Epidemic Sound and P.R.O licenses

[Markrs]

So I am very new to library music, PROs (Performing Rights Organisations) and quite clueless about it all. Recently I have been hearing these terms in regards to a company called Epidemic Sound, and why a lot of composers are not fans of the organisation.

Well the video below helped a lot with understanding this a bit better and I think it is well worth a watch.

Click to read more...

 

[J-M]

For anyone new into this thing thinking about writing for Epidemic sound - please don't. Just don't. Your music is worth more and not only are you hurting yourself, you're also hurting the community.

 

[gtrwll]

It’s disgusting that the Finnish Broadcasting Company uses Epidemic Sound to cater for its music needs. I would expect more from a company that’s run solely with taxes.

 

[J-M]

It’s disgusting that the Finnish Broadcasting Company uses Epidemic Sound to cater for its music needs. I would expect more from a company that’s run solely with taxes.

Yeah, exactly. I never know whether to laugh or cry when I see where the music came from...

 

[rgames]

I didn't watch the video but am familiar with the problems people have with ES. Ultimately it's a business decision. I'm a member of a PRO and, therfore, do not have music with ES.

There's this feeling among some (especially many on this forum) that ES and the non-PRO model are "Evil". They're not. Well, not any more evil than a PRO.

Here's something to think about: PROs are old school. They're not necessary anymore and ES is one of the businesses that is working in the new world. The vast majority of the working world outside the music biz uses the ES model (i.e. no PROs). The PRO model is the exception, not the rule.

For example, engineers don't have PROs but they collect royalties. In fact, they get paid a *lot* more in royalties than composers. Soooo... no PROs but really good royalties.

I'd bet that PROs will eventually disappear completely. I just don't know when.

PROs were appropriate for the time when they were created. Just like typewriters and buggy whips. Times change...

rgames

 

[lokotus]

I didn't watch the video but am familiar with the problems people have with ES. Ultimately it's a business decision. I'm a member of a PRO and, therfore, do not have music with ES.

There's this feeling among some (especially many on this forum) that ES and the non-PRO model are "Evil". They're not. Well, not any more evil than a PRO.

Here's something to think about: PROs are old school. They're not necessary anymore and ES is one of the businesses that is working in the new world. The vast majority of the working world outside the music biz uses the ES model (i.e. no PROs). The PRO model is the exception, not the rule.

For example, engineers don't have PROs but they collect royalties. In fact, they get paid a *lot* more in royalties than composers. Soooo... no PROs but really good royalties.

I'd bet that PROs will eventually disappear completely. I just don't know when.

PROs were appropriate for the time when they were created. Just like typewriters and buggy whips. Times change...

rgames

"PROs are old school."
Yes, but the fact that they take the fees from different sources does still make them extremely important. Its would be impossible for every composer to make their own contract and individual fees structure with every radio station, broadcaster, cinema etc...

"engineers don't have PROs but they collect royalties."
Are you talking about producers, mixing engineers ?

"I'd bet that PROs will eventually disappear completely. "
The fact that it is becoming more difficult to receive upfront payment for the creative composition of music makes the PRO still very important. Don't you think composer would fight for the PROs to stay in this market with hard fights over decreasing creative fees ?
Cheers, lokotus

 

[rgames]

Its would be impossible for every composer to make their own contract and individual fees structure with every radio station, broadcaster, cinema etc...

That was true 50 years ago. But not today. That's the point. Take a look at the stock photo/video market: no PROs and they license content to all sorts of broadcasters, cinema, etc. You set your rates for licenses given a bunch of standard use cases and then adapt to special cases as needed. It's easy to do.

Regarding engineers - no, I'm not talking about mixing engineers. I'm talking about mechanical engineers and electrical engineers and software engineers and those kinds of engineers. They don't have a PRO. And they deal with vastly more licenses than ASCAP or BMI or PRS or whoever. As with stock photo/video they have standard licenses for standard use cases then adapt to others on a case-by-case basis. You don't need a PRO to do that.

You *can* do that with a PRO but it's not necessary and, in fact, they're by far the least common way unless you're in the music biz.

rgames

 

[RonOrchComp]

For example, engineers don't have PROs but they collect royalties.

Regarding engineers - no, I'm not talking about mixing engineers. I'm talking about mechanical engineers and electrical engineers and software engineers and those kinds of engineers.

Who is it that signs their checks?

 

[dhmusic]

I didn't watch the video but

okay i told ASCAP to go fuck themselves

what do i do next?

btw i am (sometimes) very lazy

 

[rgames]

The other weird thing about PROs is that the license fee is paid by someone who doesn't actually make the product. The broadcaster pays the fee, not the production.

