# Can I (being PRO registered) publish royalty free (no PRO) tracks?... if I use an artist name?



## Lionel Schmitt (Feb 15, 2018)

Is it possible (and legal) to be PRO registered but have in a way a carreer as a royalty free composer - propably using an artist name so the PRO will under no circumstances be involved? 
I kinda bugs me that a PRO registration seems to include all tracks you write (even if you don't register them), so... does it work if I'm basically going around with another identity?


----------



## Desire Inspires (Feb 15, 2018)

No, don’t do it.


----------



## randomuser245 (Mar 15, 2018)

I'm not sure if you're aware, but you can actually sell PRO-registered tracks on royalty free websites like Audiojungle, POND5, etc.


----------



## MatFluor (Mar 15, 2018)

randomuser245 said:


> I'm not sure if you're aware, but you can actually sell PRO-registered tracks on royalty free websites like Audiojungle, POND5, etc.



It depends on your PRO, and how Pond5 etc. handle it. If you can enter the IPI of the track, then yes (but then it's not royalty free).

I knwo from my PRO, I can't, not even with a Pseudonym. Of course, I could "just do it" - and the worst that could happen is I don't get royalties for that track and maybe get kicked out of the PRO (I would need to look into the contract to be sure). Becaus emostly you are contractually obligated to register every track with your PRO. And Pen names/Pseudonyms are jsut that, Aliases for the real persona, and the real person is registered, so it counts the same.

BUT, ask your PRO and your lawyer.


----------



## Daryl (Mar 16, 2018)

DarkestShadow said:


> Is it possible (and legal) to be PRO registered but have in a way a carreer as a royalty free composer - propably using an artist name so the PRO will under no circumstances be involved?
> I kinda bugs me that a PRO registration seems to include all tracks you write (even if you don't register them), so... does it work if I'm basically going around with another identity?



It depends on which PRO. However, more imnportantly, why would you seek to degrade composer's rights? Shouldn't we all be working towards strengthening them?


----------



## ghostnote (Mar 16, 2018)

I agree with Daryl. If your music is beeing played on TV you should get compensated. There's no reason why. I don't know how all PROs work, but with BMI you can register your works under a Pseudonym. I would avoid offering my music to a library which doesn't allow you to submit registered works.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Mar 16, 2018)

randomuser245 said:


> I'm not sure if you're aware, but you can actually sell PRO-registered tracks on royalty free websites like Audiojungle, POND5, etc.


Yea, I also do that. But there are some cool sites that don't allow PRO registered tracks that I would want to send some tracks to.


MatFluor said:


> It depends on your PRO, and how Pond5 etc. handle it. If you can enter the IPI of the track, then yes (but then it's not royalty free).
> 
> I knwo from my PRO, I can't, not even with a Pseudonym. Of course, I could "just do it" - and the worst that could happen is I don't get royalties for that track and maybe get kicked out of the PRO (I would need to look into the contract to be sure). Becaus emostly you are contractually obligated to register every track with your PRO. And Pen names/Pseudonyms are jsut that, Aliases for the real persona, and the real person is registered, so it counts the same.
> 
> BUT, ask your PRO and your lawyer.


I also found that out - my (GEMA) contract says that I have to register all tracks I do with them. But this is to much hassle for me as some tracks I do won't be licensed so I haven't followed that anyway.  
I'll try to contact BMI which I plan to switch to if they allow that.


Daryl said:


> It depends on which PRO. However, more imnportantly, why would you seek to degrade composer's rights? Shouldn't we all be working towards strengthening them?


This is for a few tracks for sites that don't allow PRO registration. It's propably not gonna be many that I would trade like this but I would like to try some royalty free music busiess alongside my bigger projects - see how/if that works out.


ghostnote said:


> I agree with Daryl. If your music is beeing played on TV you should get compensated. There's no reason why. I don't know how all PROs work, but with BMI you can register your works under a Pseudonym. I would avoid offering my music to a library which doesn't allow you to submit registered works.


Ah, BMI is a PRO I will be switching to later this year. But registering with pseudonym would still mean it is registered and thus not royalty free right? I would like to have some tracks PRO free entirely and mess try a bit of royalty free business - see if that is profitable. It might not work, but actually I had good sucess on some sites (that I can't use being registered now) when I wasn't registered. 
And, those royalty free tracks mostly don't land on TV anyway. On not all TV placements really pay a lot of money I think so... it seems at least worth a try, if possible.


----------



## ghostnote (Mar 16, 2018)

DarkestShadow said:


> But registering with pseudonym would still mean it is registered and thus not royalty free right?



Royalty free does not mean performance royalty free.



DarkestShadow said:


> I would like to have some tracks PRO free entirely and mess try a bit of royalty free business - see if that is profitable. It might not work, but actually I had good sucess on some sites (that I can't use being registered now) when I wasn't registered.



