Libraries that won't allow PRS music

[rocksure]

I know many of you on here would prefer to use a commissioned composer to score for your films. If you can manage that, it's a good idea. However, there are times when you may decide you want to use library music in your film or video. Rather than just looking for the cheapest music on offer, by sites listed as royalty-free music at the top of searches, or posts offering music for 99c or whatever, please read an article I wrote on what this could be doing to the industry. This will help differentiate between sites that I believe are ok for the industry in general, and those that are potentially doing harm to all of us who are composers, and possibly eventually even film makers, TV show makers and all who are involved in the making of visual and audio media. Make an informed decision BEFORE you choose music from your music library of choice.
http://rocksuresoundz.com/2012/01/16/killing-off-broadcast-royalties-a-worrying-trend/

 

[wheatgrinder]

Read your article, and frankly it sounds like union rhetoric. The market place is cruel, but it is fair. No one is forcing anyone to sell music without royalties. If an artists doesn't want to do it, they don't have to. The reality is that EVERY creative job has global competition now.

Anything that complicates my selling my work is not acceptable. If I had used royalty required music for my poptent commercial, I would not have been able to sell the spot for $10K. The bottom line is that I CANT use music that requires royalties.

 

[rocksure]

Read your article, and frankly it sounds like union rhetoric. The market place is cruel, but it is fair. No one is forcing anyone to sell music without royalties. If an artists doesn't want to do it, they don't have to. The reality is that EVERY creative job has global competition now.

Anything that complicates my selling my work is not acceptable. If I had used royalty required music for my poptent commercial, I would not have been able to sell the spot for $10K. The bottom line is that I CANT use music that requires royalties.

No problem. It's fair enough that you have your own point of view. I just don't agree with it. But I guess you are not part of any colectives as a film maker then.

To quote a part of my article:
"Oh But it’s Only Composers That Suffer. Who Cares? It Helps Us Make Things Cheaper!
So, video makers and film makers are you going to also go for the cheapest option in music so you can make your productions on the cheap, and show no regard for the consequences to the industry long-term, or will you think beyond your own needs and look to the future of all artists? Because after all, who and what would be next in line for culling then? What about broadcasters telling studios, producers and film makers their works won’t be used if they belong to any film and television royalty collection agencies, societies and collectives like the Motion Picture Licensing Corporation (MPLC), Association of International Collective Management of Audiovisual Works (AGICOA) or the SMPTE. What about refusing to use works or performances by actors who are members of SAG (the Screen Actors Guild), or the AAAA ( Associated Actors and Artistes of America)? If YOU USE MUSIC from companies that don’t allow the filling of cue sheets and the reporting of broadcast royalties, you are helping to kill the income of composers, and encouraging the proliferation of sub-standard non-professional music. Remember, your affiliations could be next.
Shall we shoot your foot first or mine?"

 

[Feutus Lapdance]

Wat about using GOOOOOD music? Jou nevver speak about Price VS quality...I bet most filmakers that want to make the best movie are looking for the best sound.....not the ceapest sound....Corect me if im wrong.

 

[rocksure]

Wat about using GOOOOOD music? Jou nevver speak about Price VS quality...I bet most filmakers that want to make the best movie are looking for the best sound.....not the ceapest sound....Corect me if im wrong.

Absolutely, and that's the way it should be. To find the best sound you will generally want the best composers.
Most professional composers are part of a PRS ( Performing Rights Society). All the top name composers are, and most serious composers that have been in the industry for more than 5 minutes are too.

 

[wheatgrinder]

Tru dat, Im not part of ANY collective, and I bristle at the idea. I guess its that rugged american individualism!

"sub-standard non-professional music."
So only union members create great music then? That is elitist nonsense. A union IS a group of AVERAGE people, only SOME are exceptional.. the union serves those in the middle of the creative, quality scale more then it does genius. its just the logic of a standard distribution, not everyone can be above average!

 

[DeJager]

I agree with Wheatgrinder. The reality is indie filmmakers SHOULDN'T go beyond their means... just because you want something doesn't mean you should get it. I believe that's why America is in the situation they are in...(i.e., the housing market, etc). Don't go beyond your means!! If that means going with a rookie composer for a straight fee then so be it! If you don't have the budget to pay for some "professional composer" then you simply cannot afford one. There is nothing wrong with working within your budget.