That's like you paying Goodyear for the right to use their patents in the tires for the car you buy from Ford. It's silly and inefficient and, more importantly, incentivizes a "pass-the-buck" mentality in your customer. It also leads to a lot of unfair practices in distributions because the PROs treat royalties in aggregate across broadcasters (EDIT: and payout is based on aggregation at the time of payout, not performance, also unfair).

That's the source of a lot of the complexity and unfairness in the PRO system. Just get rid of that model and have the productions pay, like they do in the photo/video world. And the rest of the world other than the music biz...

If you want to license something from Apple they don't let some PRO decide what you should pay for it. Absurd, right? Well, that's how the PRO model works. I have never once had any say in what ASCAP charges, and the result is statements with hundreds of pages of TV shows that use my music for next-to-nothing. And a bunch of uses that never even make it to my statements, so ASCAP is letting those go for free. What can I do about it? Nothing. They don't care.

I guarantee you Epidemic Sound isn't giving away its composers' music for free. So, are you really better off with a PRO? Maybe not.

rgames

 

[gsilbers]

The other weird thing about PROs is that the license fee is paid by someone who doesn't actually make the product. The broadcaster pays the fee, not the production.

That's like you paying Goodyear for the right to use their patents in the tires for the car you buy from Ford. It's silly and inefficient and, more importantly, incentivizes a "pass-the-buck" mentality in your customer. It also leads to a lot of unfair practices in distributions because the PROs treat royalties in aggregate across broadcasters (EDIT: and payout is based on aggregation at the time of payout, not performance, also unfair).

That's the source of a lot of the complexity and unfairness in the PRO system. Just get rid of that model and have the productions pay, like they do in the photo/video world. And the rest of the world other than the music biz...

If you want to license something from Apple they don't let some PRO decide what you should pay for it. Absurd, right? Well, that's how the PRO model works. I have never once had any say in what ASCAP charges, and the result is statements with hundreds of pages of TV shows that use my music for next-to-nothing. And a bunch of uses that never even make it to my statements, so ASCAP is letting those go for free. What can I do about it? Nothing. They don't care.

I guarantee you Epidemic Sound isn't giving away its composers' music for free. So, are you really better off with a PRO? Maybe not.

rgames

you ve been adamant about this sort of practice for a while. I do understand but still, one main issue is that composers have been able to get paid about 70% of the overall fee through ryalties.
So everyone has been charging the upfront fee for the the longest time to be small in context because the PRO would pay about 50-70% of the rest.

Now all these types of royalty free libraries are going for even lower upfront fees. at like $20 bucks per track. the chances theyll buy more than a few times is very low.

Normally rates to sell a track are based on the exposure and revenue said media will have. if you sell to a cable network then you kinda of know. but with amazon self publish, youtube movies, hulu only releases etc its all murky.

We do know these tech companies are making gazillions of dollars. and we know that each stream can be counted exactly in terms of duration, composers, etc.
So now these facebook videos or tick tock that get rehashed in instagram reels, and snapshat whatever is not paying anything. some blanket back end we dont know about.


I think we should be pushing for the oposite. that there was some sort of metadata that can even be lke crypto to make sure its your track and not a retitle and get a few pennies each stream on social media. or youtube, netflix. etc.

btw- now in july 2021, Youtube is as big as netflix. And we know the future is streaming. Yet getting paid in roaylties seems to be the hardest. or getting paid in a better way. right now we are turning into uber drivers. but uber drivers that drive mercedez benz since we have to spent a ton of money in equipment and leanring the craft

maybe Ai will take the place of corporate music for facebook article videos. but other than that there is no real reason we composers shoudlnt be getting paid more via upfront or royalties. yes , there is a lot more composers but there is a ton more content out there.

 

[gsilbers]

I had to mix a tv show that used some epidemic sound music and i have to say that there are composers out there not really caring about the PRO thing. or epidemid sound is not really checking Some of these tracks where top level action movie sort of thing that could eaisly be on a broadcat tv show. Not only that but it seems they where cues for other movies that got retitled and placed in epidemic music. So not sure whats happening but maybe its foreign composers not caring about their countries pro.

 

[Daryl]

Of course when you accept advice from a composer, do remember that a lot of the advice may depend on the level at which they work, and also on how successful they are. Someone who is a hobbyist (not that there is anything wrong with that) may have totally different experiences with a PRO from someone who composes for a living, and whose yearly income is regularly into 6 figures.

 

[SamC]

I echo Daryl. I know a fair few composers writing library music who don’t earn upfront fees but they’re pulling in upwards of $50k a quarter.

