# Making a Music Library - Advice time!



## alanbuchanan (Mar 31, 2013)

Fellows,

I am in the planning stage of starting up my own music library. I know what you're thinking: 'why invest time and money into a project which will help make up an already ridiculously over-saturated market?' 

I like to think there's more to it than simply that. I am embarking on this project to gain experience, to see what has to be done to get it where I want it. I see sites such as Audio Network with scores of businesspeople behind them and over 60,000 tracks available. I am not looking to emulate any facet of an empire such as this, apart from their neat graphics maybe.

I want to see how far I can go by myself, in a time when breaking into the industry is already very difficult (ok, not trying to make excuses). I also want to collaborate with colleagues on starting up a nice little project.

So, at the early stage comes the time to ask for advice. 

*
How should licensing decisions be made? 
Do you know loads about how libraries work?
What is something all libraries should have, but some completely miss?
What processes did you go through to start up your library?
*


----------



## George Caplan (Apr 1, 2013)

as in stock music library and not sample library right?


----------



## doctornine (Apr 1, 2013)

Hmm,

*How should licensing decisions be made? *

I don't really understand this question. As I see it you have several options :
Full on PRS/MCPS library which all the big boys are : Imagem, KPM. Thus, they would be your competition.
Non-MCPS like Audio Network and Synctracks - the one off license fee buys the catalogue deal. Those are big boys also.
Royalty free which can come in either PRS or non-PRS. There are a load of these of variable quality. Thats your competition at this level.

*Do you know loads about how libraries work? *

Yes, I write library music exclusively.

*What is something all libraries should have, but some completely miss? *

No idea. 

*What processes did you go through to start up your library?*

I have been through this many times with writer friends and we pretty much end up concluding that what we are writers, not businessmen and even with the contacts we have, setting up a library would be wayyyyy too time and money consuming, so we'd rather just write.

But, I know people who have taken this step.

Bottom line - there is so much competition, you better have something pretty damn special or you'll get lost among the horde.


----------



## George Caplan (Apr 1, 2013)

i never heard of any of these companies. i looked at audio networks website and noticed they dont accept sampled strings. where does that leave you guys? to record it live would be expensive to do. i looked through their composers and listened to a couple tracks. in actual fact the strings sounded real but i have heard here sampled strings that sound just as good if not better at times and this is coming from a live player albeit amateur.


----------



## doctornine (Apr 1, 2013)

Well I'm coming from a UK perspective, hence the UK Libraries mentioned.


and BTW insert the word PRO for PRS if you're not UK based :wink:


----------



## Daryl (Apr 1, 2013)

George Caplan @ Mon Apr 01 said:


> i never heard of any of these companies. i looked at audio networks website and noticed they dont accept sampled strings. where does that leave you guys? to record it live would be expensive to do. i looked through their composers and listened to a couple tracks. in actual fact the strings sounded real but i have heard here sampled strings that sound just as good if not better at times and this is coming from a live player albeit amateur.



George, if you were in the business you would have heard of KPM at the very least. In any case you have heard of them, as you know I write for them. :wink: 

Audio Networks is pretty much bargain basement, and is usually only used by Production companies that don't have much money for music. The quality of music is not very good, apart from the odd track. I know two editors who sometimes edit shows that will only use music from Audio Networks, and neither of them are happy about that, because they usually can't find anything that they really want to use. 

Disclaimer: Take everything I say about Audio Networks with a pinch of salt. I don't like their business model as I think it rips off composers, so bear that in mind when reading my comments.

D


----------



## George Caplan (Apr 1, 2013)

Daryl @ Mon Apr 01 said:


> George Caplan @ Mon Apr 01 said:
> 
> 
> > i never heard of any of these companies. i looked at audio networks website and noticed they dont accept sampled strings. where does that leave you guys? to record it live would be expensive to do. i looked through their composers and listened to a couple tracks. in actual fact the strings sounded real but i have heard here sampled strings that sound just as good if not better at times and this is coming from a live player albeit amateur.
> ...



yes certainly daryl. kpm is emi I think i remember. and presumably they would want real players for orchestral work and not samples. this i imagine makes its difficult for lesser capitalized companies in that sphere of operations.

however i thought some of what i heard was pretty good. for instance i lived here long enough to know of debbie wiseman and nick kershaw who i would have thought were well thought of in tv music circles.

not sure how their model works there daryl but correct me if im wrong but it looks like a one off payment system.

how anyone could start up and compete in this market successfully based on what ive looked at so far has my great respect.