Self-Entitled Generation....


Work harder, bitch less.

 

[PaulGriffith]

I tend to agree with wheat here. I'm all for paying people as much as possible, sometimes a cheap track in the background is what's needed though for a project to happen.

I do agree with your approach, to "buy responsibly". Whenever possible I try to buy clothing and other things that weren't made in sweatshops for example or if presented with a choice I go fair trade over the alternative. Most music, and any other type of stock, isn't made by force in a 3rd world country though. It's an artist who does so by choice.

The "$.99 completely royalty free" model is a valid business model too. While I haven't encountered anything at $1 that I like, is there a difference in selling one track to 500 people at $1 each from selling the track once and exclusively at $500? It's a business decision at that point.

Personally, I dislike the royalty model as applied to other mediums. It bugs me when a photographer charges a set fee and then they own all the pictures, you have to buy prints from them. When I do photography for people, I charge a set fee plus hourly rate, and they get all the raw pictures. I explain that they can buy prints through me at a fair price, or take them to the drugstore and order prints.

I've paid between free and $50 for a single stock track in the past. The free ones came from a site offerring a free download for referrals and selling the tracks at $20 each otherwise. I sent them legitimate referrals. The more expensive tracks I bought because I was in a time crunch and the track really fit the project.

How should music differ from other types of stock though? There are lots of types of royalty free stock. Video, images, animations, music, sound effects, project templates, etc.. There are some that want royalties, and they don't get the volume of downloads as the royalty free stuff. It comes back to marketing, supply and demand, business.

Of course, I go with a custom composition whenever possible. It's hard to beat a talented composer writing custom, project specific music with a blanket stock track. That's not possible for every project though.

 

[rocksure]

I agree with Wheatgrinder. The reality is indie filmmakers SHOULDN'T go beyond their means... just because you want something doesn't mean you should get it. I believe that's why America is in the situation they are in...(i.e., the housing market, etc). Don't go beyond your means!! If that means going with a rookie composer for a straight fee then so be it! If you don't have the budget to pay for some "professional composer" then you simply cannot afford one. There is nothing wrong with working within your budget.


Self-Entitled Generation....


Work harder, bitch less.

I am not quite sure whether you are understanding me here, or whether you have actually read the whole article I wrote.
I am not against cheap music, or royalty-free music in the normal sense of the word.

See, if you make a movie, say with music that is from the normal and traditional model of a composer who is part of a PRO, you as a film maker still don't have to pay any royalties.

If you do a deal with a composer cheaply to supply you music at a set one-off fee, even if they compose music for your whole movie for $10 that is fine. No problem.

BUT..and here is my point..........I believe the composer should still have the right to collect broadcast royalties from their composition/score in the film, the same as you as the filmmaker would be entitled to collect royalties, if the film is broadcast. It won't cost you as the film maker an extra cent. YOu don't pay the royalties. The royalties come out of the broadcast pool that all registered broadcasters have traditionally been a part of, and have paid their license fee in order to be allowed to broadcast music from all PRO, PRS members.

 

[rocksure]

The "$.99 completely royalty free" model is a valid business model too. While I haven't encountered anything at $1 that I like, is there a difference in selling one track to 500 people at $1 each from selling the track once and exclusively at $500? It's a business decision at that point.

Of course, I go with a custom composition whenever possible. It's hard to beat a talented composer writing custom, project specific music with a blanket stock track. That's not possible for every project though.

If someone wants to sell their music for 99 cents then so be it. However, all the 99c music I know of does not allow the composer to collect any royalties form broadcast at all. If you buy their 99c track, the composer will get a percentage of that money and that is all. If your movie becomes huge and sells millions of DVDs, and is broadcast all over the world the composer is still only entitled to a share of a few cents.

However, if YOU BUY YOUR ROYALTY FREE TRACK from a royalty free music library that allows and asks that you fill out a cue sheet stating that you are using such and such a song in your film the picture is different.
You might still have paid 99c for the song and it costs you no more money, just 5 minutes of your time to fill out the sheet.
The composer then has a chance to collect royalties form broadcast of the film..but it COSTS YOU NOT A CENT MORE than the other site's no broadcast royalties model.