Ive never heard any of them say, “you know, we should be more like those stock video guys, that’s where the real money is.”

Everyone’s path is so vastly different in this business and take everyone’s experience - even the good - with a pinch of salt. Most would find it impossible to live without PRO’s and would deem it economically and physically impossible, but it’s clear from Epidemics roster that they have a never ending line of people who feel otherwise.

I would be interested to know how many of those composers actually make a living with their music, especially on that platform.

 

[rgames]

Ive never heard any of them say, “you know, we should be more like those stock video guys, that’s where the real money is.”

Again, engineers make a *lot* more money from royalties than composers. That’s a fact.

They don’t have a PRO. That’s also a fact.

The photo/video example is just a more accessible counter-argument to the “too many licenses” argument. Dealing with a large number of licenses can be done and it’s easy to do. Fact.

You can make money with a PRO. Fact.

You can make money without a PRO. In fact, that’s how most royalties are collected: without a PRO. Fact.

rgames

 

[rgames]

Of course when you accept advice from a composer, do remember that a lot of the advice may depend on the level at which they work, and also on how successful they are. Someone who is a hobbyist (not that there is anything wrong with that) may have totally different experiences with a PRO from someone who composes for a living, and whose yearly income is regularly into 6 figures.

Personal computers began as a hobby. Typewriters were the real deal.

I think the hobbyists took over at some point. And became vastly more successful.

I‘m pretty sure typewriters are the hobby nowadays.

 

[Daryl]

Personal computers began as a hobby. Typewriters were the real deal.

I think the hobbyists took over at some point. And became vastly more successful.

I‘m pretty sure typewriters are the hobby nowadays.

Except that the people using the "personal computers" are actually professionals, so your statement makes no sense.

 

[GtrString]

For broadcasters, Epidemic Sound is not cheaper than any other competitor. They make their money from taking composers’ rights, so they make more from the exact same deals other libraries do. How composers can accept that, beats me. You can just get a better deal elsewhere.

PROs are taking care of composers rights, so of course ES don’t want to deal with them. But let the PRO’s do their job for you, and they will have to, or go out of business. They probably get a lot of one-finger stuff from inexperienced composers anyway, as what do you get for nothing..

With library music, you basically need to be 100% self-sufficient, so even libraries taking half with standard deals is pretty bad for the most part. It only pays off to sign away rights if the library can deliver a ton of placements, which means the top quartile of companies. There are so many bad bunnies. ES is definitely not a moneymaker, they are rather an experimental deal for beginners, which you will grow out of, fast. You will learn what not to do..

Take care of business, and business will take care of you. If you don’t, it won’t take you anywhere.

 

[Henu]

It's also good to point out that there is a WORLD of difference in quality between Audionetwork and Epidemic. I've been working at the both sides of the table (both composer and supervisor/ licencing) and there's absolutely no way in hell I'd use anything from Epidemic any more than say, from Pond5 or any equivalent oversaturated cesspool of loops and four-chord ostinatos.

 

[SamC]

I don’t feel I’m biased or have an old guard attitude towards PRO’s like some. I’ve always been a proponent of following the money and adapting to industry change. PRO's have room for improvement to better benefit the composers, but models like Epidemic are just the other side of the extreme.

I would say follow the money in whichever path your music falls. If you're an instrumental underscore or trailer/promo writer, Epidemic makes little financial sense. Like I would literally lose tens of thousands of dollars a year if I was with Epidemic instead of libraries that require a PRO membership.

If you're a singer-songwriter and happen to get placed in their Spotify playlists, maybe that can be a good thing? They only share streaming royalties, but that's like splitting a shit sandwich. If your music is used in a Nationwide ad or opening titles/scene bumpers for a syndicated series, you get a lot of plays and earn zero. In the UK, I also get Mechanical/Synchronisation royalties - Epidemic don't pay them either - nor public performance.

The upfront fee's I get from the libraries I write for can go up to $1200k per track, before royalties. Even if Epidemic matched that, I'd be losing out on mech, broadcast, public perf, etc. I get to keep my tracks, but Epidemic wouldn't want me to be a PRO member, so I couldn't take them to boutiques or the AAA libraries anyway.

I'm struggling to see the benefit in Epidemic, writing the kind of music I and many others do.

Maybe others music would make more from Epidemic than in other places. I wouldn't say it's impossible. But if someone is eager to deprive or buy me out of my rights, there's usually a reason. That's why royalties are enshrined by law here and UK writers are banned from Epidemics roster.

My concern going forward is streaming being classed as broadcast (as it should), and if not that, the fee's will have to grow tenfold. Both shrinking is totally unsustainable.