----------



## Daryl (Apr 1, 2013)

George Caplan @ Mon Apr 01 said:


> yes certainly daryl. kpm is emi I think i remember. and presumably they would want real players for orchestral work and not samples. this i imagine makes its difficult for lesser capitalized companies in that sphere of operations.


Yes and no. It all depends on the album and what the target market is.



George Caplan @ Mon Apr 01 said:


> however i thought some of what i heard was pretty good. for instance i lived here long enough to know of debbie wiseman and nick kershaw who i would have thought were well thought of in tv music circles.


Depennds who you talk to. I'm not sure that Debbie has done anything much for quite a few years.



George Caplan @ Mon Apr 01 said:


> not sure how their model works there daryl but correct me if im wrong but it looks like a one off payment system.


Audio Networks? Yes, the client pays a one of licence fee and then has access to the whole catalogue. The composer receives none of this, and has to reply on PRS payments to get any income. For me, this would require twice as much usage of my tracks on the same networks, in order to keep my income the same.



George Caplan @ Mon Apr 01 said:


> how anyone could start up and compete in this market successfully based on what ive looked at so far has my great respect.


I think as a start up, distribution would be everything. If you have the contacts to find distributors in all territories, you have a chance. However, if you are a nobody, in terms of film or library composing, it is doubtful that you would get any distribution, so no matter how good your music was, you would make no money. The other option is trying to do it via the Internet, but again without someone actively marketing your music to Editors, it would be very difficult to make an income.

D


----------



## Cruciform (Apr 1, 2013)

Daryl @ Tue Apr 02 said:


> Audio Networks? Yes, the client pays a one of licence fee and then has access to the whole catalogue. The composer receives none of this, and has to reply on PRS payments to get any income. For me, this would require twice as much usage of my tracks on the same networks, in order to keep my income the same.



Yeh, my initial thought was that Audio Network had quality music but wasn't a great deal for composers. Thanks for confirming the bad deal. The point is moot as they knocked me back anyway but had they been interested and I then found out the details of their composer agreement, I would have said no. However, I'm doing my first project for Imagem, their agreement is fine and they're funding some live players and singers, and doing mixing and mastering.

Rob.

Oops, to keep on topic:

*
How should licensing decisions be made?*

Along with Jonathan, I don't know what you mean. Are you wanting to setup the zillionth 'royalty free' company? If so, site quality + making it easy to find the site are going to be your most important factors.

If you want to go with a quality exclusive model, then I'd agree with Daryl and suggest that a network of distributors will be important. That frees you up to make music and/or manage submissions from composers. 

But if you want to setup your own exclusive label and handle distibution then I'd suggest looking into a self-managed distribution platform like Harvest Media or Source Audio.

*Do you know loads about how libraries work?*

Not loads, but enough as I compose only for libraries.

*What is something all libraries should have, but some completely miss?*

No idea. But if one knew that a magical ingredient was missing, one probably wouldn't share that info with others. Why give up a competitive edge?

*What processes did you go through to start up your library? *

I haven't.


----------



## procreative (Apr 2, 2013)

I suspect the reason some do not accept sampled instruments in compositions is simply due to the fact many Sample Library EULAs forbid their use in library music.

For the Music Library to try to decipher which sample library was used is impossible.

So a blanket ban is there to protect them against any legal issues.


----------



## doctornine (Apr 2, 2013)

procreative @ Tue Apr 02 said:


> I suspect the reason some do not accept sampled instruments in compositions is simply due to the fact many Sample Library EULAs forbid their use in library music.
> 
> For the Music Library to try to decipher which sample library was used is impossible.
> 
> So a blanket ban is there to protect them against any legal issues.



I think these days you'll find that as the composer you'll be responsible for signing a sample waiver with most libraries.

Thats makes *YOU,* the writer responsible for any samples you use. Not the library.