 

[rocksure]

Tru dat, Im not part of ANY collective, and I bristle at the idea. I guess its that rugged american individualism!

"sub-standard non-professional music."
So only union members create great music then? That is elitist nonsense. A union IS a group of AVERAGE people, only SOME are exceptional.. the union serves those in the middle of the creative, quality scale more then it does genius. its just the logic of a standard distribution, not everyone can be above average!

Royalty Collection agencies (PRO, PRS) such as ASCAP, APRA are not unions, unions are a different thing altogether.
Whether someone belongs to union or not has nothing to do with whether or not they are members of an organistion that is set up to collect broadcast royalties from works that a member has registered a copyright for.

Taken from Wiki:
A performing rights society (also called a performing rights organization) is

“ an association, corporation, or other entity that licenses the public performance of nondramatic musical works on behalf of copyright owners of such works, such as the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP), Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI), and SESAC, Inc "

 

[PaulGriffith]

It's not all about me paying royalties though. If I make a commercial for someone I don't expect royalties each time it's played. I've shot/produced/edited TV shows over the past several years, I do it for a flat fee up front.

If a station has to pick between two similar products, one that they have to pay royalties everytime it airs and one they don't, what do you think they'll pick?

Again, as long as people are willingly selling their music truly royalty free (by the way, you can't call something royalty free if someone has to pay ANY type of royalty down the line) then nobody should feel bad using it.

 

[LasVegasIRA]

It sounds like a moot point.

How often does work from a small time independent film maker get shown in a broadcast medium? I understand what you're saying, but there are so FEW filmmakers that would buy a $.99 song due to budget constraints (or whatever) that would end up having their work shown to the masses anyway. So how much money is truly being lost here?

 

[rocksure]

If a station has to pick between two similar products, one that they have to pay royalties everytime it airs and one they don't, what do you think they'll pick?

[/u].

Stations don't pay royalties. They pay a blanket license fee to use music in their broadcasts.

Whether they play 1 or 1001 pieces of music, that fee stays the same.

Whether your commercial/advert uses music from which royalties can be collected or not, does not affect the capital outlay from the broadcaster, or you the maker of the commercial, advert or whatever.

You don't pay royalties and neither does the broadcaster. If a piece of music is registered with a PRS and it happens to be picked up and broadcast, the composer collects some royalties from the broadcast. It hasn't cost you or the broadcaster any extra money.

Actually by not using registered music you are inadvertently helping the singer who is at the top of the music charts get richer, rather than helping the average composer pay their bills.
How are you doing that? Well there is a broadcast royalty pool worldwide that is generated from the broadcast license fees of all broadcasters of music. Each quarter, money from that pool is paid out in royalties to composers round the world in amounts relative to the amount of their material that is broadcast. If a broadcaster has not declared use of composer X's music, then instead of composer X getting a share of the pool, the "chart topping star " gets more money because the money in the pool has to be paid to somebody, and since they are the one getting the most plays they get a bigger percentage payout.

 

[rocksure]

It sounds like a moot point.

How often does work from a small time independent film maker get shown in a broadcast medium? I understand what you're saying, but there are so FEW filmmakers that would buy a $.99 song due to budget constraints (or whatever) that would end up having their work shown to the masses anyway. So how much money is truly being lost here?

That's a fair point. To me however, there is a principle at stake here. Even if your production doesn't get massive exposure, you have still covered the "what if it does?" scenario.
OK while I am a sound engineer, and make a portion of my living from that, first and foremost I am a composer and musician. I like to stand with others in my profession, to help us get all the possible income we could potentially get. That includes broadcast royalties.
Most composers are not in the annual "millionaires list". We are artists battling to make a reasonable living from what we do. By using and declaring music that is eligible for broadcast royalties, you are helping us pay our bills and keep the wolves at bay...at no extra cost to you.

 

[PaulGriffith]

Stations don't pay royalties. They pay a blanket license fee to use music in their broadcasts.