Again, the term royalty free does not rule out broadcast placements.



DarkestShadow said:


> And, those royalty free tracks mostly don't land on TV anyway. On not all TV placements really pay a lot of money I think so... it seems at least worth a try, if possible.



Most don't, they go to Youtube anyway, but you'd be surprised how many do land on TV...


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Mar 16, 2018)

ghostnote said:


> Royalty free does not mean performance royalty free.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hm, it doesn't rule out broadcast placements for sure, but royalty free should rule out everything beyond a one time payment for a license (no performance sync fees). That's the royalty free business as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Jaap (Mar 16, 2018)

DarkestShadow said:


> Hm, it doesn't rule out broadcast placements for sure, but royalty free should rule out everything beyond a one time payment for a license (no performance sync fees). That's the royalty free business as far as I'm concerned.



Royalty free does not mean that there are no royalties being paid, these a seperate matters (confusing though).
Royalty free in this case means that a purchaser pays a one time single fee without having to pay again for it (lets say for a youtube video or something, he can use it for as long as he wants, without having to pay again for the license). But if the video is used and broadcasted on a tv network, then the broadcasting channel has to pay performance royalties (not the original purchaser, but the network), hence it is important to NOT EVER skip on your PRO. And for your own sake, just ignore the ones that are trying to do so. You are only limiting yourself and the rest of us as these business models are screwing us all over.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Mar 16, 2018)

DarkestShadow said:


> Hm, it doesn't rule out broadcast placements for sure, but royalty free should rule out everything beyond a one time payment for a license (no performance sync fees). That's the royalty free business as far as I'm concerned.



Sad state of affairs. People making music are so happy to just give away their performance royalties. What do they get in return? A handful of magic beans.


----------



## randomuser245 (Mar 16, 2018)

You might be interested in this...

https://www.ascap.com/press/2017/06-12-youtube-agreement


----------



## Johnny4Lonnie (Mar 16, 2018)

Jaap said:


> Royalty free does not mean that there are no royalties being paid, these a seperate matters (confusing though).
> Royalty free in this case means that a purchaser pays a one time single fee without having to pay again for it (lets say for a youtube video or something, he can use it for as long as he wants, without having to pay again for the license). But if the video is used and broadcasted on a tv network, then the broadcasting channel has to pay performance royalties (not the original purchaser, but the network), hence it is important to NOT EVER skip on your PRO. And for your own sake, just ignore the ones that are trying to do so. You are only limiting yourself and the rest of us as these business models are screwing us all over.



Well said. Hopefully the OP reads and understands this statement to make an informed decision. 

I have a cutdown retitled track on Pond 5 that sells for $35. It has sold 4 times in 3 years. Enough for a decent bottle of scotch. But one of the sales ended up being for a TV movie on Lifetime. My first two BMI statements this year have yielded $900 for that one placement and it will keep paying out royalties in the future. And I never even knew any of it was happening until I opened up the PRO statement

I was clueless starting out and did some bonehead things. Still am clueless in lot of ways. But two simple rules I live by now

1) Don't give your music to an exclusive without a significant up front fee, and especially don't give them perpetuity without a really significant upfront
2) Register everything with a PRO and plaster the PRO name, IP#, publisher/composer name every place you possibly can


----------



## Johnny4Lonnie (Mar 16, 2018)

And I would also add that one of the unsung beauties of some non-ex RF libraries is, they don't take PRO publishing. So you get double your back end money


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Mar 16, 2018)

Desire Inspires said:


> Sad state of affairs. People making music are so happy to just give away their performance royalties. What do they get in return? A handful of magic beans.


As I said, almost all of my tracks would be pro-registered but I wanna try some stuff with non-PRO registered ones cuz there are some cool libaries that don't like PRO's. If it doesn't pay, I stop. Nobody hurt.


randomuser245 said:


> You might be interested in this...
> 
> https://www.ascap.com/press/2017/06-12-youtube-agreement


Hm, not sure why, sorry. It's says that music on YouTube will now earn more for the artists.


Jaap said:


> Royalty free does not mean that there are no royalties being paid, these a seperate matters (confusing though).
> Royalty free in this case means that a purchaser pays a one time single fee without having to pay again for it (lets say for a youtube video or something, he can use it for as long as he wants, without having to pay again for the license). But if the video is used and broadcasted on a tv network, then the broadcasting channel has to pay performance royalties (not the original purchaser, but the network), hence it is important to NOT EVER skip on your PRO. And for your own sake, just ignore the ones that are trying to do so. You are only limiting yourself and the rest of us as these business models are screwing us all over.



Thanks for the info. I'd just see if it is profitable with a few tracks. Almost all my tracks will be PRO-registered and (hopefully) in good exclusive music libraries.  And I'm not decent enough to care about anyone but me in that regard - "supporting bad business models" and so...