So read your EULA and stay the hell away from Big Fish, as mentioned at length previously.


----------



## rpaillot (Apr 2, 2013)

procreative @ Tue Apr 02 said:


> I suspect the reason some do not accept sampled instruments in compositions is simply due to the fact many Sample Library EULAs forbid their use in library music.
> 
> For the Music Library to try to decipher which sample library was used is impossible.
> 
> So a blanket ban is there to protect them against any legal issues.



Except Big Fish construction kits, which libraries forbid library music ?


----------



## Daryl (Apr 2, 2013)

procreative @ Tue Apr 02 said:


> I suspect the reason some do not accept sampled instruments in compositions is simply due to the fact many Sample Library EULAs forbid their use in library music.
> 
> For the Music Library to try to decipher which sample library was used is impossible.
> 
> So a blanket ban is there to protect them against any legal issues.


Most UK Music Libraries do accept compositions using sampled instruments. What they often don't accept is compositions using samples. Not the same thing at all.

D


----------



## George Caplan (Apr 2, 2013)

Daryl @ Tue Apr 02 said:


> Most UK Music Libraries do accept compositions using sampled instruments. What they often don't accept is compositions using samples. Not the same thing at all.
> 
> D



what is the difference? :?


----------



## Daryl (Apr 2, 2013)

George Caplan @ Tue Apr 02 said:


> Daryl @ Tue Apr 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Most UK Music Libraries do accept compositions using sampled instruments. What they often don't accept is compositions using samples. Not the same thing at all.
> ...


When Music Libraries talk about samples, they are referring to composers taking chunks (or even a single chord) out of existing recordings and using them within their own music. This is not usually allowed, because getting clearance can be quite complicated and the fees generated would probably not cover all the costs involved. One of the big advantages (to a client) of using Library Music, as opposed to commercial recordings is that clearances are already done, which makes life a lot easier.

D


----------



## Dean (Apr 3, 2013)

alanbuchanan @ Sun Mar 31 said:


> *
> 
> How should licensing decisions be made?
> Do you know loads about how libraries work?
> ...



These are ridiculously broad questions to be asking on a forum at any stage,you should do the hard work yourself then start to ask more specific questions further down the road. D


----------



## alanbuchanan (Apr 4, 2013)

Thanks for all the advice so far, I have been reading with interest.



Dean @ Wed Apr 03 said:


> These are ridiculously broad questions to be asking on a forum at any stage,you should do the hard work yourself then start to ask more specific questions further down the road. D



Dean, I agree they are broad. However, I am looking for people's opinions on the matter. I am aware there is no 'one golden answer' for each question, and I'm not ashamed to be asking for such advice.


----------



## VSTBuzz (Apr 4, 2013)

Hey Rory sent you a PM


----------



## Riffs (Apr 4, 2013)

Hmmm....where do we start. Well, let's get some names right for starters.

It's 'Audio Network' not 'Audio Networks'. The plural version would make little sense.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 4, 2013)

Without contacts in a niche area, it'll be very hard. But here's a thought - you could try to join an independent consortium if you have good product and can interest them. One I know here in the UK is Repertoire Music, which is a collective of indie labels - http://www.repertoiremusic.com/index.php


----------



## Riffs (Apr 4, 2013)

*
How should licensing decisions be made? 
*
Erm, a meeting in an office? A series of emails? Phone calls? Influential people reaching a collective decision via a period of discussion?

*

Do you know loads about how libraries work?
*
Yes.

*

What is something all libraries should have, but some completely miss?
*
A nice office? Parking facilities? Good coffee? Fast broadband? Attractive staff? Comfortable seating?

*


What processes did you go through to start up your library?
*
I haven't started one. I would be mad to do so.

These are really silly questions Alan.


----------



## doctornine (Apr 4, 2013)

+1 for : 

A nice office? Parking facilities? Good coffee? Fast broadband? Attractive staff? Comfortable seating? 

8)


----------



## Riffs (Apr 4, 2013)

alanbuchanan @ Sun Mar 31 said:


> I am embarking on this project to gain experience



To gain experience in what? Starting up a music library?