Whether they play 1 or 1001 pieces of music, that fee stays the same.

Whether your commercial/advert uses music from which royalties can be collected or not, does not affect the capital outlay from the broadcaster, or you the maker of the commercial, advert or whatever.

You don't pay royalties and neither does the broadcaster. If a piece of music is registered with a PRS and it happens to be picked up and broadcast, the composer collects some royalties from the broadcast. It hasn't cost you or the broadcaster any extra money.

Actually by not using registered music you are inadvertently helping the singer who is at the top of the music charts get richer, rather than helping the average composer pay their bills.
How are you doing that? Well there is a broadcast royalty pool worldwide that is generated from the broadcast license fees of all broadcasters of music. Each quarter, money from that pool is paid out in royalties to composers round the world in amounts relative to the amount of their material that is broadcast. If a broadcaster has not declared use of composer X's music, then instead of composer X getting a share of the pool, the "chart topping star " gets more money because the money in the pool has to be paid to somebody, and since they are the one getting the most plays they get a bigger percentage payout.

My best friend is registered BMI for his music and I've worked with plenty of institutions that pay licensing fees. What you said is mostly true, except for that the blanket fee a broadcaster or public exhibition/event (even churches are supposed to pay a CCLI fee for music played and lyrics displayed live) is based on how big the audience is AND an estimated how much material they play.

From experience, if you have rights managed music you limit almost all of your medians for selling the product or getting seen, UNLESS you're one of the big boys. Even YouTube has cracked down big time on music in videos. We had advertising revenue pulled from a video with a custom composition in it because the letter form the composer giving us unlimited rights to use the song created for that video and explicitly gave us permission to use it on YouTube wasn't "good enough" for them.

Again, the main thing I'm arguing against here is the notion that using true royalty free (no royalties paid) music is bad. If people offer a stock track that I really like for sale at a price I like why shouldn't I or anyone else buy it?

 

[rocksure]

Again, the main thing I'm arguing against here is the notion that using true royalty free (no royalties paid) music is bad. If people offer a stock track that I really like for sale at a price I like why shouldn't I or anyone else buy it?

I do see amateur composers submitting music for a few cents to "el cheapo" web libraries as somewhat undermining professional composers in the industry. That's my view, you don't have to agree with it, and that's ok.

That's the thing, we all see things differently, we all have different ideas and priorities. If that is the decision you have come to, then I respect that.

I have explained and proclaimed my position, and how I see things, in order to give people things to think about when they choose music. Because the reality is that most people, including filmmakers, would not give this issue much thought. Now you all have some extra information to ponder on, and from there it is up to each individual to decide what they do with it.
The decision you come to when you have seen the case for both sides is up to you. Like I said, I respect your decision, even if it is not what I would decide if I were in that position.

Here is another link explaining the concept of royalty-free music if anyone feels they want to know more
http://rocksuresoundz.com/2011/10/11/royalty-free-music-what-is-it/

 

[PaulGriffith]

I do see amateur composers submitting music for a few cents to "el cheapo" web libraries as somewhat undermining professional composers in the industry. That's my view, you don't have to agree with it, and that's ok.

That's the thing, we all see things differently, we all have different ideas and priorities. If that is the decision you have come to, then I respect that.

I have explained and proclaimed my position, and how I see things, in order to give people things to think about when they choose music. Because the reality is that most people, including filmmakers, would not give this issue much thought. Now you all have some extra information to ponder on, and from there it is up to each individual to decide what they do with it.
The decision you come to when you have seen the case for both sides is up to you. Like I said, I respect your decision, even if it is not what I would decide if I were in that position.

Here is another link explaining the concept of royalty-free music if anyone feels they want to know more
http://rocksuresoundz.com/2011/10/11/royalty-free-music-what-is-it/

And I do respect your position too.

Though in reverse to "I do see amateur composers submitting music for a few cents to "el cheapo" web libraries as somewhat undermining professional composers in the industry." I've seen amateurs demanding the world for their products and pros take advantage of a quantity-over-price business model (aka: cheap royalty-free) that proves to be lucrative for them.

The beauty of free-market: a good idea can outsell a 'standard'.

 

[rocksure]

Thank You