Johnny4Lonnie said:


> Well said. Hopefully the OP reads and understands this statement to make an informed decision.
> 
> I have a cutdown retitled track on Pond 5 that sells for $35. It has sold 4 times in 3 years. Enough for a decent bottle of scotch. But one of the sales ended up being for a TV movie on Lifetime. My first two BMI statements this year have yielded $900 for that one placement and it will keep paying out royalties in the future. And I never even knew any of it was happening until I opened up the PRO statement
> 
> ...


I see. But, almost all of my... just wanna try with some... as a said.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Mar 16, 2018)

DarkestShadow said:


> As I said, almost all of my tracks would be pro-registered but I wanna try some stuff with non-PRO registered ones cuz there are some cool libaries that don't like PRO's. If it doesn't pay, I stop. Nobody hurt.



Dude, don't do it! It is a terrible idea. Do not try bad things.


----------



## chillbot (Mar 16, 2018)

Desire Inspires said:


> Do not try bad things.


What about the bad things that are so good though...?


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Mar 17, 2018)

Desire Inspires said:


> Dude, don't do it! It is a terrible idea. Do not try bad things.


Haha, I wouldn't call it "terrible" if I loose some money on 8 little tracks.


----------



## Dr Belasco (Mar 17, 2018)

What about exclusive libraries that don't pay Sync fees? Are they any good?


----------



## ghostnote (Mar 17, 2018)

The thing is that not every broadcast placement gets assigned to the composer. May it be because someone didn't care about the PRO data or there was no PRO data in the first place, like in libraries who offer royalty free music. Offering your music completely royalty free sends out the impression that PRO is neglectable.

With offering royalty free music you're not only losing out money, you're also supporting this trend.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Mar 17, 2018)

DarkestShadow said:


> Haha, I wouldn't call it "terrible" if I loose some money on 8 little tracks.



So you are going to put in hard work to leave your PRO to sign with another PRO, then you are going to do more work to sign music to a company that is not going to help you to make money? 

My goodness........


----------



## MatFluor (Mar 17, 2018)

Desire Inspires said:


> So you are going to put in hard work to leave your PRO to sign with another PRO, then you are going to do more work to sign music to a company that is not going to help you to make money?
> 
> My goodness........



Reminds me to ask:

Why are you considering switching your PRO? That would make mostly sense if you have your majority of work performed (in case of BMI) in the US - you could still go double-membership and exclude the US as territory from your GEMA contract - if you need that BMI takes care of your US royalties...

@DarkestShadow


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Mar 17, 2018)

Dr Belasco said:


> What about exclusive libraries that don't pay Sync fees? Are they any good?


It sounds bad, but not sure what you mean exactly...


ghostnote said:


> The thing is that not every broadcast placement gets assigned to the composer. May it be because someone didn't care about the PRO data or there was no PRO data in the first place, like in libraries who offer royalty free music. Offering your music completely royalty free sends out the impression that PRO is neglectable.
> 
> With offering royalty free music you're not only losing out money, you're also supporting this trend.


I just wanna see myself with some tracks how it goes. It would just try it with a few tracks and if it isn't profitable I just don't continue. 99 percent of my tracks would not be offered royalty free. And I also do't consider anybody else but myself in that decision (regarding trends that may screw others etc.). 


Desire Inspires said:


> So you are going to put in hard work to leave your PRO to sign with another PRO, then you are going to do more work to sign music to a company that is not going to help you to make money?
> 
> My goodness........


Well, since almost all my tracks will be pro-registered and I just wanna try royalty free with like 8 or so... doesn't strike as mind boggling...


MatFluor said:


> Reminds me to ask:
> 
> Why are you considering switching your PRO? That would make mostly sense if you have your majority of work performed (in case of BMI) in the US - you could still go double-membership and exclude the US as territory from your GEMA contract - if you need that BMI takes care of your US royalties...
> 
> @DarkestShadow


GEMA is unbeliavably confusing (Horror! Feeling like my own grandmother trying to figure out the internet with them...) and I was rejected from a good job for being with GEMA, they will take me when I am with another PRO. That's the main reason. And this double membership thing sounds pretty complicated and I have never seen a track registered with 2 PRO's. I'm not even sure that all pro's allow double membership. Dealing with one PRO is already enough hard work I'd say.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Mar 17, 2018)

Dr Belasco said:


> What about exclusive libraries that don't pay Sync fees? Are they any good?


It sounds bad, but not sure what you mean exactly...


ghostnote said:


> The thing is that not every broadcast placement gets assigned to the composer. May it be because someone didn't care about the PRO data or there was no PRO data in the first place, like in libraries who offer royalty free music. Offering your music completely royalty free sends out the impression that PRO is neglectable.
> 
> With offering royalty free music you're not only losing out money, you're also supporting this trend.


