.



1) Citation needed.
2) Is that increase commensurate with inflation?
3) I very much bet that even if it is, a raise is due to more content being made, not due to royalty rates increasing. In fact, I'll bet you $10 it's only rising _in spite of _decreasing royalty rates, simply because there's so much content being made. I.e. an explosion of streaming-only content paying single-digit cents in royalties will show an increase in royalty work, on balance, but that doesn't mean the situation is getting better -- it's obfuscating the fact that it's getting worse.
4) Up-front fees have only gotten lower with time, so even if points 1-3 are wrong (which I'm sure they're not), we're still getting paid less.



rgames said:


> Second, "pay-up-front" is the way 99.99% of the world works, even in other creative professions. The royalty model is one way to get paid but it's archaic, inefficient and unfair. If you think the PROs have your best interests at heart then by all means use them. But I can tell you that I've had zero positive experiences with ASCAP in fighting for payment for uses of my music and I'd be more than happy to see the PROs disappear and let me decide what fee to charge for a license of my music. We can't do that because the royalty model is so entrenched in the music world. As I've stated many times, painters don't get royalties. Neither do VFX artists. Neither do 99.99% of other professions.



1) As everyone has pointed out to you again and again and again: VFX artists aren't being paid royalties for the same reason that you don't pay your guitarist on your track royalties -- they aren't creating intellectual property, but instead are only contributing to its creation or are creating derivatives of it. Directors, though, who are _employing them in order to contribute to the creation of _their _intellectual property, _do get paid royalties. Come on, man, you're smarter than this.
2) Painters absolutely get paid royalties in certain situations. No, not for painting your room, but for _intellectual property, _yes they absolutely do (and should). Dunno where you're getting that info.

Exploitation of intellectual property adds value to the product or service that is exploiting it, hence a need for a payment.



rgames said:


> Third, while writing/producing music is a secondary source of income for me, the best bang-for-buck gigs I've gotten have been pay-up-front. By a long shot. Writing an album's worth of music with a guarantee of $500 - $1000 per track is a good deal for me. Way better than the sum of $0.02 royalty payments that show up across hundreds of pages of royalty statements. It's the PROs that are ripping me off, not the pay-up-front libraries. I don't want my music used on those countless $0.02 shows - they have no real impact on my total royalty payments. But I don't have a choice because I'm an ASCAP member. That's ridiculous.



1) ASCAP is making you license your music? Sounds like if you want your music to not be used in those $0.02 shows, you need to talk to the library/publisher, not ASCAP.
2) In what way is ASCAP ripping you off? Sounds to me like it's these shows paying shit rates, not ASCAP stealing from you or something.



rgames said:


> Fourth, if the pay-up-front model is not for you, then you're in luck: you don't have to take part. But I suggest you consider the fact that it makes a lot of sense as of, say, 20 years ago. You can't fight the economics forever. The rise of libraries like Epidemic are proof of that fact.



Sigh..."you don't have to take part." Yes, we do, because without royalty payments it's nigh-impossible to build a sustainable career as a composer. And we'd very much like to take part because it's a model that works and makes logical sense. Abandoning the model is not the solution -- holding libraries like Epidemic accountable is.

I _seriously _do not get your resistance to creators getting paid for the usage of intellectual property. It doesn't _have _to be this way so stop treating the current situation like some sort of foregone conclusion. Royalty payments paid multiple orders of magnitude _more _during times when the services that exploited the associated IP made an order of magnitude or two _less, _adjusted for inflation, so the problem here, very simply, is those running these services hoping to avoid having to pay money that they'd rather not pay. It's not a problem with the model, it's a problem with laws and their enforcement.


----------



## Rory (Jul 18, 2020)

AlexRuger said:


> Abandoning the model is not the solution -- holding libraries like Epidemic accountable is.
> 
> ...
> 
> It's not a problem with the model, it's a problem with laws and their enforcement.



A question... What laws are you talking about and how are they being inadequately enforced?

Are you saying that Epidemic Sound is breaking the law?

How are you proposing to ”[hold] libraries like Epidemic Sound accountable”?


----------



## AlexRuger (Jul 18, 2020)

Rory said:


> A question... What laws are you talking about and how are they being inadequately enforced?
> 
> Are you saying that Epidemic Sound is breaking the law?
> 
> How are you proposing to ”[hold] libraries like Epidemic Sound accountable”?



Buyouts of writers share are explicitly illegal in the UK and Europe, and IMO ought to be in the US. 

So, I'm saying that, in the age of streaming, we need to pressure lawmakers to draft legislation that prevents buyouts and makes residuals actually worth getting. There is absolutely zero reason why streaming platforms should pay less than broadcast TV, especially by _this much._

Easier said than done, of course.


----------



## Rory (Jul 18, 2020)

AlexRuger said:


> Buyouts of writers share are explicitly illegal in the UK and Europe, and IMO ought to be in the US.
> 
> So, I'm saying that, in the age of streaming, we need to pressure lawmakers to draft legislation that prevents buyouts and makes residuals actually worth getting. There is absolutely zero reason why streaming platforms should pay less than broadcast TV, especially by _this much._
> 
> Easier said than done, of course.



This is from the article linked in the first post:

”The bigger issue here [the U.K.] is full buyout deals more generally: a 2019 survey by The Ivors Academy found that 35% of British screen composers had been subject to full buyouts or work for hire agreements in the last five years.”

As far as I know, nobody, including the Ivors Academy, the UK Musicians Union and performing rights organisations, has claimed that the Adobe/Epidemic Sound deal is illegal.

It appears that your solution is that the national legislatures of numerous countries should each pass legislation to regulate how composers get paid and presumably how much they get paid as a percentage and maybe as a minimum.

I don’t know what the situation is in the EU (although I note that both of the companies involved in the Adobe deal are EU companies), but I don’t think that there is any serious prospect of this happening in countries where such legislation is not currently in place. At some point, legislatures may start regulating the internet economy, but that isn’t imminent and I think that there are bigger priorities than the kind of special interest issue that you appear to be talking about. What’s a higher priority? For one, the employment status of, and application of minimum wage laws to, gig economy workers like cab drivers and people who make deliveries. And in many jurisdictions, even that’s a controversial issue.


----------



## AlexRuger (Jul 18, 2020)

I should have been more specific: if you are a PRS member, engaging in buyouts is illegal. Just search the forum, there's a few good threads on this.


----------



## Rory (Jul 18, 2020)

AlexRuger said:


> I should have been more specific: if you are a PRS member, engaging in buyouts is illegal. Just search the forum, there's a few good threads on this.



Well if Simon Darlow, the Deputy Chair of the PRS, is to be believed, you haven’t got that right either: https://completemusicupdate.com/art...-of-buyout-deals-in-audio-visual-commissions/

Not that the issues raised by this deal are just about the members of a particular UK rights organisation to begin with.


----------



## Rory (Jul 18, 2020)

I think it’s likely that the Adobe/Epidemic Sound/Jamendo deal will go ahead and that composers will just have to decide whether to participate.

The significance of the deal depends on who Epidemic Sound’s customers are. In its press release announcing the deal, Epidemic Sound boasted that music by one of its U.S. composers was chosen for a McDonald’s commercial. Very impressive. If true, that means that Epidemic Sound, and its composers, are playing in the big leagues.

But why, I wondered, would McDonalds pay top dollar to make a TV commercial, but want to buy non-exclusive music for cheap? So I looked behind the press release. The “commercial“ turns out to be a three minute video on YouTube. Epidemic Sound is a Swedish company. Guess who posted the video. McDonald’s U.S.? Nope. McDonald’s Sweden. I‘d love to know who paid the bill to make this “commercial”.

I suspect that Epidemic Sound got a better return on investment when it paid Peter McKinnon to take one of its composers to Norway, and make a video about the trip, for ... YouTube.

Epidemic Sound’s 2019 revenue? Apparently US$24 million. Not profit, revenue.

There appears to be less criticism of the Jamendo deal. I know almost nothing about this company, which is based in Luxembourg, except that it appears to have some of the attributes of a co-op.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 19, 2020)

Rory said:


> Well if Simon Darlow, the Deputy Chair of the PRS, is to be believed, you haven’t got that right either: https://completemusicupdate.com/art...-of-buyout-deals-in-audio-visual-commissions/
> 
> Not that the issues raised by this deal are just about the members of a particular UK rights organisation to begin with.


If you are a PRS member you don't have the right to give up your share of Broadcast Royatlies. Only PRS can give up that right for you. There seems to be a confusion between Mechanical and Broadcast Royalties going on here. Streaming is, for some reason, not classed as Broadcast, hence the contracts with no streaming rights "offered", by the likes of Netflix.


----------



## Rory (Jul 19, 2020)

Daryl said:


> If you are a PRS member you don't have the right to give up your share of Broadcast Royatlies. Only PRS can give up that right for you.


.

But so what.

Read what Simon Darlow, Deputy Chair of the PRS, says in the linked article. It appears that the PRS does not claim the paternalistic authority to tell its members what to do, and that this is a business decision for individual members. It's also clear that neither the PRS, Ivors, the U.K. Musicians Union, nor anybody else who's credible, claims that the Adobe/Epidemic Sound/Jamendo deal is illegal. In any event, PRS members would appear to be a small piece of what the deal is about.

Darlow:

“The most striking results of the [Ivors] survey are those which show the true nature of the relationship between producers and creators. For example, 41% of creators said they had been required to give away more of their mechanical rights than they wanted and a further 35% said they have been subject to full buyouts or work for hire commissions in the last five years”.

...

"All of that said, Darlow acknowledged that there are scenarios where a complete buyout deal might be appropriate, providing the upfront fee reflected the wider transfer of rights. In particular in markets where the collection of subsequent performance royalties is inefficient or non-existent.

“As an example”, he said, “I’m in the middle of some work for a Middle Eastern TV company where performing rights are barely recognised, so a good fee and the maintenance of all my rights should there be any further international exploitation was the best deal I could do”.

"The key is that it must be the choice of the creator to decide..."


----------



## Varishnipu (Jul 19, 2020)

Epidemic have the best music for youtube users..... very popular and easy to use......I like it and will use to start my videos for coding.....
—————————

—————————

—————————


----------



## SamC (Jul 19, 2020)

I’m a PRS member and royalties are enshrined by law as a human right here. Having said that, as far as I’m aware, that doesn’t stop you from signing buyout deals if it’s presented to you and you think it’s more economically viable. Young composers need to be educated about the value of holding onto their rights so they aren’t constantly signing them away.

I’ve been presented buyout deals from clients all over the world and they’re mostly not worth it though. Every now and then I will sign one. I’ve also had a lot of clients say they want a buyout when they don’t actually know what a buyout is. What they mean is “exclusivity.”

Composers who have poor distribution and/or idle publishers seem to think royalties are pointless. Your backend is entirely project dependent - if you’re in the production music world, the distribution and publishing is key. If you’re scoring a corporate film, take the buyout, if your music is going onto a scripps network, say goodbye to royalties too. It’s not the PRO’s fault...they’re a collection agency.