Wouldn't it be a better idea to spend several years acquiring knowledge of the industry by working for leading publishers? I have been a pro library composer for 10 years but even now I wouldn't have the nerve to start up because I know what a massive job it is. The people I know who own/run/started these things from scratch came at it from an angle of having years and years of experience in all facets of the industry.


----------



## reid (Apr 4, 2013)

Daryl @ 1st April said:


> Audio Networks is pretty much bargain basement, and is usually only used by Production companies that don't have much money for music. The quality of music is not very good, apart from the odd track. I know two editors who sometimes edit shows that will only use music from Audio Networks, and neither of them are happy about that, because they usually can't find anything that they really want to use.



This is woefully inaccurate information. In the past twelve months alone I've scored two primetime documentaries for BBC1 and Channel 4, both of which were well funded, won BAFTAs and RTS awards, and featured tracks from Audio Network. The tracks weren't in there because they were 'cheap', but because they did the best job for the need at hand. No hand wringing from the editor, producer or director about having to settle for second best. 

I know many editors who work in the doco field for NatGeo / History Channel / Discovery, who are tied to only using Audio Network tracks due to budget constraints - none of them feel they're having to settle for second best compared to MCPS libraries. Sure, they'll moan about being restricted to a single catalogue of tracks, but having quizzed them about it (out of professional interest), they're all clear on the point that the quality of composition / mix / recording is equal to that found with the usual suspects like KPM, Imagem and Extreme.

Daryl, have you spent any time listening through the AN catalogue? If not, it's worth doing - I find it keeps me on my toes, and more often than not gives me a scare about where I need to be putting the hours in on my composition and studio skills.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 4, 2013)

This kinda needs its own thread, but hey - I'm always confused about the Audio Network model. Does a composer still get royalties from transmissions?


----------



## Riffs (Apr 4, 2013)

Daryl @ Mon Apr 01 said:


> Audio Networks is pretty much bargain basement, and is usually only used by Production companies that don't have much money for music.



This is simply wrong. If you spent as much time looking through cue sheets as I do you would know this.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Apr 4, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> This kinda needs its own thread, but hey - I'm always confused about the Audio Network model. Does a composer still get royalties from transmissions?



Yes indeedie. :wink:


----------



## doctornine (Apr 4, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> This kinda needs its own thread, but hey - I'm always confused about the Audio Network model. Does a composer still get royalties from transmissions?



Yes indeedy.

You get PRS from transmissions.


----------



## chrisblackwell (Apr 4, 2013)

Oh boy, where do I start? Best to just jump in and try to answer it all at once I suppose. This conversation is all good info for the original poster though so I make no apologies for the long post. I've copied and pasted so there are no quotes attributed.

*i looked at audio networks website and noticed they dont accept sampled strings. where does that leave you guys? to record it live would be expensive to do.

Audio Networks is pretty much bargain basement, and is usually only used by Production companies that don't have much money for music. The quality of music is not very good, apart from the odd track.* 

(WTF? What are you listening to?)

*Disclaimer: Take everything I say about Audio Networks with a pinch of salt. I don't like their business model as I think it rips off composers, so bear that in mind when reading my comments. 

Audio Networks? Yes, the client pays a one of licence fee and then has access to the whole catalogue. The composer receives none of this, and has to reply on PRS payments to get any income. For me, this would require twice as much usage of my tracks on the same networks, in order to keep my income the same.*

Audio Network chaps, not Audio Networks!

There are an awful lot of misconceptions about Audio Network, some circulated by Music Libraries scared of the competition, but most just based on heresay and sour grapes. As a founder shareholder and composer with Audio Network please allow me to put a few things straight:

ANW shy away from accepting sampled strings / guitars / whatever because in the majority of cases and in the wrong hands sampled strings and guitars can sound awful. Audio Network know this and have a policy of keeping it real. They’ll give you a real orchestra full of real people, in real studios, and a real creative buzz. This is very expensive but the composer does not pay for any of this, unlike 99% of the other libraries who will charge you for musicians, studio time, mastering, album artwork and so on. This means also that the quality of music is incredibly high due to the filtering process at the point of entry into the ANW ranks and is also why it is very difficult to have your music published by them. I’m not sure where you get the idea that ANW is ‘bargain basement’. The quality of music is excellent and composed by fab composers, many with impeccable and varied pedigrees in all genres of music.