I just wanna see myself with some tracks how it goes. It would just try it with a few tracks and if it isn't profitable I just don't continue. 99 percent of my tracks would not be offered royalty free. And I also do't consider anybody else but myself in that decision (regarding trends that may screw others etc.). 


Desire Inspires said:


> So you are going to put in hard work to leave your PRO to sign with another PRO, then you are going to do more work to sign music to a company that is not going to help you to make money?
> 
> My goodness........


Well, since almost all my tracks will be pro-registered and I just wanna try royalty free with like 8 or so... doesn't strike as mind boggling...


MatFluor said:


> Reminds me to ask:
> 
> Why are you considering switching your PRO? That would make mostly sense if you have your majority of work performed (in case of BMI) in the US - you could still go double-membership and exclude the US as territory from your GEMA contract - if you need that BMI takes care of your US royalties...
> 
> @DarkestShadow


GEMA is unbeliavably confusing (Horror! Feeling like my own grandmother trying to figure out the internet with them...) and I was rejected from a good job for being with GEMA, they will take me when I am with another PRO. That's the main reason. And this double membership thing sounds pretty complicated and I have never seen a track registered with 2 PRO's. I'm not even sure that all pro's allow double membership. Dealing with one PRO is already enough hard work I'd say.


----------



## MatFluor (Mar 17, 2018)

DarkestShadow said:


> I was rejected from a good job for being with GEMA, they will take me when I am with another PRO.



I want to keep derailment at bay, but that senstence struck me - why that? 

It shouldn't matter - if they are in germany, then they need to deal with the GEMA nontheless, no matter what other PRO you have (since GEMA handles the german territory for other PROs I think), and same outside, e.g. I'm with SUISA, and if I get US royalties, the SUISA has contracts with some US PROs, so e.g. the US filmmaker (or whatever) has to tell the PRO in the US about the music, and the contractual things between the PROs handle it, so I get my payment (and retirement money and all the stuff) from SUISA. The Filmmaker has not to deal with SUISA directly.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Mar 17, 2018)

MatFluor said:


> I want to keep derailment at bay, but that senstence struck me - why that?
> 
> It shouldn't matter - if they are in germany, then they need to deal with the GEMA nontheless, no matter what other PRO you have (since GEMA handles the german territory for other PROs I think), and same outside, e.g. I'm with SUISA, and if I get US royalties, the SUISA has contracts with some US PROs, so e.g. the US filmmaker (or whatever) has to tell the PRO in the US about the music, and the contractual things between the PROs handle it, so I get my payment (and retirement money and all the stuff) from SUISA. The Filmmaker has not to deal with SUISA directly.


It seems to have something to do with mechanical rights that GEMA (and some other PRO's) automatically and exclusively administers. Bjorn Lynne, the owner of that label wrote this article after this trouble. https://www.shockwave-sound.com/blog/mechanical-rights-administration-and/


----------



## Daryl (Mar 17, 2018)

DarkestShadow said:


> Bjorn Lynne, the owner of that label wrote this article after this trouble. https://www.shockwave-sound.com/blog/mechanical-rights-administration-and/


That article is extremely misleading. First of all the idea that being a member of a PRO that admisters Mechancial rights means you can't write production music is a lie. What he means is that in certain countries, you have to abide by the rates set by the PRO. You can't undercut them, and that's what he is actually talking about. Being a member of a PRO stops him ripping you off. Boo hoo.

If a compser wants to go down this route, that's their choice, but if it then means they never have a chance to make a living as a composer, becuase they've helped to destroy that option, that's also their choice.


----------



## Lionel Schmitt (Mar 17, 2018)

Daryl said:


> That article is extremely misleading. First of all the idea that being a member of a PRO that admisters Mechancial rights means you can't write production music is a lie. What he means is that in certain countries, you have to abide by the rates set by the PRO. You can't undercut them, and that's what he is actually talking about. Being a member of a PRO stops him ripping you off. Boo hoo.
> 
> If a compser wants to go down this route, that's their choice, but if it then means they never have a chance to make a living as a composer, becuase they've helped to destroy that option, that's also their choice.


Yea, I also didn't have any other problems with GEMA with other labels. Always bewildered me. (but as I said, that's not the only o main reason I want to switch).
Hm... But I think selling things rather cheaply and at a fixed rate is just the stockmusic/royalty free business, isn't it? I'm also just gonna have some music with them, see how it works out. I'm actually already with a cool exclusive library - doing an album for them which will have live strings + a very good amount of upfront pay IMO. In that sense, I'm on a good way and the few tracks that might crash in my royalty free (or regarding the site we are talking about).
And, depending on which money we are talking about he might also get a share of it. In that case he would be ripping himself as well...


----------