I scored 3 cinema commercials in the UK last year and the client said they wanted a ‘buyout’ for 5 London Cinemas. The buyout was terrible, but I took it because the commercials were awesome movie tie-ins and it was only a dozen or so screens. It wasn’t until a year later I re-read the terms and they weren’t buying me out, they weren’t even publishing the tracks. I owned them. So I self-published and PRS said my tracks were in fact used in all cinemas nationwide...about 5,000 screens. So I ended up getting a big royalty cheque out of it. I was pretty relieved I didn’t actually sign a buyout deal in the end...

From my experience a buyout is only worth it if you know for sure the project will earn you paltry royalties or it will be shown in a part of the world where royalties aren’t collected. (Like the Middle East, as stated by Darlow). Lots of clients don’t even know what buyout means either, for some reason.

What Epidemic is doing isn’t illegal, it’s just incredibly shitty. I don’t doubt the quality of the music, but these composers are simply giving up all control — Sync, ownership and backend down the tube for “recognition” is so unbelievably naive and detrimental to the business.

I also don’t know where this ‘one or the other’ idea comes from. You can get a great advance and maintain your royalties at the same time in the UK. Especially in production music. My peers from across the pond seem to do pretty well with that too, but they’re established and don’t give up their rights easily.

My only concern is streaming killing royalties. It would be a change I’m willing to embrace if scoring/sync fees went up, but they’re not. If anything they’re shrinking too.

To denigrate the royalty system in an industry where rights are constantly shrinking already seems misguided and counterproductive.


----------



## Rory (Jul 19, 2020)

Epidemic Sound has already made the decision for PRS members. From its FAQ:

"Why can’t I be affiliated with PROs/NROs or collecting societies while working with Epidemic?

"We soundtrack the world; whether that’s soundtracking a store in one part of the world, an online video creator in another or even to help a music streaming listener soundtrack their day. We created a free-flowing distribution of our music for all our customers by being the sole owner of the financial rights to our music, which is not possible for us if the Music Creator is affiliated to a collecting society, due to their exclusive affiliation agreements.

"Thus, none of our Music Creators can be affiliated with any PROs/NROs or collecting societies (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, SoundExchange, STIM, SAMI, etc.), while working for Epidemic. Instead, we pay our Music Creators in a different way than the traditional collecting society system, with up-front payments and 50/50 streaming revenue splits."


----------



## SamC (Jul 19, 2020)

Rory said:


> Epidemic Sound has already made the decision for PRS members. From its FAQ:
> 
> "Why can’t I be affiliated with PROs/NROs or collecting societies while working with Epidemic?
> 
> ...



Not surprised. These platforms are really designed for this side hustle culture we have now - musicians who want to get “noticed” and make some extra coffee money for their efforts. A lot of these sites like Artlist spend an awful lot of cash advertising to composers — the less they know about their rights the better.

Nothing is stopping PRO members from simply writing for these platforms anyway. It’s not like the PRO’s will send round some goons to threaten you and rough up your midi keyboard. You could even just use a pseudonym if you really wanted to take part.

The quality gets better and better but to be honest, any filmmaker/creative worth their salt understands the importance of collaboration, bespoke music to fit a narrative/brand or specific high quality production music. I try hard to work with likeminded people like that, and who knows, the proliferation of these platforms could make what we do even more valuable in the long run. It’s just a shame that what could be a ladder for composers is really a rope to nowhere.

I didn’t get into this industry thinking it was easy, and adapting to change is what you do to survive.

We’ll see how this plays out.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 19, 2020)

Rory said:


> .
> 
> But so what.
> 
> Read what Simon Darlow, Deputy Chair of the PRS, says in the linked article. It appears that the PRS does not claim the paternalistic authority to tell its members what to do...


You misunderstand. I'm not interested in what Darlow says. I am telling you what you signed up to when you joined PRS.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 19, 2020)

SamC said:


> I’m a PRS member and royalties are enshrined by law as a human right here. Having said that, as far as I’m aware, that doesn’t stop you from signing buyout deals if it’s presented to you and you think it’s more economically viable.


It you're talking about Broadcast Royatlies, you are not able to give these away, as you don't own them. PRS does. This is what you signed up to when you joined. Furthermore, you don't have to register a track with PRS for this to apply, It applies to everything you write. The only way out of this is to sign with another PRO in a different Territory, and give away your rights there.


----------



## SamC (Jul 20, 2020)

Daryl said:


> It you're talking about Broadcast Royatlies, you are not able to give these away, as you don't own them. PRS does. This is what you signed up to when you joined. Furthermore, you don't have to register a track with PRS for this to apply, It applies to everything you write. The only way out of this is to sign with another PRO in a different Territory, and give away your rights there.



Luckily I‘ve never taken a broadcast buyout offer - most buyout offers I’ve seen have been pretty dismal imo and I rarely feel in a position to command the buyout I’d want anyway. If there comes a time when there’s no other way and I don’t feel like my PRO has my best interests at heart, a big decision will have to be made.

If it ever happens, being forced into these epidemic-esque deals will be a sad day. Less than £400 per track buyout? Some of the tracks are solid and would have a great shelf-life in somewhere like EMI’s libraries who pay more than that just as an advance, before royalties. Not only that, you get clients reusing them for a series or title music/commercial and it keeps paying out. If I had my stuff in Epidemic Sound and saw my music being used in a network promo or a nationwide commercial, I’d kick myself.


----------



## rgames (Jul 20, 2020)

AlexRuger said:


> 2) In what way is ASCAP ripping you off?


By providing blanket licenses to networks that provide me a total of $0.02 for a given show. That's an ASCAP problem, not a problem with the show. It gets even worse: ASCAP knowingly allows shows to use members' music for free because of their archaic "sampling" system.

If you get royalty payments and you've figured out a way around these problems then please let us know. There are lots of royalty-generating composers who hate it and would like to know how you get around it. There was some news about a year ago where the legal justification for this "consent decree" was brought up and considered for termination but I didn't track where it wound up.

So, FYI, I'm not the only one saying this is a problem. I'm not sure how you missed it if you generate any royalties. (Here ya go: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/depa...es require ASCAP and,of a U.S. district judge.)

Bottom line: PROs are one way to get paid. They're not the only way. If you like it, enjoy. But the way of the future is in a different direction. Times change. The barter system was the de-facto method of payment a while back. Times changed and I think we're better off now.

Also, because I confounded it in my earlier post, I think royalties are fine (when I say "royalties" in these discussions I usually mean "PRO-administered royalties"). It's the PROs that are the archaic colossus. Engineers get royalties. But they don't have PROs. They have a say in what it costs to use their IP. As an ASCAP member, I do not. I don't even have a say in whether my music can legally be used for free.

Apple doesn't have a PRO telling them how much they get paid for licenses. Neither does Google or Amazon or pretty much anyone other than composers. But I have ASCAP telling me how much someone pays for my music. And that value can be as low as $0. I don't like that. But I don't have a choice right now. But times they are a-changing.

I don't have any relationship with Epidemic but I bet they do not knowingly give away music. ASCAP does.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Jul 20, 2020)

Bman70 said:


> I was under the impression that if you don't register a work with ASCAP, you can do with it as you will? Only the works in your registered catalog are under their 'protection'?


That is correct. But many libraries, especially in the EU, don't want to deal with the hassle of keeping track. When they try to sell a license in some non-US country and you show up as an ASCAP composer they assume everything you write is covered by ASCAP. So it's simpler for them to just not deal with anyone who's a member of a PRO.

In fact I think I remember having that exact conversation with someone from Epidemic a while back.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Jul 20, 2020)

SamC said:


> but these composers are simply giving up all control


That's also what you do if you work for Apple. Or Google. Or Amazon. Or GE. Or Lockheed. Or Facebook. Or Tesla. Or Boeing. Or 3M. Or BAE. Or Ford. Or Oculus. Or Uber. Or Toyota. Or Or Or Or Or.... And last I checked, people who work for those companies tend to do OK... ???

There's nothing wrong with giving up your IP. It's a choice. And it's the choice that 99.99% of the world prefers.

There's nothing immoral or "shitty" about it. Composers need to get over themselves. We come up with musical ideas. Great. Get paid for them. Move on. Just like the rest of the world.

rgames


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 20, 2020)

I've been reading a lot about the subscription model critiques. Basically, capitalism nowadays is about disrupting (overused pitch word I know) business models. Clearly, the music license subscription thing came to disrupt. But, there's a huge but, companies like Adobe are very abusive in their contracts with customers (just get Photoshop for a month or 3, suddently you get locked for 1 year). 

I'm not sure if they'll be able to sustain such business practices, or if they will be so profitable once a mass wave of costumers start complaining.

If there's a decent paycheck on these subscription libraries, why not? Better than have your tracks sitting on a library that gets no deal after 3 years, or very small sums, like often happens. Epidemic also only hires swedes and americans, so that's a bit bad for ppl like me who are neither.


----------



## Rory (Jul 20, 2020)

This discussion went on for three pages before I noted that Epidemic Sound won't even do business with the people here who were waxing indignant and throwing around completely unfounded claims of illegality. This says something about the awareness of people here about what's going on. Epidemic Sound's position was on its home page and in its FAQ, in plain English, for anyone who took a couple of minutes to look, instead of firing off misinformed posts, in some cases "correcting" others, on an internet forum. Not hard to figure out where the bookies would put their money.


----------



## Rory (Jul 20, 2020)

Daryl said:


> You misunderstand. I'm not interested in what Darlow says.



Okey Doke.


----------



## InLight-Tone (Jul 20, 2020)

Rory said:


> This discussion went on for three pages before I noted that Epidemic Sound won't even do business with the people here who were waxing indignant and throwing around completely unfounded claims of illegality. This says something about the awareness of people here about what's going on. Epidemic Sound's position was on its home page and in its FAQ, in plain English, for anyone who took a couple of minutes to look, instead of firing off misinformed posts, in some cases "correcting" others, on an internet forum. Not hard to figure out where the bookies would put their money.


It's hard for old school/past ways of making it in music to comprehend. Meanwhile youngsters are banking hard...


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 20, 2020)

InLight-Tone said:


> It's hard for old school/past ways of making it in music to comprehend. Meanwhile youngsters are banking hard...



From what I understand they buy the artist risk and keep a good chunk of the reward. The risk is having your track gathering dust on your HD or a non active library. The reward is hitting the jackpot with your earnings. The crem de la creme regarding money in the industry today IMO is getting a lot of streams in Spotify or other streaming sites. 

That being said, it's not so easy getting into these subscription libraries tbh, the gates are pretty closed in there from what I gathered, as in new songs are mostly from artists who are already there.


----------



## Thundercat (Jul 20, 2020)

rgames said:


> That's also what you do if you work for Apple. Or Google. Or Amazon. Or GE. Or Lockheed. Or Facebook. Or Tesla. Or Boeing. Or 3M. Or BAE. Or Ford. Or Oculus. Or Uber. Or Toyota. Or Or Or Or Or.... And last I checked, people who work for those companies tend to do OK... ???
> 
> There's nothing wrong with giving up your IP. It's a choice. And it's the choice that 99.99% of the world prefers.
> 
> ...


I think you're being unnecessarily harsh, and unrealistic.