Your perception of how they treat composers is also completely wrong. Since the composer is not charged for musicians, Choirs, singers, Studios, Mastering, advance fees, artwork etc, it means that from the minute your track goes live you are earning money from it. This is where the initial licence fee goes, back into the company and back into providing the composer with the best tools and best springboard for the job. ANW composers have access to The Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, Abbey Road (studios 1 and 2), the top session musicians in the country, an amazing network of sub-publishers throughout the World, in house mastering, and an amazing support network, all free.

Of course the main point that most people miss is that because the client has paid a one off fee he/she will end up using far more music simply because they can. This in turn means that far more PRS is generated and (in my case at least) this more than covers the loss of MCPS.

*Yeh, my initial thought was that Audio Network had quality music but wasn't a great deal for composers. Thanks for confirming the bad deal. The point is moot as they knocked me back anyway but had they been interested and I then found out the details of their composer agreement, I would have said no. However, I'm doing my first project for Imagem, their agreement is fine and they're funding some live players and singers, and doing mixing and mastering.*

I should read your Imagem contract again if I were you. Imagem will charge you for live players and singers along with the mixing and mastering (even if you’ve done it yourself), and if you take an advance on top of all that be prepared to start off a few thousand in debt, an amount which you will find difficult to recoup through Imagem under their current model. If your stuff does well expect to recoup in about 2 years, by which time your track will be taking a dive anyway unless it’s a slow burner, ie a track that has a life of say 10-15 years. This is absolutely not the case with ANW (as I explained earlier) since you are earning from day one, no debts. 

I should also mention that Audio Network DO pay MCPS if and when it is generated and are the only Music Library with a deal with YouTube, meaning that you get royalties per YouTube play paid out every 6 Months.


----------



## chrisblackwell (Apr 4, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> This kinda needs its own thread, but hey - I'm always confused about the Audio Network model. Does a composer still get royalties from transmissions?



The more your music gets played the more you earn, simple really. It's an incentive to make your stuff as good as possible so that it gets used. Self fulfilling really and I'm amazed that people have suggested ANW is 'bargain basement'. Wouldn't be any point in composing for a library that didn't pay it's composers now would there?


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Apr 4, 2013)

Welcome to the forum Chris - great to see you over here at last. 

OP and Cruciform, listen to what Chris, Riffs, Reid and Doctornine are saying - they know what they are talking about when it comes to library.


----------



## chrisblackwell (Apr 4, 2013)

Daryl @ Mon Apr 01 said:


> Audio Networks is pretty much bargain basement, and is usually only used by Production companies that don't have much money for music. The quality of music is not very good, apart from the odd track.



Wow, that's some statement. I'm not even going to mess with that one, I'm just going to let it stand on the understanding that your music is better.


----------



## chrisblackwell (Apr 4, 2013)

Stephen Baysted @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> Welcome to the forum Chris - great to see you over here at last.
> 
> OP and Cruciform, listen to what Chris, Riffs, Reid and Doctornine are saying - they know what they are talking about when it comes to library.



Hi Stephen, so here we are!


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 4, 2013)

chrisblackwell @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Thu Apr 04 said:
> 
> 
> > This kinda needs its own thread, but hey - I'm always confused about the Audio Network model. Does a composer still get royalties from transmissions?
> ...



Thanks to all and to Chris for answering this - great to hear. So... what's the typical % deal for a composer on AN (writer / publsher)?


----------



## George Caplan (Apr 4, 2013)

.....


----------



## chrisblackwell (Apr 4, 2013)

George Caplan @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> chrisblackwell @ Thu Apr 04 said:
> 
> 
> > George Caplan @ Mon Apr 01 said:
> ...



Hi George! In case you were wondering ... I'm nothing to do with Island Records! :D


----------



## chrisblackwell (Apr 4, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> So... what's the typical % deal for a composer on AN (writer / publsher)?



Hi Guy - it's the same as any other library, 50/50 between composer and publisher.