Composers, as a rule, are not paid anywhere near what they worth when dismal buyout offers come around. Those engineers you mentioned - they are working FOR another company, and GETTING PAID WELL AND REGULARLY. Composers are working for themselves. And often not getting paid often, or well. There's a huge difference. As in, epically huge.

If I agree to work for the aforementioned companies, I know going in I'm going to lose out on IP royalties, but I'll be paid well, and consistently, every single day of the year.

Composers do not work for a company. They do not receive the benefit of a regular paycheck. They take a huge risk in sacrificing their IP - the engineers at google do not.

It is the risk you are missing here - the risk that the music will in fact go nowhere, and the composer get nothing. That's quite often the end result for most compositions, unless commissioned.

I think you are conflating two entirely different business models.

I greatly respect you. You are articulate and know how to turn a phrase. But you are not singing for your supper, by a long shot. You have the luxury of being able to afford not to do well with your music. Many composers are hand to mouth and the royalty system at least gives a measure of ongoing income and support for their livelihoods that buyouts would not provide. And this system has worked well for many decades.

If buyout offers were in the 4 digits minimum, then it might be a different story. But they generally are not unless you are well known.

You keep peddling this concept that composers have to get over themselves and stop expecting to be paid fairly and decently for their IP by giving up royalties and taking shitty buyout deals because "that's capitalism." Well that is not capitalism, that is vulturism.

And there ARE still many areas of business where royalties are de rigueur. And composing is one of them. As is acting. As is screenwriting. As is book writing. And many other areas. I suppose you think all of these industries ought to suck it up and not get a share of ongoing revenues for the work they have created?

Heck - by your posts, why should ANYONE get an ongoing share of revenues when IP is sold over and over again? We could argue until the cows come home on that one. Why should Epidemic get to get paid every single month for countless musicians' hard work, while the musicians should get no ongoing monies?

Oh, you'll tell me they are continuing to advertise and sell the pieces. That's why they deserve to keep getting paid.

But sans the content, there would be NOTHING for them to get paid FOR!

So it is TOTALLY appropriate for the composer to keep getting paid every single time one of his/her pieces is sold. Someone else got paid - why not the composer, EACH TIME?

We are not selling consumables here. Music is eternal. It can be copied and reproduced at the flick of a mouse. Why some should keep getting paid over and over, but not the creator of the work itself? It's absurd to even proffer that position.

It's totally cool if you don't like the royalty system and you want to usher in a new area of heartless exploitation. Cool. Live in that world.

But I'm not going to foster that kind of system.

Mike


----------



## SamC (Jul 21, 2020)

rgames said:


> That's also what you do if you work for Apple. Or Google. Or Amazon. Or GE. Or Lockheed. Or Facebook. Or Tesla. Or Boeing. Or 3M. Or BAE. Or Ford. Or Oculus. Or Uber. Or Toyota. Or Or Or Or Or.... And last I checked, people who work for those companies tend to do OK... ???
> 
> There's nothing wrong with giving up your IP. It's a choice. And it's the choice that 99.99% of the world prefers.
> 
> ...



I always make a point in my posts to say I am willing to embrace change if it makes economic sense. And you’re right, it’s a choice. It just so happens that 95% of the time I choose royalties. Why? Because it simply makes sense, monetarily. Models like Epidemic Sound are simply not economically viable for a working composer, and people who think they are do not pay their mortgage with their music. Sooner or later I see a time when there will be no choice - it’ll be “take this dismal buyout or we’ll hire someone else who will.” - Sadly, this is an environment Epidemic-like models are harbouring.

If I worked for any of those companies you listed, I wouldn’t care about royalties either, because my salary would be worth it. Just like when you write music for AAA video games - they rarely pay royalties, why? Because they pay you great upfront payments that make it all worth while.

I am not a Boeing or Apple employee, I work for myself. A freelance composer lives or dies by his/her IP when terrible buyouts are widespread. It’s not about “getting over ourselves” we’re trying to continue to feed our families the way we have been. Epidemic is shitty imo because I think their buyouts take advantage of composers. If they paid what Boeing and GE paid, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

I’ll give up my IP when it becomes even remotely worth it.


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 21, 2020)

SamC said:


> I always make a point in my posts to say I am willing to embrace change if it makes economic sense. And you’re right, it’s a choice. It just so happens that 95% of the time I choose royalties. Why? Because models like Epidemic Sound are simply not economically viable for a working composer, and people who think they are do not pay their mortgage with their music. Sooner or later I see a time when there will be no choice - it’ll be “take this dismal buyout or we’ll hire someone else who will.”
> 
> If I worked for all those companies you listed, I wouldn’t care about royalties either, because my salary would be worth it. Just like when you write music for AAA video games - they rarely pay royalties, why? Because they pay you great upfront payments that make it all worth while.
> 
> ...



here's the thing with Epidemic, even if they could fire their employed musicians if music does not sell, they also face a chance that the music won't sell and doesn't cover the cost of their buyouts. I don't know much about labor laws in the US, it seems really flexible, but the royalties thing seems like a circunvention of musician labor laws in some countries, so some complain. I think it's a disruption and if they pay well and the pay has an uptrend and more opportunities arise, I'm all good.

licensing music being a private club doesn't help many of us neither... these bigger mainstream sites are a first stop for many starting out (although as I said, it's not easy to get in). 

I agree with rgames in the sense that we grow too attached to our music and professionalism is positive. We should do music with love though and avoid being a mercenary.

also, remember if you do coding for Google or IBM, the code is theirs... coders are in a way, giving away their IP to these companies...and companies give means for these professionals to do their jobs.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 21, 2020)

It seems to me that following the Endemic model is putting all of your eggs into one decidedly dodgy basket. Whilst theoretically you could be paid $500 a track, write one track a day, every week, the whole year round and make a good living, is this the reality? I suspect not. So you by not joining a PRO, you are losing all the potential income from the rest of the music industry. Therefore, I think one would need a little more job security from the Publishers, before giving everything else up.


----------



## clisma (Jul 21, 2020)

classified_the_x said:


> also, remember if you do coding for Google or IBM, the code is theirs... coders are in a way, giving away their IP to these companies...and companies give means for these professionals to do their jobs.


Then Epidemic should pay their composers a monthly salary, regardless of their musical output. Only then would you actually have equivalency between the two examples.


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 21, 2020)

clisma said:


> Then Epidemic should pay their composers a monthly salary, regardless of their musical output. Only then would you actually have equivalency between the two examples.



it actually is a job it seems, the epidemic thing. as I said, I didn't look too much as there were territory restrictions. obviously if you don't do nothing you might get pay but you have no job the next month

no one from Epidemic or similar sites is posting here and can shed some more info? I read so many forums and they seem to only lurk and never report a thing


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 21, 2020)

This is interesting


----------



## AlexRuger (Jul 21, 2020)

rgames said:


> That's also what you do if you work for Apple. Or Google. Or Amazon. Or GE. Or Lockheed. Or Facebook. Or Tesla. Or Boeing. Or 3M. Or BAE. Or Ford. Or Oculus. Or Uber. Or Toyota. Or Or Or Or Or.... And last I checked, people who work for those companies tend to do OK... ???
> 
> There's nothing wrong with giving up your IP. It's a choice. And it's the choice that 99.99% of the world prefers.
> 
> ...


You’re still confusing IP ownership with just being an employee. An Instagram coder does not own the IP that is Instagram. The founder does (unless they sold it, in this case, to Zuckerberg). 

There’s a reason a tech company can sell for billions while a coder is paid “merely” in the 50k - 250k range. IP is valuable. 

Sometimes this gets complicated with coders because they are coming up with new ideas that contribute to said IP. 99% of the time, their contributions are bought out, usually in exchange for a high salary that includes stock options (partial ownership of the IP commensurate with their contributions to it).

A Ford assembly line worker does not own the IP that is the design of the car. They’re being paid for labor, that’s it. No IP involved. The designer of the car, however, will be paid for the exploitation of that design. 

Composers are not laborers. The engineer running the desk at a recording session is. Please understand this distinction. For all your apparent knowledge of economics, are you just willfully dense or do you think that the entire apparatus of IP is flawed?


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 21, 2020)

AlexRuger said:


> You’re still confusing IP ownership with just being an employee. An Instagram coder does not own the IP that is Instagram. The founder does (unless they sold it, in this case, to Zuckerberg).
> 
> There’s a reason a tech company can sell for billions while a coder is paid “merely” in the 50k - 250k range. IP is valuable.
> 
> ...



you made me remember a perfect analogy to old Renaissance art practices. there were lots of "bottegas" or "bodegas", which were guilds of artists lead by a great master. the great master would pay (or not) these employees, who would contribute to his art which would be sold under his name. In a way, these subscription libs are acting like bottegas. Back then, pupils would go for the learning, nowadays, musicians go for the pay. Up to today, the painter Jeff Koons also receives loads of criticism because he has ppl painting his collages for him.









The Innovative Coworking Spaces of 15th-Century Italy


Where technological advances meet aesthetic beauty.




hbr.org


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 21, 2020)

AlexRuger said:


> Composers are not laborers. The engineer running the desk at a recording session is.




What if the composer is the creator, mixing engineer, mastering technician, and marketing director for his/her completed tracks? Would that constitute a laborer?


----------



## AlexRuger (Jul 21, 2020)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> What if the composer is the creator, mixing engineer, mastering technician, and marketing director for his/her completed tracks? Would that constitute a laborer?


No...you're just doing work that others might be able to do. Not hiring laborers doesn't negate the fact that you just created IP.


----------



## SamC (Jul 21, 2020)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> What if the composer is the creator, mixing engineer, mastering technician, and marketing director for his/her completed tracks? Would that constitute a laborer?



No, because the key word there is “creator.”

If anything, doing all that gives you even _more_ reason to hold onto your authorship and/or royalty right.

The fact people write, record, mix, master and market themselves and their music only to sell it all for $500 is just bad business.

Then you have people justifying it because people at Toyota don’t get royalties. I must be so behind the times because I really don’t get it.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 21, 2020)

SamC said:


> The fact people write, record, mix, master and market themselves and their music only to sell it all for $500 is just bad business.



+1000. I can't even get my head around that.


----------



## AlexRuger (Jul 21, 2020)

Am I crazy or do tons of people on this forum not understand the concept of IP? 

The latest post on this thread by @Thundercat is a great example. While we're on the same "side" here, you're turning what can remain a purely logical argument into a moral one, which under capitalism will never win, because capitalism does not engage in moral arguments, only financial ones. Like, I personally dig your argument, but you're adding a bunch of cruft to it that those you're actually trying to persuade won't care about and will discard.

The retaining of proper IP legislation and royalty payouts doesn't _need _to have anything to do with the moral or emotional side of the argument, e.g. the risk that composers take on, etc. @rgames would _rightly _point out that taking on that risk is the choice of the composer. We are, after all, _entrepreneurs, _and choosing to *start a business* in order to *sell a product* in a highly competitive, cut-throat industry is a _choice _that we don't _have _to make. No one forces anyone to start a business, so the difficulty involved in us not receiving a regular paycheck, having a stable employer, etc, are _not _good arguments for why royalty payments should remain high.

I've made this argument before but whatever I guess I have to again.

Part 1:

You design a chair. A company goes "we like that design, we'd like to produce and sell a bunch of those chairs." *Without access to your (or a) design, the company does not have a product to sell. *Therefore, your design -- which is intellectual property -- is inseparable from most if not all of the value that the company is selling. Obviously, they are adding their own value -- namely, the ability to mass produce the chair, to find distributors for the chair (or perhaps distribute the chair themselves), etc. They want to profit from their ability to do all of that, and you want to profit from your ability to design chairs. Sounds like you're in business.

They can offer to buy your design from you so that they can use it royalty-free, but after that, you're done. No more money. Make sure that number is fucking high, because once it's gone, it's gone. 

Or, you can license the design to them. Your chair design is hot shit, so they want exclusive rights to produce it -- no one else can purchase a license from you -- and therefore they've gotta pay a little extra. But now, whenever _they _gain _value _from _your _design, you make a little cash. After all, they wouldn't be earning that value without your design. No design, no chairs to sell.

Part 2:

You are a craftsman. You work at a company that builds chairs. You don't like your salary, so you go to your boss one day and say "Hey, I make all these chairs, why don't I get a cut per each chair that's made?" Your boss laughs you out of the room because even _he _doesn't get a cut per chair. Well, both of you do _indirectly _in that you receive a cut of the profit that the _company producing the chairs _makes, but that is _not the same thing _as _getting a cut per each chair sold, _because the _design _of the chair and the _chairs themselves _are separate. Right? Got it?

Okay. So.

Composers often labor for themselves, sure -- we often build our chairs. In the above example, we are the designers of the chairs and the manufacturers (we "build" the music) and the distributors and the marketers and the sellers. However, every single one of those roles _could _and sometimes _are _filled by other people. The only thing you can't replace is the idea itself. 

When someone does one of those other roles, there's two ways that goes:
1) You hire them because you can't do it yourself. You may _choose _to reward them by giving them some cut of the royalties to your music (they're probably contributing to creation or exploitation of the _recording, _not the _composition, _so in most cases the cut they get is from/is the mechanical or publishing). And perhaps you find their contributions so integral to the _composition_ that you give to split some of the writers share (see: Hans giving Lisa writers credit for the Gladiator score). 
2) Their business model relies on you having already created the thing. Rather than being contractors or work (read: labor) for hire, they run their own businesses that are specifically intended to do a thing that you might not be able to do, but require the thing that you can do. See: music libraries taking 100% of the publishing due to their ability to get the music out there and licensed ("exploited"). Without the music, their business model would not exist, but publishing is such a tough game that we composers find it worth the money (allegedly) to part with +/- half of the potential royalty income

Obviously the above two kind of blend together. In a sense, we are "paying" publishers to license our music in the form of transferring partial ownership to them -- it's like giving them stock options in the business of "the composition." In the same sense, they are "paying" us to do the work, by getting the music made and giving them something to sell, by "allowing" us to keep partial ownership of the music.

And then, there's TV shows/movies/ads/etc -- without your music, they've got nothing. Their product is incomplete. Sure, they can buy it, but you are _far _better off licensing it -- or, again, "selling" partial ownership (make sure you get paid enough for it, because that shit is valuable!) -- than just participating in a buyout.

Those who own IP can continue to exploit it for money. Those who don't, can't. Intellectual Property is property just like anything else. And though the idea of "property" can get fuzzy the more into the weeds you go, I'd say that the vast majority of humanity (assuming they're arguing in good faith) all agrees that if you _create _something -- not necessarily the physical facsimile, but the _concept _driving the _thing itself _-- you own it. Who else would?

Bottom line: Understand that what you're creating has value. The fact that people want to buy the right to ownership of it should be proof enough of that (who offers to buy something they don't want?), especially considering that owning it enables the owner to make theoretically infinite money from it. If the offer is low, your music either has low value, or more likely, someone wants to maximize their potential profit of your IP as much as possible. Don't part with it unless it makes sense (and many times it does -- though never the writers share, ever), and especially don't accept a business model that _used _to easily pay out tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars for, say, a major national ad campaign score, in combined upfront and royalty payments (with the possibility of _reusing _that music for something else) telling you that now they can only "afford" to buy it once and that's it. They only want that because they want the ability to sell it again. Clearly the demand is high -- all these royalty-free libraries are competing in the space of "sell music to people who want to sync it in media," and the only reason this model is emerging so aggressively is because "the product" isn't just the music, but the complexity involved in getting it. "Royalty free" is simple, not only because there's no paper work (for the filmmakers, etc), but because "music" is now associated with "Spotify" i.e. "pay a monthly subscription fee and get everything you want." The legal overhead of "access to music" has been ground down to a nub in the minds of the vast majority of the populace, and that level of simplicity is now expected. 

This is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. What we really need is a proper way of tracking and identifying who is owed what for music used on the internet, _without _the need for cue sheet submissions/etc (lots of paper work and admin fees). The tech is there -- see Shazam -- but the will is not because it's not profitable. This is one reason why the PROs kind of suck (the fact that there are competing "neutral" agencies is ridiculous; it's obvious to anyone with a brain that it should be a singular arm of the government, not a private business, even if it's technically not-for-profit), and so in many ways I totally agree with @rgames that they're dinosaurs and aren't helping us.

Capitalists _always _want to lower costs and maximize profits. It is what it is, moral or emotional arguments aside. Currently, it appears possible to those that want to purchase/own your music that they can get away with paying next to nothing and can work to eliminate the largest source of payments altogether. It's nothing more than a complex version of you haggling for a TV you're buying off of Craigslist. They want to pay less, period. 

Please for the love of god everyone educate yourselves on what it is you're actually creating and engaging in when you make music that is entering a marketplace. Ignorance on the part of composers is one of the primary driving forces behind all of this, not just shady mustache-twirling capitalists in black hats. Ignorance is the single reason why a company as massively successful as Netflix can get away with commissioning and buying out a whole season of TV score for, what, $40k? Because to so many young composers, they salivate at a lump sum payment equal to the salary of whatever job they've worked up to now, not realizing they could easily add another zero (or more) to that payment over the course of their lives just by retaining the writers share. Which says nothing of the also-falling upfront payments.

Gah.

I don't know how to end this so I'm just gonna stop typing.


----------



## Rasoul Morteza (Jul 21, 2020)

rgames said:


> That's also what you do if you work for Apple. Or Google. Or Amazon. Or GE. Or Lockheed. Or Facebook. Or Tesla. Or Boeing. Or 3M. Or BAE. Or Ford. Or Oculus. Or Uber. Or Toyota. Or Or Or Or Or.... And last I checked, people who work for those companies tend to do OK... ???
> 
> There's nothing wrong with giving up your IP. It's a choice. And it's the choice that 99.99% of the world prefers.
> 
> There's nothing immoral or "shitty" about it. Composers need to get over themselves. We come up with musical ideas. Great. Get paid for them. Move on. Just like the rest of the world.


Hi Richard,

As a former engineering consultant, we rarely do anything involved with IP creation, thus charging a flat hourly rate or an upfront fee. But those who do create IP (futuristic patents ring a bell...?) in the technological domain protect it like war-dogs and have legal teams solely dedicated to the whole matter. Don't worry, they're smart.

How the world behaves is different from how the world prefers it to behave unless you are referring to a small minority who deliberately exploit unawareness and loopholes as hard as they can for financial gains. And it does concern us and our livelihoods.

There is a very good reason why royalties exist. Putting aside the concept of IP creation, movies are subject to theatrical success, disc sales and online sales/streams. I know you know this. But removing the model will make it near impossible for full-time composers to be able to sustain themselves because of the ever decreasing budgets of movies/shows where the upfront fee may not be enough (as it isn't in most cases). Don't forget that composers hire a plethora of other people to aid them in the process, so this will be a long chain of nasty events.

As a consequence many (and some have told this directly to myself or to people around me) that the rates they charge absolutely do not make any sense whatsoever, so they're forced to sustain themselves and their families through other means, like day jobs, etc. Believe me, no matter how good music tech is becoming but the sole fact that people are working for peanuts has resulted in really mediocre at best music pumping everywhere. Just take a look at the online photography world, do you really want us to dive so low?

If we are really going to give up on this idea of royalty payments in return for our IP, not only is this decision going to have no way of return, it will decimate the livelihoods of many (and it will), but people who start working for peanuts will pump the area with mediocre music that even made some goons invest in AI to replace them. All whilst people at the top exploiting the system are having a really good time.

Giving up your IP is a choice as you say. Throwing your gun in the lake is also a choice when surrounded by grizzly bears. Not sure if running for scraps of financial safety is what we want to leave behind for future generations of musicians.

@AlexRuger explained everything perfectly. I really do not understand why there is still some confusion here. And it isn't his first time, I am sure he did a lot of explaining during the discovery dilemma.

Cheers


----------



## SamC (Jul 21, 2020)

AlexRuger said:


> Am I crazy or do tons of people on this forum not understand the concept of IP?
> 
> The latest post on this thread by @Thundercat is a great example. While we're on the same "side" here, you're turning what can remain a purely logical argument into a moral one, which under capitalism will never win, because capitalism does not engage in moral arguments, only financial ones. Like, I personally dig your argument, but you're adding a bunch of cruft to it that those you're actually trying to persuade won't care about and will discard.
> 
> ...



Great post - I wish this could be stickied somewhere!


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jul 21, 2020)

I work as a video creator as my main job, using Adobe and Premiere. From this perspective, this seems interesting.
But I'm also a very passionate hobby composer with bigger future goals. From this perspective, I hate it.


----------



## rgames (Jul 21, 2020)

SamC said:


> I’ll give up my IP when it becomes even remotely worth it.


Agreed! And for a lot of people, it is absolutely worth it.


----------



## rgames (Jul 21, 2020)

Thundercat said:


> Those engineers you mentioned - they are working FOR another company


Some are. But many are not. There are more self-emplyed, small-business owner engineers than composers by a long shot.

And they generate lots of IP.

And they don't have a PRO.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Jul 21, 2020)

Rasoul Morteza said:


> As a former engineering consultant, we rarely do anything involved with IP creation


Then you probably didn't make a lot of money 

IP generation is where it's at if you're an engineer. Your number of patents is metric #3 if you're an engineer. Number of patent citations is metric #2. Your number of patent licenses is metric #1.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Jul 21, 2020)

Rasoul Morteza said:


> There is a very good reason why royalties exist.


Again - I'm not opposed to royalties. I think PROs are archaic. You don't need PROs to have royalties.


----------



## Kent (Jul 21, 2020)

AlexRuger said:


> Am I crazy or do tons of people on this forum not understand the concept of IP?
> 
> The latest post on this thread by @Thundercat is a great example. While we're on the same "side" here, you're turning what can remain a purely logical argument into a moral one, which under capitalism will never win, because capitalism does not engage in moral arguments, only financial ones. Like, I personally dig your argument, but you're adding a bunch of cruft to it that those you're actually trying to persuade won't care about and will discard.
> 
> ...


Masterful summary, man.