----------



## chrisblackwell (Apr 4, 2013)

alanbuchanan @ Mon Apr 01 said:


> Fellows,
> 
> I am in the planning stage of starting up my own music library. I know what you're thinking: 'why invest time and money into a project which will help make up an already ridiculously over-saturated market?'



That would be my initial reaction yes!

I can only assume you have an endless supply of cash, a list of composers with their own studios and hundreds of amazing tracks, and a network of sub publishers on standby. 

Either that or you are barking mad! :D


----------



## George Caplan (Apr 4, 2013)

.....


----------



## chrisblackwell (Apr 4, 2013)

George Caplan @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> that still doesnt change the fact that i never said and you have still misquoted.



Hi George - you're right, you didn't! Not sure how that happened and I apologise for the error. Shall I go back and delete?


----------



## George Caplan (Apr 4, 2013)

.....


----------



## chrisblackwell (Apr 4, 2013)

George Caplan @ Thu Apr 04 said:


> chrisblackwell @ Thu Apr 04 said:
> 
> 
> > George Caplan @ Thu Apr 04 said:
> ...



:D 

I look forward to meeting him!


----------



## Cruciform (Apr 4, 2013)

chrisblackwell @ Fri Apr 05 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Thu Apr 04 said:
> 
> 
> > So... what's the typical % deal for a composer on AN (writer / publsher)?
> ...



So you're saying that composers get 50% of all upfront licensing and that you don't rely on blanket licenses?


----------



## chrisblackwell (Apr 4, 2013)

Cruciform @ Fri Apr 05 said:


> chrisblackwell @ Fri Apr 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Guy Rowland @ Thu Apr 04 said:
> ...



Nope, I'm saying the composer gets 50% of all PRS just like any other library, but because there is more PRS generated I don't miss the blanket licences. It's swings and roundabouts really.


----------



## Cruciform (Apr 4, 2013)

chrisblackwell @ Fri Apr 05 said:


> Cruciform @ Fri Apr 05 said:
> 
> 
> > chrisblackwell @ Fri Apr 05 said:
> ...



Ok, so how do composers make money from trailers in this model where licensing is the main source of revenue?


----------



## George Caplan (Apr 5, 2013)

so if someone wanted to do a tune that involved strings they would presumably have to send in the work with sampled strings and if audio network liked it then they would push it forward to be recorded with real players.


----------



## chrisblackwell (Apr 5, 2013)

George Caplan @ Fri Apr 05 said:


> so if someone wanted to do a tune that involved strings they would presumably have to send in the work with sampled strings and if audio network liked it then they would push it forward to be recorded with real players.



Yep, that's pretty much it.

But of course Audio Network DO accept sampled strings, it's all about context and how they are used. Whatever is best for the track really.


----------



## chrisblackwell (Apr 5, 2013)

Cruciform @ Fri Apr 05 said:


> Ok, so how do composers make money from trailers in this model where licensing is the main source of revenue?



Well strictly speaking ANW tackle this slightly differently to other MCPS libraries. Pretty much all the revenue for trailers is tied up in the PRS and comes back to you through YouTube and direct payments from ANW when they are generated. Having just seen my April PRS total (the April figures are live in the 'Show Me The Money' box on the PRS website) I can confirm that year upon year this is VERY much the case! 

But no, there is no big MCPS fee upfront like in a traditional library.

On the other hand It's been a few years since I've seen any large sync fees for trailers from the other libraries I compose for, whereas ANW has seen a consistently steady stream of trailer royalties via PRS. As I said, it's all swings and roundabouts. If a large upfront sync fee is important to you (and why shouldn't it be!) then Audio Network is probably not for you.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 5, 2013)

This is all very interesting to me, Chris. I've been saying for years that making best use of the royalty system is the best way forward for composers in the current climate. Are you seeing significant royalties coming through from youtube now, would you say? If so, that's great news.


----------



## chrisblackwell (Apr 5, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Fri Apr 05 said:


> This is all very interesting to me, Chris. I've been saying for years that making best use of the royalty system is the best way forward for composers in the current climate. Are you seeing significant royalties coming through from youtube now, would you say? If so, that's great news.



Yes, YouTube royalties are on the increase and I get them via PRS and in the form of a twice yearly MCPS payment direct from ANW. It really makes sense because in my experience the big sync fees have all but gone.