----------



## AlexRuger (Jul 21, 2020)

rgames said:


> Again - I'm not opposed to royalties. I think PROs are archaic. You don't need PROs to have royalties.


As I mentioned in my big long post: yup, I agree. PROs _at the very least _need to update their ability to track internet plays.

Honestly, the fact that "PROs" aren't just a single server sitting in a government building chugging (the only human interaction required being restarting the machine when necessary) is ridiculous. If it were profitable, a tech company would have already solved this problem.

What is your proposed solution for collecting royalties, in lieu of PROs?


----------



## NoamL (Jul 21, 2020)

Check this out (re @AlexRuger & @rgames discussion)



This is the end of times for low-rent music creators, because online creators have no desire to mess around with copyright. They see music as a commodity and want to pay a one time purchase fee. Most devastating of all (from our point of view) they see copyright as an enemy that threatens their own small businesses because THEY experience copyright as arbitrary, hard-to-gainsay shutdowns executed by giant media corporations.

I don't think you can fight a tsunami. The earlier comparison to stock photography is spot on. Wedding photographers still make money. You have to have a gig that's agreed, and scheduled, so that someone else cannot undercut your price asynchronously. When you put music in a library it may be _considered_ for some placement but it's in asynchronous competition with every other library cue ever written. The producer or creative director is under no pressure to come to terms with any one composer.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 22, 2020)

It seems that there are quite a few subjects that are being rolled into one on this thread. However, for me the most pertinent one is whether or not,as a composer, you can sell or give away your IP to 3rd party. The answer is yes, in some territories and yes, with caveats in others. The question of whether or not you should is a separate issue.

The issue of PROs is also a totally separate issue, and perhaps it would be good to discuss that on a separate thread.


----------



## SamC (Jul 22, 2020)

NoamL said:


> Check this out (re @AlexRuger & @rgames discussion)
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thing is, I don’t even mind youtubers and video creators like travel/wedding videographers using these services - it makes total economic sense to them and there‘s virtually no backend to have in that domain anyway. Most libraries have different license tiers so the price is incredibly low for them anyway. If Epidemic was a library of vlog/online licensing, I wouldn’t mind.

What I don’t like are the lines being blurred between that and broadcast. The _opportunity _for tv/film projects to use that material is the thing that’s concerning because composers will be losing out *big time*.

I also find it ironic that filmmakers don’t want to deal with copyright when the first thing they’re going to want to do with their own work is copyright it. Especially as they get more and more successful and start creating profitable IP. If they turn around and see music as a cheap afterthought, we’re screwed.

If an indie filmmaker or a vlogger wants to use my music, I can make a concession and have done in the past. It’s also why I like to score indies on the cheap sometimes - it’s worth it because you believe in the project and the creator believes in you and wants to work with you.

However, making those same concessions for conglomerates like Netflix who understand full well what they’re doing when it comes to low buyouts is a slippery slope to unemployment. It’s not sustainable, pure and simple.

We’re being asked to ignore that different clients means different levels of income, that’s where the control vanishes for composers/publishers. Coca-Cola can license a song from Epidemic, and someone can license the same one for a YouTube unboxing video. In both scenarios, the composers gets zero.

A Tsunami indeed!


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 22, 2020)

SamC said:


> Thing is, I don’t even mind youtubers and video creators like travel/wedding videographers using these services - it makes total economic sense to them and there‘s virtually no backend to have in that domain anyway. Most libraries have different license tiers so the price is incredibly low for them anyway. If Epidemic was a library of vlog/online licensing, I wouldn’t mind.
> 
> What I don’t like are the lines being blurred between that and broadcast. The _opportunity _for tv/film projects to use that material is the thing that’s concerning because composers will be losing out *big time*.
> 
> ...



things will probably settle at something like image rights / likeness / stock photos

no one has guts to use 3rd party images in serious or commercial websites these days. and good stuff is not cheap by any means, unless you think $50 for a photo from Shutterstock or much more from Getty is not money...

ppl will deal with the fact they need to pay for music and musicians will stop giving music away. my bet. custom work might take a hit as things get more dynamic.

the government and NWO plan for us seem to be to reduce incomes but have incomes for everybody. we must deal with it. no more stars... welcome to the USSR lol


----------



## SamC (Jul 22, 2020)

rgames said:


> Agreed! And for a lot of people, it is absolutely worth it.



It really depends on the project as there are definite exceptions - especially with how varied media is these days. On the whole, I don’t know many professional composers who find giving up their intellectual property rights to be worth it. Definitely not in this climate...yet.

If you’re a hobbyist, or writing for corporate films, internet ads, short films, independent films, it can be worth it.

For buyouts I’ve been offered, I’ve initially kicked myself for not taking them because I could’ve done with the immediate money, only to be so thankful I stuck to my guns and had patience because the payout for years ahead has been worth it by a mile.

Without a doubt, royalties have afforded me a livelihood through my music I never thought was possible. That’s why I encourage other composers to do the same. I want them to realise their full economic potential and protect the next generation of artists.

If I felt I wasn’t doing that and people didn’t seem so desperate to buy me out of my rights I wouldn’t be so defiant.


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 22, 2020)

If i was a pro, i wouldn't dream of seeling my IP no way.

As a hobbyist that write loads of music that just sits on my hard drive, earning some quick cash from it is fine. I'm not gonna make wads from royaltys cos i'm a nobody. i get maybe a few listens on SC and YT.

Like i have mentioned before in this thread, write shitloads, sell them, forget about them and make some much needed money.

If i do ever get recognised, then all that stops.

Rather than it sitting on my hard drive doing nothing. I have paid a small fortune in the last few years buying instruments and libraries, it would be nice to see a return from it all.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 22, 2020)

SamC said:


> Without a doubt, royalties have afforded me a livelihood through my music I never thought was possible. That’s why I encourage other composers to do the same. I want them to realise their full economic potential and protect the next generation of artists.
> 
> If I felt I wasn’t doing that and people didn’t seem so desperate to buy me out of my rights I wouldn’t be so defiant.



Without wishing to be cruel, it seems to me that the people who advocate giving up Royalties are usually the unsuccessful composers. This would make sense, because those of us who are successful know first hand how much we stand to lose. It's easy to give up what you've never had, and I don't blame anyone for doing this. However if composing is to be a professional pursuit, we really can't allow policy decisions to be set by the amateurs.

For me, it is unlikely that I will be affected by any of this in the short term, and, being old, long term it probably doesn't matter either. However, like you, it is important to me that there is such a job as a professional composer in the future, so I will do what I can to help ensure this.


----------



## SamC (Jul 22, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> If i was a pro, i wouldn't dream of seeling my IP no way.
> 
> As a hobbyist that write loads of music that just sits on my hard drive, earning some quick cash from it is fine. I'm not gonna make wads from royaltys cos i'm a nobody. i get maybe a few listens on SC and YT.
> 
> ...



Everyone starts somewhere, everyone starts as a hobbyist in one way or another. You don’t have to be a “somebody” (whatever that means) to earn royalties. As soon as you create it, you are entitled to it - that’s the beauty of IP.

IMO, if people spent as much time knocking on doors to good publishers and distributors as they do researching string libraries and gear they’d have a great shot at phasing their hobby into a career.

People are far more interested in the toys and tech than the business side of things. It just takes a bit of persistence and patience to start seeing a return. And if you feel you’re not good enough? Keep pushing yourself if that’s what you care about.

When I first approached publishers, I wasn’t ready. 9/10 I got nothing back, so I spent a lot of time listening to production music and getting a sense of it. I went away for a year and worked on my portfolio and started getting some interest. A few tracks on an album. I saw my tracks on tv by chance, I got a royalty cheque for $37. That wasn’t discouraging, because I could imagine the scale.

I kept at it, more networking, finding people who “got my style,” started to work for bigger libraries whose advances were paying my rent, finally! More albums, more licenses, more royalties. Getting to work with full orchestras which is such invaluable training. Within a few years it was my full-time job. The royalties coming in were up to $40-50k per year which gave me some space to try out trailer music, scoring commercials, take meetings for commissioned tv and work on indie games/movies.

Things can snowball if you’re persistent and you sign the right deals with the right people.

Honestly, I am not special or an anomaly. Not as talented as some people on this forum. I didn’t know anyone in the industry. I’d hate to think composers don’t think they can succeed because they’re a “nobody.”


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 22, 2020)

SamC said:


> Honestly, I am not special or an anomaly. Not as talented as some people on this forum. I didn’t know anyone in the industry. I’d hate to think composers don’t think they can succeed because they’re a “nobody.”


It's not that i haven't tried to push, i have. Just didn't really get anywhere. I don't know why, i feel my music is good enough, i just never get the replies. Maybe i have been doing it all wrong. 
When i say 'nobody' i just mean i'm an unknown. Yes, i know we all start as unknowns as composers. Some get really lucky, some just get lucky most don't 
Being in the right place at the right time, all that. There is something to that.

It all probably boils down to me doing all the wrong things not the right things and i understand that.


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 22, 2020)

Does anyone know of FLIKTRAX, i have had music on there for years but never hear anything from them.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 22, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> Does anyone know of FLIKTRAX, i have had music on there for years but never hear anything from them.



Have you checked your PRO to see how much your material was used?


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 22, 2020)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> Have you checked your PRO to see how much your material was used?


I don't belong to one, when i tried to join one, they want to see music i have already been paid for so i can't join until then apparently


----------



## Daryl (Jul 22, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> I don't belong to one, when i tried to join one, they want to see music i have already been paid for so i can't join until then apparently


The advice from PRS is to lie...!


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 22, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> I don't belong to one, when i tried to join one, they want to see music i have already been paid for so i can't join until then apparently



Yikes! If you have any original music out there, you should get it registered. Not sure about others, but with SOCAN I can register music anytime (and I always have). You have potentially lost a lot of $$. Can you at least log into FLIKTRAX and see your details? Your PRO wants proof that you've already been paid for your music, so how would you know otherwise??


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 22, 2020)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> Yikes! If you have any original music out there, you should get it registered. Not sure about others, but with SOCAN I can register music anytime (and I always have). You have potentially lost a lot of $$. Can you at least log into FLIKTRAX and see your details?


I can log in and see all my music but there is no mention if anything has ever been used. I just joined PRS UK but i am not sure what i joined, it just says registered user, it hasn't given me any user number though that i need to add to my FlikTrax account


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 22, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> I can log in and see all my music but there is no mention if anything has ever been used. I just joined PRS UK but i am not sure what i joined, it just says registered user, it hasn't given me any user number though that i need to add to my FlikTrax account


   I just joined PRS for charity not PRS for Music collection


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 22, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> I can log in and see all my music but there is no mention if anything has ever been used. I just joined PRS UK but i am not sure what i joined, it just says registered user, it hasn't given me any user number though that i need to add to my FlikTrax account



Usually when you sign up with a reputable library company, they ask for your IPI (Interested Parties Information) number, which is what you'll need for tracking royalties.


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 22, 2020)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> Have you checked your PRO to see how much your material was used?


Ok i just checked with PRS for Music and i can join them but there is a one off fee off £100 which ain't a lot but i'm just not in a position to pay that yet so i will have to wait.

As for a lot of my music and most on FlikTrax, i did register that music with a copyright firm in London so if it is ever used and i hear it, i am covered.


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 22, 2020)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> Usually when you sign up with a reputable library company, they ask for your IPI (Interested Parties Information) number, which is what you'll need for tracking royalties.


I think thats the number that PRS will give me


----------



## Daryl (Jul 22, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> As for a lot of my music and most on FlikTrax, i did register that music with a copyright firm in London so if it is ever used and i hear it, i am covered.


Covered, in what respect?


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 22, 2020)

Daryl said:


> Covered, in what respect?


They have mp3 copies of my tracks and i have certificates from them for the tracks stating that i am the composer and owner of them tracks


----------



## Daryl (Jul 22, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> They have mp3 copies of my tracks and i have certificates from them for the tracks stating that i am the composer and owner of them tracks


I don't think that covers you any more than if you just held on to those yourself. What is the service they are supplying supposed to do, and are the charging you for it? Sorry to be nosy, but I've been earning my living as a composer in the UK for over 20 years, and have never heard of this sort of service. There used to be an urban myth about posting your music back to yourself somehow protecting you, but it was legally nonsense. If you feel uncomfortable talking about it, feel free to ignore me...!


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 22, 2020)

Daryl said:


> I don't think that covers you any more than if you just held on to those yourself. What is the service they are supplying supposed to do, and are the charging you for it? Sorry to be nosy, but I've been earning my living as a composer in the UK for over 20 years, and have never heard of this sort of service. There used to be an urban myth about posting your music back to yourself somehow protecting you, but it was legally nonsense. If you feel uncomfortable talking about it, feel free to ignore me...!





Songrite Copyright Office


----------



## Daryl (Jul 22, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> Songrite Copyright Office


I'm pretty sure it has absolutely no legal standing whatsoever. What are they protecting you against? It seems only one step above the flawed "post it to yourself" model. I hope you're not paying them lots of money. If so, IMO you'd be better off spending it joining PRS, and getting advice from a lawyer.


----------



## SamC (Jul 22, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> Songrite Copyright Office



Never heard of this company and they don’t appear to do anything. It’s not London based either, it’s someone’s house in Wales...

I recommend you get good publishing and a PRO.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 22, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> Ok i just checked with PRS for Music and i can join them but there is a one off fee off £100 which ain't a lot but i'm just not in a position to pay that yet so i will have to wait.
> 
> As for a lot of my music and most on FlikTrax, i did register that music with a copyright firm in London so if it is ever used and i hear it, i am covered.



Even with your Copyright, it's literally impossible to track where your music has been used if the tracks aren't registered, unless you heard it somewhere by fluke. Even then, it would be a chore tracking down the culprits and pursuing legal action (and expensive).


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 22, 2020)

Daryl said:


> I'm pretty sure it has absolutely no legal standing whatsoever. What are they protecting you against? It seems only one step above the flawed "post it to yourself" model. I hope you're not paying them lots of money. If so, IMO you'd be better off spending it joining PRS, and getting advice from a lawyer.


The payment wasn't that much so i'm not bothered about that. It was £30 per 100 uploads to them


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 22, 2020)

SamC said:


> Never heard of this company and they don’t appear to do anything. It’s not London based either, it’s someone’s house in Wales...
> 
> You need good publishing and a PRO.


I will join PRS as soon as i can


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 22, 2020)

Daryl said:


> Without wishing to be cruel, it seems to me that the people who advocate giving up Royalties are usually the unsuccessful composers. This would make sense, because those of us who are successful know first hand how much we stand to lose. It's easy to give up what you've never had, and I don't blame anyone for doing this. However if composing is to be a professional pursuit, we really can't allow policy decisions to be set by the amateurs.
> 
> For me, it is unlikely that I will be affected by any of this in the short term, and, being old, long term it probably doesn't matter either. However, like you, it is important to me that there is such a job as a professional composer in the future, so I will do what I can to help ensure this.



It is not the amateur composers that want you to give up royalties, it is just a corporate trend and as a trend, several people will embrace it. Royalties will exist but lets face it, it is rough out there. Just don’t expect the people you call losers to support you on your battle for your rights. It is like Wall Street, outsiders don’t really want the market to go up when they are out. It is such a delicate time right now with Covid 19, why ppl still enjoy stepping on other ppls heads for pure pleasure?


----------



## JohnG (Jul 22, 2020)

I wonder whether some understand how much they are leaving behind by foregoing royalties?

*1. Present Value and Uncertainty* -- Sure, a buyout can be enough to compensate you today for the present value of all future royalties you would otherwise have earned, but who knows what that amount is? If a track becomes fairly popular you can earn over $100k on it -- not $10k, $100k. Sometimes much more. That is a lot to surrender.

*2. Partnership* -- I like to be in business with my partners, meaning that, if they make money, I make money. It gives me an incentive to write the best possible music I can, and it gives the company an incentive to sell the music to earn back whatever costs they incurred (recording and mixing, payment to me up front).

The flip side is that not every track makes money. Some make nothing. I've seen some library cues really take off and others -- that I thought were spiffy -- languish. 

*3. Old Age *-- Some day we all get old and can't work anymore; royalty streams can help with that. Aaron Copland stopped writing when he was about 60, if I remember correctly. With life expectancy today, that leaves a lot of years.

Agreeing to forego royalties is like selling your seed corn.


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 22, 2020)

JohnG said:


> The flip side is that not every track makes money. Some make nothing. I've seen some library cues really take off and others -- that I thought were spiffy -- languish.


Ok, thats fair enough but just say for instance, the pieces that you have done that are not making anything, just sell them ones outright and let someone else gamble on them.At least you will make something on them.
Just a thought


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 22, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> Does anyone know of FLIKTRAX, i have had music on there for years but never hear anything from them.


So i emailed FlikTraks to see what's going on. This is what i wrote...


"Hi
I was just wondering, as my music has been on your site since 2016 and i haven't heard anything, is it really worth having my music on your site or should i just delete all the tracks."

I just received their reply. What do you think?


"Hi Keith,
We do a lot of T.V.-specific cues directly on a production company's request. We've also shifted our focus to an all-exclusive T.V. cue platform, TV-PROS: https://tvpros.fliktrax.com/ Below is a "form" letter explaining our shifted focus. Happy to send you additional info, or answer any questions. Thanks for contacting.-Chris Davison pres.

Due to T.V. production companies no longer willing to work with non-exclusive music, we have shifted our focus to all-exclusivity with a new platform, TV-PROS: https://tvpros.fliktrax.com/
This is an all-T.V. cue platform targeted to production companies for U.S. reality shows.

We have worked with many dozens of T.V. shows, and looking to add to our database. I'm happy to send you more info, if you would like. Tracks from composers are with us on a 3 year agreement. I'm happy to send you a TV-PROS agreement for you to review. You would not have to commit to a large number of tracks. 2-3 (with alternate version) would be fine. 

Instead of the A-Z procedure of uploading/styles needed/etc. simply e-mail back and let us know if you would be interested in working with us. Thanks for contacting,"

Chris Davison
FLIKTRAX/TV-PROS


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 22, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> So i emailed FlikTraks to see what's going on. This is what i wrote...
> 
> 
> "Hi
> ...



what are the financial details?


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 22, 2020)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> what are the financial details?


I don't know, looks like i would have to request more details


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 22, 2020)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> what are the financial details?


I have just asked for more details regarding copyright and financial details and also if being a composer in the UK makes any difference


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 22, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> I have just asked for more details regarding copyright and financial details and also if being a composer in the UK makes any difference


This is the reply of what they want...


I've attached a TV-PROS agreement for you to have a look at. Tracks for this platform need to be in T.V. format:
1) Full version (about 1:40)
2) 30 sec version
3) Bed/no melody version
4) Bass & drum only version
5) Stinger (5 sec) version
All endings to resolve. (as many of these versions that apply would be optimum)

Popular styles/themes for T.V. reality:
1) Whimsical/goofy/pizzicato stabs over a light Trap/Hip-Hop beat
2) Light funk for home improvement/lifestyles
3) Funky Blues 
4) Light Pop
5) Positive pop themes with light Trap/Hip-Hop beat

These, to name a few. Pick a style, and 2-3 tracks with alternates is fine. Upload to the same contributors.fliktrax.com (but in a new folder called" Keith TheodosiuTV-PROS." Re: the agreement, if all looks good to you: scan/sign, and send to CEO Patrick Finnegan at: [email protected] He'll countersign, and send back to you. Any questions, e-mail me, and I'll get right back to you. Thanks sir,

Chris Davison pres
FLIKTRAX/TV-PROS


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 22, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> This is the reply of what they want...
> 
> 
> I've attached a TV-PROS agreement for you to have a look at. Tracks for this platform need to be in T.V. format:
> ...



In addition to the composer's share, I would at least ask for 50/50 on sync licenses. Otherwise, that's a long time to tie up your music that may just collect dust. The way it stands, they have absolutely nothing to lose from their end. If they paid something up front, it might be more incentive for both parties.


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 22, 2020)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> In addition to the composer's share, I would at least ask for 50/50 on sync licenses. Otherwise, that's a long time to tie up your music that may just collect dust. The way it stands, they have absolutely nothing to lose from their end. If they paid something up front, it might be more incentive for both parties.


Yeah that's true.
They don't like giving money away easily lol


----------



## Daryl (Jul 23, 2020)

classified_the_x said:


> It is not the amateur composers that want you to give up royalties, it is just a corporate trend and as a trend, several people will embrace it. Royalties will exist but lets face it, it is rough out there. Just don’t expect the people you call losers to support you on your battle for your rights. It is like Wall Street, outsiders don’t really want the market to go up when they are out. It is such a delicate time right now with Covid 19, why ppl still enjoy stepping on other ppls heads for pure pleasure?


Hang on a minute. Who did I call a loser? I said unsuccessful. You translated that to mean losers. Whilst in financial terms, one could use that word, it certainly isn't something that I would do. It is a fact that when you think that you are not benefiting from a system, it is less likely that you would care if it was destroyed, and on that we can agree.


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 23, 2020)

Daryl said:


> Hang on a minute. Who did I call a loser? I said unsuccessful. You translated that to mean losers. Whilst in financial terms, one could use that word, it certainly isn't something that I would do. It is a fact that when you think that you are not benefiting from a system, it is less likely that you would care if it was destroyed, and on that we can agree.



There was some euphemism to losers in your remarks, unsuccessful sort of translates to that. Sam might have used the word... anyway, also answering to John, you might be in the top tier of royalties. Most other reports I have read around the internet ppl make only pocket change from royalties, rarely surpassing 300-1200 per quarter.

regarding myself, I was with a library that had a strong brand since 2016 but it closed and I didn’t earn much from it, I also didn’t set up my PRO at the time. My main goal was to be successful at the music mainstream not licensing but I took a look at that in 2016. Then I went really busy with other professional affairs, continued to make some music but forgot about that, now with the pandemic I am back to put my music at licensing. 

royalties are good, but most ppl dont make much from it when at music libraries... pay is actually better at buyouts or subscription libraries but these seem pretty closed and hard to get in too. It is wonderful it royalties remain, but at present really few make a living from them.