And yes, they are quite significant! :D


----------



## Lex (Apr 5, 2013)

chrisblackwell @ Fri Apr 05 said:


> On the other hand It's been a few years since I've seen any large sync fees for trailers from the other libraries I compose for, whereas ANW has seen a consistently steady stream of trailer royalties via PRS. As I said, it's all swings and roundabouts. If a large upfront sync fee is important to you (and why shouldn't it be!) then Audio Network is probably not for you.



Hello Chris, am I understanding you correctly, are you saying that through ANW you manage to get PRS royalties for motion picture theatrical trailers and TV spots?

alex


----------



## chrisblackwell (Apr 5, 2013)

Lex @ Fri Apr 05 said:


> chrisblackwell @ Fri Apr 05 said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand It's been a few years since I've seen any large sync fees for trailers from the other libraries I compose for, whereas ANW has seen a consistently steady stream of trailer royalties via PRS. As I said, it's all swings and roundabouts. If a large upfront sync fee is important to you (and why shouldn't it be!) then Audio Network is probably not for you.
> ...



Since most clients pay the yearly subscription then they are at liberty to use the music wherever they like, so in the case of TV spots, yes, theatrical trailers do attract PRS royalties. Theatrical trailers attract a blanket MCPS payment on YouTube too.


----------



## Lex (Apr 5, 2013)

chrisblackwell @ Fri Apr 05 said:


> Lex @ Fri Apr 05 said:
> 
> 
> > chrisblackwell @ Fri Apr 05 said:
> ...



Wow, that's very interesting. First time I hear you can get PRS royalties for a TV spot/Tv trailer, if we are talking about hollywood studio movies. Does it depend on studio? For which campaign did you manage to get TV spot royalties?

alex


----------



## chrisblackwell (Apr 5, 2013)

Lex @ Fri Apr 05 said:


> Wow, that's very interesting. First time I hear you can get PRS royalties for a TV spot/Tv trailer, if we are talking about hollywood studio movies. Does it depend on studio? For which campaign did you manage to get TV spot royalties?
> 
> alex



I've had five or six trailers with my music on in the past 12 Months, some UK but mostly USA, the American ones being handled by Audio Network in New York. Certainly all the PRS still comes through, and as with the other usage types, by making the synch affordable and including global distribution on multiple platforms it allows the trailers to generate public performance revenue from all over the world, and increasingly also online (YouTube is a good revenue generator for trailers).

As I said, if you need the big sync fee upfront then ANW is not for you, it's more about the bigger long term picture.


----------



## Lex (Apr 5, 2013)

chrisblackwell @ Fri Apr 05 said:


> Lex @ Fri Apr 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, that's very interesting. First time I hear you can get PRS royalties for a TV spot/Tv trailer, if we are talking about hollywood studio movies. Does it depend on studio? For which campaign did you manage to get TV spot royalties?
> ...



I see, thank you Chris, you are the first composer I heard from that managed to get royalties for a TV spot/trailer. I mean if this actually works, my income could quadruple next year. 
I still don't really understand what do you different then everyone else to make this happen, usually you always hear the same from PRO's "..we don't track motion picture advertising."

alex


----------



## Synesthesia (Apr 5, 2013)

Alex,

Certainly for PRS, there are a good few channels where every single piece of music is paid out, irrespective of if its an ad, a trailer, a cue in a TV show, channel ident. certainly the most highly paying channels are treated this way.

If you have motion picture advertising that is being broadcast in the UK for example on ITV, you should be earning good money from that.

Best,

Paul


----------



## Lex (Apr 6, 2013)

Synesthesia @ Sat Apr 06 said:


> Alex,
> 
> Certainly for PRS, there are a good few channels where every single piece of music is paid out, irrespective of if its an ad, a trailer, a cue in a TV show, channel ident. certainly the most highly paying channels are treated this way.
> 
> ...



Hi Paul. Yes that sounds how it should be, but for some mysterious reason hollywood big studio movie advertising on TV is not reported and not bringing in royalties, at least I haven't met anyone who managed to do this, that's why I got so intrigued by what Chris is saying.