I sincerely hope opportunities increase, I am finding them really scarce at the moment. btw I read almost everything I could including MLR, Sound on Sound guides, forums and YouTube


----------



## SamC (Jul 23, 2020)

classified_the_x said:


> There was some euphemism to losers in your remarks, unsuccessful sort of translates to that. Sam might have used the word...



???

I haven’t said anything of the sort. And don’t believe it at all.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 23, 2020)

classified_the_x said:


> There was some euphemism to losers in your remarks, unsuccessful sort of translates to that. Sam might have used the word...


I utterly refute that. "Unsuccessful" is really not the same as "losers". Are you successful at earning Royalties? It seems not, from what you say. However, does that make you a loser?


classified_the_x said:


> royalties are good, but most ppl dont make much from it when at music libraries...


Most people don't make much from anything. However, that isn't to say that it's not possible.


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 23, 2020)

Daryl said:


> I utterly refute that. "Unsuccessful" is really not the same as "losers". Are you successful at earning Royalties? It seems not, from what you say. However, does that make you a loser?
> 
> Most people don't make much from anything. However, that isn't to say that it's not possible.



No, I am currently not making money from licensing. The only library I had music in got closed and I am searching around for another. 

It is possible to make money but it is not for many. Even those that are in libraries are not making much, in most cases.

I was pretty successful in my other endeavors in the last 4 years but now am doing what I like which is music. Not so keen on the numbers game but I am producing music at a fast flow.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 23, 2020)

classified_the_x said:


> Even those that are in libraries are not making much, in most cases.


Of course, but that would be the same in any creative genre. Not everyone is equally talented, proficient, has the best distribution etc. Library is no different from any other part of music, in that regard.


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 23, 2020)

Daryl said:


> Of course, but that would be the same in any creative genre. Not everyone is equally talented, proficient, has the best distribution etc. Library is no different from any other part of music, in that regard.



I passed on sending my music for a buyout to PremiumBeat in 2016...I felt I didn’t want to give up rights for the amount they paid. Now they wont even listen what I send mostly.

From my research if I don’t make it in these more mainstream libraries (majors don’t listen either), my only shot will be boutique libraries, which seem hard to enter and to choose as some don’t generate much placements. Basically, from my business vision, there is not that much money or opportunities in the libraries thing. Unless I add up through non exclusives and such. It is a sea of music out there. Not for a new entrant.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 23, 2020)

classified_the_x said:


> Basically, from my business vision, there is not that much money or opportunities in the libraries thing. Unless I add up through non exclusives and such. It is a sea of music out there. Not for a new entrant.


OK, so in the interest of being helpful, who have you contacted and what did they say about your music? Feel free to PM ,me, if you would prefer that.


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 23, 2020)

Daryl said:


> OK, so in the interest of being helpful, who have you contacted and what did they say about your music? Feel free to PM ,me, if you would prefer that.



Haven’t sent to many places yet, about 3 or 4...I will PM you, thanks


----------



## tsk (Jul 23, 2020)

classified_the_x said:


> I passed on sending my music for a buyout to PremiumBeat in 2016...I felt I didn’t want to give up rights for the amount they paid. Now they wont even listen what I send mostly.
> 
> From my research if I don’t make it in these more mainstream libraries (majors don’t listen either), my only shot will be boutique libraries, which seem hard to enter and to choose as some don’t generate much placements. Basically, from my business vision, there is not that much money or opportunities in the libraries thing. Unless I add up through non exclusives and such. It is a sea of music out there. Not for a new entrant.



In my humble opinion, probably a very good decision to reject Premium Beat's buyout deal. The amount of money that I estimate people are losing out on by doing a buyout there and not receiving a split of license fee sales is staggering.

Also, at least from what I've heard, back end royalties for Premium Beat tracks are relatively low, e.g. Youtube placements aren't likely to earn you much in back end. But I don't know, I could be wrong.

All just my 2 cents.

Anyway, good luck in whatever you choose.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 24, 2020)

tsk said:


> Also, at least from what I've heard, back end royalties for Premium Beat tracks are relatively low, e.g. Youtube placements aren't likely to earn you much in back end. But I don't know, I could be wrong.


Thinking of YouTube Royalties as making money is a waste of time. You can have hundreds of thousands of plays, and still receive only pennies. The only way to make money from YouTube is via ads. Or by using it to sell product, thereby indirectly making money.


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 24, 2020)

tsk said:


> In my humble opinion, probably a very good decision to reject Premium Beat's buyout deal. The amount of money that I estimate people are losing out on by doing a buyout there and not receiving a split of license fee sales is staggering.
> 
> Also, at least from what I've heard, back end royalties for Premium Beat tracks are relatively low, e.g. Youtube placements aren't likely to earn you much in back end. But I don't know, I could be wrong.
> 
> ...



I might make more than that with these tracks, but since I took a break since 2016, I didn't make it yet. And now I got into a PRO and maybe that's why they didn't take my tracks (they answered the next day with a soft reject saying my songs quality wasn't the issue but they didn't need stuff like mine). From what I gathered the only ones paying more than that upfront are the "majors" and the high end boutique libraries, so it was a bad move by me perhaps, as I said, I was more attached to my stuff back then, plus the dollar wasn't so valued here where I live. I didn't think I could keep on selling to them most of my tracks for $600, that might have been my mistake... 



Daryl said:


> Thinking of YouTube Royalties as making money is a waste of time. You can have hundreds of thousands of plays, and still receive only pennies. The only way to make money from YouTube is via ads. Or by using it to sell product, thereby indirectly making money.



Youtube royalties may be small, but even on AudioJungle some mass audience broadcasters get music so a surprise on royalties can always happen... If they are not on the table, no surprise...


----------



## tsk (Jul 24, 2020)

classified_the_x said:


> I might make more than that with these tracks, but since I took a break since 2016, I didn't make it yet. And now I got into a PRO and maybe that's why they didn't take my tracks (they answered the next day with a soft reject saying my songs quality wasn't the issue but they didn't need stuff like mine). From what I gathered the only ones paying more than that upfront are the "majors" and the high end boutique libraries, so it was a bad move by me perhaps, as I said, I was more attached to my stuff back then, plus the dollar wasn't so valued here where I live. I didn't think I could keep on selling to them most of my tracks for $600, that might have been my mistake...
> 
> 
> 
> Youtube royalties may be small, but even on AudioJungle some mass audience broadcasters get music so a surprise on royalties can always happen... If they are not on the table, no surprise...



Just to clear something up:

When a major pays you "upfront", it's either an advance, or something like a non-recoupable fee. Basically they give you some money and you STILL get a cut of license fee sales and sync fees forever. In the case of Premium Beat, if I've understood what you said correctly, they pay you $600 once and then as far as I know you never get any share of the sync fees for the rest of time. That's why it's such a bad deal, if that's what you were offered by them.

Just to make this completely clear: If a major gives you $300 to sign a track and the contract also provides you with a % of license fees, that is almost immeasurably better than a one time only fee of $600 and no cut of license fees ever, at least in my humble opinion!

Therefore I don't think it was a mistake to reject them. Go for a big major if your material is good.


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 24, 2020)

tsk said:


> Just to clear something up:
> 
> When a major pays you "upfront", it's either an advance, or something like a non-recoupable fee. Basically they give you some money and you STILL get a cut of license fee sales and sync fees forever. In the case of Premium Beat, if I've understood what you said correctly, they pay you $600 once and then as far as I know you never get any share of the sync fees for the rest of time. That's why it's such a bad deal, if that's what you were offered by them.
> 
> ...



Yea, I know but some say majors are mostly invite only or through recommendation. I did e-mail Warner Chappel but they didn't listen. The PremiumBeat buyout is not that bad, if it was so good for them they would be buying everything we sent to them. I did a quick search on royalties and indeed some get good returns, even with not so many tracks. Also possible to earn big down the road.

I think it's hard to be self-aware of my music quality, I just try to stick to some industry standards while sounding cutting-edge at the same time. I might join Taxi over the weekend, they got a discount going until Sunday. I know them for years but never joined, and there's feedback there... pretty aware of the pros and cons but sincerely worried that even if I get a deal there it won't cover membership+submission fees. That might sum up the state we're in.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 24, 2020)

classified_the_x said:


> I did e-mail Warner Chappel but they didn't listen.



And they never will. I have stuff on Warner Chappell, but it’s because I have music with one of their many sub-publishers. I recommend trying that route.


----------



## muk (Jul 25, 2020)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> And they never will.



That's not necessarily true. I got accepted by Warner Chappell by cold emailing them. I had no ins, no connections to them, didn't know anybody who worked for them. I just sent an email with a few of my tracks. If you are lucky they do listen. But it seems to be true that most times they don't.
That means that simply sending one email to one library and hope to get accepted is a bit naive. You'd need to get incredibly lucky for this to happen. You have to put in a bit more work than that to increase your chances.


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 25, 2020)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> And they never will. I have stuff on Warner Chappell, but it’s because I have music with one of their many sub-publishers. I recommend trying that route.



I might look into that but many times that I find a library that is associated with a major there's no direct submission info...



muk said:


> That's not necessarily true. I got accepted by Warner Chappell by cold emailing them. I had no ins, no connections to them, didn't know anybody who worked for them. I just sent an email with a few of my tracks. If you are lucky they do listen. But it seems to be true that most times they don't.
> That means that simply sending one email to one library and hope to get accepted is a bit naive. You'd need to get incredibly lucky for this to happen. You have to put in a bit more work than that to increase your chances.



that seems like an ideal scenario to be in tbh. if they leave an e-mail there they might listen or queue the submissions. I see that your link is from Germany though, might be different there. I am researching libraries on MLR and doing some filtering, but since my listens are pretty much stuck at 0 in the Soundcloud profile I set up I'm holding from sending to all of them. 

Also setting up a personal website since I have the impression Soundcloud puts a bad impression with them. I read at Quora that sometimes they will reject you right at the e-mail lol, which doesn't seem so fair. It's just trusting the gut too much.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 25, 2020)

muk said:


> That's not necessarily true. I got accepted by Warner Chappell by cold emailing them. I had no ins, no connections to them, didn't know anybody who worked for them. I just sent an email with a few of my tracks. If you are lucky they do listen. But it seems to be true that most times they don't.
> That means that simply sending one email to one library and hope to get accepted is a bit naive. You'd need to get incredibly lucky for this to happen. You have to put in a bit more work than that to increase your chances.



good points! You are correct, I shouldn’t say “never”, it's probably all about timing. And like you said, it’s good to cast a broad net. Ironically, the companies that accepted my submissions were also a result of cold emails.


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 25, 2020)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> good points! You are correct, I shouldn’t say “never”, it's probably all about timing. And like you said, it’s good to cast a broad net. Ironically, the companies that accepted my submissions were also a result of cold emails.



I'm not exactly waiting on WC neither lol. I'm pretty realistic about auditions of unsolicited material in the music world.


----------



## SamC (Jul 25, 2020)

classified_the_x said:


> I might join Taxi over the weekend, they got a discount going until Sunday. I know them for years but never joined, and there's feedback there... pretty aware of the pros and cons but sincerely worried that even if I get a deal there it won't cover membership+submission fees. That might sum up the state we're in.



I categorically do not recommend any of these types of platforms/libraries. Composers should never have to pay to submit.

I’ve heard mixed things concerning taxi, but I would personally stay away from anything like that if you’re looking to license your music.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 25, 2020)

OK, last piece of advice from me. Distribution is very important. Therefore it's not only the big companies you need to contact, but all the small companies who use these big companies as Sub Publishers. You may be just the person these small companies are looking for.


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 25, 2020)

SamC said:


> I categorically do not recommend any of these types of platforms/libraries. Composers should never have to pay to submit.


To be honest, i agree. Why the hell should we have to pay a sub, there is no guarantee your music will get used and when it does, they take a cut anyway.


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 25, 2020)

SamC said:


> I categorically do not recommend any of these types of platforms/libraries. Composers should never have to pay to submit.
> 
> I’ve heard mixed things concerning taxi, but I would personally stay away from anything like that if you’re looking to license your music.





Keith Theodosiou said:


> To be honest, i agree. Why the hell should we have to pay a sub, there is no guarantee your music will get used and when it does, they take a cut anyway.



I am thinking that at least the listings on Taxi are solicited, I'm under the impression that I'm being inconvenient by sending stuff to libraries during Covid-19, and it might also be considered insensitive. Those on Taxi are requiring music for whatever need, so I made this excuse up for finally signing up. I also heard some music that made it there and believe I got material that could be approved.

If I was to run for any public job I'd have to pay a small fee to do the test too. It also filters out somewhat, in their vision, plus $ for them. Like, hey, I let you submit some songs for a year, just pay the equivalent of a Iphone SE and it is all good! lol

I was actually just waiting for a discount to join, I gave up as always during the time they kept regular price but now it's back and I might go for it...



Daryl said:


> OK, last piece of advice from me. Distribution is very important. Therefore it's not only the big companies you need to contact, but all the small companies who use these big companies as Sub Publishers. You may be just the person these small companies are looking for.



I will chase and contact them, thanks


----------



## AllanH (Jul 26, 2020)

AlexRuger said:


> Am I crazy or do tons of people on this forum not understand the concept of IP?
> ...



Creation of IP does not in itself create value; the exploitation of the IP does.

I have some experience with IP and thought I would add my few thoughts on the subject:

There are at least two distinct two systems for IP in the US: Copyright and patents. I think there are historically differences in how the creator/inventor exploits their creation/invention in the two systems

Copyrighted materials such as compositions, recordings, and books are generally monetized "per copy" over time and owned by the creator. The author will generally license the exploitation to a publisher of some type. Sometimes there are advances or one-time payments as part of a publishing deal.

Patents, conversely, is generally owned by the inventor’s company. The inventor will have signed over all rights to future inventions as part of the initial employment agreement and the relationship is work-for-hire. There is no stated expectation of sharing any exploitation of future inventions, even though some companies share the upside with bonuses and stock options. In companies I’m familiar with, the vast majority of the valuable inventions are created by a very small subset of employees, who are “well compensated” for their skill. Most patents are used to “protect” a business and never directly exploited.

So I think it’s difficult to compare the “copyright” model and the “patent” model as exploitation/(revenue model) are completely different.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jul 27, 2020)

classified_the_x said:


> I'm under the impression that I'm being inconvenient by sending stuff to libraries during Covid-19, and it might also be considered insensitive.



On the contrary, I have been very successful with getting music accepted during the past few months, there's nothing insensitive about is whatsoever IMO. TAXI will gladly take your subscription money, they have nothing to lose.


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 27, 2020)

Jeremy Spencer said:


> On the contrary, I have been very successful with getting music accepted during the past few months, there's nothing insensitive about is whatsoever IMO. TAXI will gladly take your subscription money, they have nothing to lose.



I genuinely simpathize with Michael from Taxi, his videos are nice and he seems and sounds like an industry insider. He managed to sell to me. I'd happily moderately pay for some coaching on music business stuff, Taxi seems like some of that in a way...


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 27, 2020)

There should be laws to prevent companies from taking writers share on any situation where royalties might be involved.

I think the UK has some of these rules.


We can all bitch and moan. Library this or library that. But he have to come to a solution or narrow a path to a solution.

We all got up and arms on that Dicovery channel article and that resulted in something.


We have sample developers, music gear manufactures, educaitonal sites and big name artists that can help.

What can we do?



Write our congressman or political rep? if everyone says and writes the same thing and its 10,000 emails or letters per rep then they might pass some laws. US and EU.
Something along the lines of Agregators taking royalties should be against the law.
OR something like that. Not sure i dont know the laws. or what can be done. 


Or we can spam every inch of social media, forums and mass emails from developers/music gear companies to not join companies like epidemic music.


Maybe make MEMEs


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 27, 2020)




----------



## gsilbers (Jul 27, 2020)




----------



## gsilbers (Jul 27, 2020)




----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 28, 2020)

gsilbers said:


> There should be laws to prevent companies from taking writers share on any situation where royalties might be involved.
> 
> I think the UK has some of these rules.
> 
> ...



suppose I hire a singer for my track. I gotta pay him/her about $300 for a track I will be looking to license, then in most cases he/she will want 50/50 of royalties. In that case I'm simply passing on hiring vocalists, because I don't even know if I'll be able to get $300 for a track, then the 50/50 will will cripple the royalties. So, the guy asking for royalties is restricting opportunities because if he wanted less royalties, or no royalties, more ppl would hire him.

So, I get the contracting side... it might be unfair to get paid a fixed sum ghostwriting a track that will be played/bought by millions, but that's what ghostwriters are doing on websites for that, for instance.

everyone is doing it. the race to the bottom is real in everything business related for the human kind. long live the 18k Tesla killer.

we might pass on some opportunities, because we think our work is worth more, like I did with PremiumBeat, but we're also taking a risk when doing that. there will always be takers. can't fight the takers...


----------



## Daryl (Jul 28, 2020)

classified_the_x said:


> suppose I hire a singer for my track. I gotta pay him/her about $300


You pay them whatever you agree. For library music, in the UK, a musician is paid somewhere between £130 and £150 for a 3 hour session, comprising of up to 20 minutes of music. No reason a singer should be any different.


classified_the_x said:


> for a track I will be looking to license, then in most cases he/she will want 50/50 of royalties.


Just because they want to say that they wrote your track for you, doesn't mean you have to agree, unless they actually did. Nobody, except the Publisher and I, get any Royalties on my tracks. Musicians. Singers. All get treated the same.


----------



## classified_the_x (Jul 28, 2020)

Daryl said:


> You pay them whatever you agree. For library music, in the UK, a musician is paid somewhere between £130 and £150 for a 3 hour session, comprising of up to 20 minutes of music. No reason a singer should be any different.
> 
> Just because they want to say that they wrote your track for you, doesn't mean you have to agree, unless they actually did. Nobody, except the Publisher and I, get any Royalties on my tracks. Musicians. Singers. All get treated the same.



Apparently I indeed can post vocal gigs for 100 - 150 U$ on some sites. the race to the bottom is in there as well...lyrics and harmony all included. will have to gather the royalty issue but it seems they waive it. A release form might be in good measure too though right?


----------



## Daryl (Jul 28, 2020)

classified_the_x said:


> Apparently I indeed can post vocal gigs for 100 - 150 U$ on some sites. the race to the bottom is in there as well...lyrics and harmony all included.


Ah yes, but in that case they should get Royatlies, because they are co-writers.

It's very simple. You write the track, you get writer's Royalties. You play a previously written track, you don't.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 28, 2020)

There is a lot of speculation in this thread overall by people who earn their living somewhere besides music. By contrast, @Daryl , @SamC @gsilbers @AlexRuger and a few others (me) who write music for a living keep saying the same thing:

*Don't give up your royalties.*​
You can listen to @rgames talk in general terms about capitalism or @Rory who's pasted some specific information. They are both smart guys.

But it is apparent that they have no idea or ignore or theorize away how much money composers lose when they accept a buyout. It could be nothing, yes, but it can be $100k for a single track -- even more if it becomes really popular. That is not theoretical, it's a fact.

@Rasoul Morteza wrote, "[companies] in the technological domain protect it [their IP] like war-dogs and have legal teams solely dedicated to the whole matter." He's right. Ever seen an NDA from a tech or game company? War dogs is a great metaphor.

There's a reason some of these companies want you to give up your royalties. They will keep them and make money forever on them. Don't do it.


----------



## gsilbers (Aug 7, 2020)

Epidemic sound pays YouTubers influencers for making ads like this


So one thing we could do is trash the comment section until oblivion so people watching will know better. 

Check other videos and do the same.

With enough negative thumbs Down and reviews it might get people more aware of it.


----------



## Greg (Aug 7, 2020)

Was just enjoying a random epic music playlist on spotify and found a track I thought was awesome and refreshing. Wanted to find the composer and all I could find was their Epidemic Sound profile.

Absolutely shocked. That track and others of theirs could easily be in any trailer / epic production library and make a shit ton more $. Please don't sell yourself short guys and girls, especially by selling your entire copyright. You just don't know how the landscape may shift and leave you feeling like an idiot for selling yourself short. 

I've been there too. Before Youtube content ID was mainstream, I had several tracks in a library that wasn't even collecting thousands of dollars per MONTH in adrev. Thank god I was able to end that contract.


----------



## Rasoul Morteza (Aug 7, 2020)

gsilbers said:


> Epidemic sound pays YouTubers influencers for making ads like this
> 
> 
> So one thing we could do is trash the comment section until oblivion so people watching will know better.
> ...



Do you honestly think that attacking one's video like an angry mob is going to solve our issues? As with any other problem, you deal with it at its roots, not the branches.

And frankly these people are just taking sponsor money, they're very clueless as to what's happening.

Cheers


----------



## classified_the_x (Aug 8, 2020)

Rasoul Morteza said:


> Do you honestly think that attacking one's video like an angry mob is going to solve our issues? As with any other problem, you deal with it at its roots, not the branches.
> 
> And frankly these people are just taking sponsor money, they're very clueless as to what's happening.
> 
> Cheers



yea, I didn't downvote the lady.

it's hard for all of us creators, out there. let the girl make her cut.


----------



## PaulieDC (Aug 13, 2020)

SamC said:


> Future Filmmakers and production companies are being taught that music is like an instagram filter you slap on your image to dress it up, and unfortunately there’s a never-ending line of composers willing to give their music away to these services in the hopes of being “discovered.”


EXACTLY. Cinematography has forever changed really thanks to iPhone/Android... now we have cramped ugly vertical video, JUMPS CUTS everywhere that was taboo when real filming was the norm and now is a young person's main feature in their YouTube videos on "how I take awesome notes in College on an iPad", and most importantly, the de-valuing of assets, just like you described. This DIRECTLY affects composers...Why pay for music?? "I can google easily and find an awesome lo-fi music track for my mindless video that's totally dope, bruh."

OK, I'd better stop here... there's so much great talent on this site and youze guyz already know all this, no sense in me ranting as well.


----------