Alex


----------



## Greg (Apr 8, 2013)

Really strange that trailers are so wishy washy when it comes to royalties. Considering they always use music in ways more pronounced than most productions. Plus these days, trailers online easily get 100mil views in a few days, and are blasted repetitively on tv, through all the networks, during primetime.

Doesn't really make sense that trailers aren't amongst the highest revenue generators of the PRS' and composers. Or at least more so than tv underscore.


----------



## musicformedia (Apr 8, 2013)

chrisblackwell @ Sat Apr 06 said:


> Cruciform @ Fri Apr 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, so how do composers make money from trailers in this model where licensing is the main source of revenue?
> ...



Just out of curiosity - is the music you have with the Youtube Content ID system exclusively licensed or non-exclusively licensed with a couple of libraries?

I only ask I have have a mixture of non-exclusive and exclusive music, but would never put any of it into that system - clients might purchase my music on a "royalty free" website, then get slapped with a horrible message on youtube saying they don't own the music and get ads put over their video. I'm just curious how people who are making money from the youtube system are finding their clients are reacting towards it? Are they not slightly annoyed at all?


----------



## Dean (Apr 8, 2013)

Im working on trailers for year or so now and I was surprised/shocked to find out that royalties for trailers are not collected or even considered!This was for a US trailer.Cant understand it?Ive already started trying to look into it through trailer clients and collection agencies. 

So Lex you have'nt seen a dime from royalties in the US,I presume you get an upfront fee?D


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Apr 8, 2013)

musicformedia @ Mon Apr 08 said:


> I'm just curious how people who are making money from the youtube system are finding their clients are reacting towards it? Are they not slightly annoyed at all?



Nope, I've never had any negative feedback.


----------



## j_kranz (Apr 8, 2013)

alanbuchanan @ Sun Mar 31 said:


> *
> How should licensing decisions be made?
> Do you know loads about how libraries work?
> What is something all libraries should have, but some completely miss?
> ...



Not sure if this has been asked yet... but do you currently have any music in any professional music libraries yourself? I'd suggest exploring that route first... if anything you'll get good feedback and learn pretty quickly how they work before jumping in yourself.


----------



## Lex (Apr 8, 2013)

Dean @ Mon Apr 08 said:


> So Lex you have'nt seen a dime from royalties in the US,I presume you get an upfront fee?D



That's correct, no royalties for TV spots and theatrical trailers on big movies and big campaigns. Now, I noticed that if a , lets say a cable station like SkyHD makes a tv spot of their own, for a movie that they will be airing...then royalties come in as normal. Crazy.

Again, this is why Im so interested in Chris's story, or anyone else's for that matter, is there anyone here who had a worldwide TV spot for a big studio movie and managed to collect performance royalties from their PRO?

alex


----------



## Greg (Apr 8, 2013)

We should make our own thread regarding the trailer royalties. I feel bad having jacked this guys post and taking it off subject! 

Anyways, to get back on topic:

How should licensing decisions be made? 
On a case by case basis. Giving clients a fee tailored to their project will make sure it is 100% fair for both parties. It will also open up a dialog with the client to help build relationships!

Do you know loads about how libraries work?
It's not that complicated! Publish a collection of music, then license to clients as they come in. Promotion is the hard part.

What is something all libraries should have, but some completely miss?
1. Treat their composers like GOLD and pay them on time! Your composers are your lifeline. Some libraries just absorb songs from composers and never speak to them again. Talk to them and encourage them as much as you can. This is priority #1 when starting out. 

What processes did you go through to start up your library?
I don't technically own my own "Library" I just make my compositions available online for licensing on my website and youtube. Clients find my music through various ways and I license directly to them via email or phone.


----------



## Dean (Apr 8, 2013)

Hey,

coincidentally I've just received some royalties from the states,pretty sure its from the UFC channel.Dont know know much about the channel? D


----------



## _taylor (Apr 8, 2013)

Lex @ Mon Apr 08 said:


> is there anyone here who had a worldwide TV spot for a big studio movie and managed to collect performance royalties from their PRO?
> 
> alex



I wish! But, sadly nothing here. I believe this is why fees are pretty high. A couple publishers have mentioned not to expect them either.


----------

