• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Why "royalty free" matters?

So.... long time lurker, first time posting here.

In the sense of full disclosure, I'm a professional composer and audio engineer. I own a post-production studio and I also partner in a "rights managed" production music library. http://soundslikejoe.com (me) http://tunedogs.com (stock)

Aside from these links to introduce myself.... I'm not here to promote. I'm more interested in learning what you think... I could ask a lot of questions upfront, but I'll just start with one.... Why do video producers gravitate to the term "royalty-free" as being a guiding factor in choosing music to license?
 
Because for us it means a free or one time fee. We don't have to keep track of the composer's/artist's "points" and send them a royalty check every quarter. Royalty free is easier to manage. We pay you once, you give us a license. Done deal.
 
I guess this is part of the conversation I hoped to have..... There seem to be lots of misconceptions about RFM and licensing music. For instance.... The majority of all licensing agreements don't require the producer of the video to pay any composer "points" or additional payments of any kind. There are some cheaper deals that limit the terms to a certain length of time.... but even RF deals might have limits. A certain RM library for instance... their lowest price limits distribution and broadcast rights. If your film were picked-up, you'd have to go back and pay them more for expanded terms. So.... if that's your only concern, you shouldn't limit yourself to RF catalogs. However, you probably SHOULD look for "perpetuity terms".

As the say... it's in the fine print. I would bet most people just look for the RF label and assume they are safer for it. Def less reading that way. Still.... royalty free means different things to different websites. I remember meeting a client who had bought lots of "Royalty Free" albums from iTunes. He didn't realize those didn't include any license for sync. 0_o
 
Again.... most libraries are automated. No paperwork involved. Simple?... I guess that's a matter of perspective. C'est la vie.

For instance, it's big news in the production music world (publishers and composers) that Royalty-Free catalogs have little or no monitoring and many of the tracks are cross-published 1000 times or worse... stolen. A well known British site was shut-down last year after it was discovered that one "composer" with more than 1500 tracks in their catalog and $100k in sales... he'd stolen all the music.

At that point the library, the fraud, and all of the productions that used the music were in legal limbo. Stuff like this.... that's why Disney and other groups with liability concerns ban RF music and non-exclusive catalogs (which often have publisher squabbles).

Doesn't seem less complicated under the hood. Still interested to hear other opinions too.
 
I'm just commenting on your last comment. That's all. It's just a perspective you may need to consider. I didn't mean to get you all riled up.

Royalty-Free catalogs have little or no monitoring and many of the tracks are cross-published 1000 times or worse... stolen.

Maybe here is your chance to educate us. Why should we care?
 
Riled up?!? Hardly. I'm just excited for this conversation.... :cheers:

Why care? I guess it really just depends on the project and the level of client. If you're doing a wedding video or the local plumbing commercial, it really might not matter. Probably at that level the only thing that matters is finding some that's good enough and cheap.

As the client profile goes up, the risk of exposure increases, and problems of multiple publishers all claiming the same tune.... How embarrassing is it if the client get's a take-down notice by another party claiming publishing rights? Odds are prob in your favor... but some clients are worth the extra hassle to protect. If the song were actually stolen or a rip-off (see Sam Smith and Tom Petty).... and a more serious copyright claim occur... It could get nasty. That's more likely to happen with a non-exclusive RF library.

We see different sides of the business. There's no "always right" or wrong in this.... just interested in what you guys think. Always assumed I understood why people would use RFM.... thought I'd ask.
 
Because for us it means a free or one time fee. We don't have to keep track of the composer's/artist's "points" and send them a royalty check every quarter. Royalty free is easier to manage. We pay you once, you give us a license. Done deal.

Hmm. "Points" have nothing to do with RF music or not RF music. It's very rare for a composer to be offered points, when they are, it's usually in lieu of a fee. As far as calculating and paying royalties are concerned, there is nothing to manage because the royalties are not calculated or paid by the filmmakers/ProdCo, they are paid by whoever is displaying that work to the public, a TV broadcaster for example. The last two sentences I've quoted are just as true for non-RF music as for RF music.

Why should we care?

In some respects, RF music can actually be more difficult to manage/use legally. There are usually some sort of conditions attached to RF music and as soundslikejoe mentioned, it's common to cross-post RF music but not so common to cross-post the original full conditions of use. Also as soundslikejoe mentioned, it's also quite common for non-RF music to be included on RF music sites, effectively it's been stolen. So why should you care? Because if you use it, you are liable! Generally a court will NOT accept a defence along the lines of; "it said it was royalty free on the website where I downloaded it"! In other words, to be sure of staying on the right side of copyright law you have to use due diligence and that means more research than just taking a website's word that a particular track is royalty free or their word for the exact conditions of use.

You may not care about staying on the right side of copyright law if all you're doing is posting an amateur short on Youtube or screening at a film fest but it could come back and severely bite you in the a$$ if ever you're looking for commercial distribution or broadcast.

G
 
Isn't that the same risk if you buy even from a more reputable site? Or even hire a composer? Don't you also risk that they simply ripped off someone elses music and called it their own?
 
No. Contracts with composers should include a warranty of originality and an indemnification of liability for the production company.

All libraries... RF, exclusive, non-exclusive... have different contracts and processes. So it's not possible to generalize. The non-ex RFM model has the lowest quality of control... and often doesn't warranty the music.

Here's a section from the license used by a popular site... name redacted to keep the conversation focused...
6. No Warranty: XXX Firm makes no representation or warranty with respect to any Stock File or the use of names, trademarks, logos, registered or copyrighted designs or works of art depicted in any Stock File, and you must satisfy yourself that all necessary rights, model releases, consents or permissions as may be required for your intended usage are secured. All XXXX Firm’s Stock Files are provided "as is.” XXXX Firm makes no representation or warranty either express or implied including but not limited to any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for any particular use, quality of image, noninfringement, or compatibility with any computer hardware or other equipment, operating system or software program. Neither XXXX Firm nor any of its directors, officers, employees, subsidiaries, affiliates, or agents shall be liable for any damages, whether direct, incidental, or consequential, or other damages arising out of the use of, or the inability to use, the Stock Files. You acknowledge that Footage Firm has no obligation to review, monitor or screen Stock Files, although XXXX Firm it reserves the right in its sole discretion to do so, and XXXX Firm does not approve, endorse or make any representations or warranties with respect to Stock Files. XXXX Firm does not warrant the accuracy of any categorization, keyword, caption or title of the Stock File or the metadata that may be provided therewith.

Let's contrast that with my composer contract....
Warranty and Certificate of Authorship: Composer represents and warrants to Producer that (i) Composer has full right and legal capacity to execute and fully perform this Agreement and to make the grants, assignments and waivers contained in it, (ii) that Composer warrants and confirms they he is the sole writer of the original musical compositions ("Score") delivered to Producer for use in the film and that the Score will not be copied from or based on, in whole or in part, any other work; (iii) to the best of Composer’s knowledge as far as Composer knows or should have known in the exercise of due diligence and prudence, nothing in the Score does or will infringe on any property right (copyright, trademark, patent right, right to ideas and the like) or personal right (defamation, false light, moral right and the like) of any person or legal entity; and (iv) there is no pending or threatened claim, litigation, arbitration, action or proceeding with respect to the Score. Composer will indemnify and hold harmless Producer, its affiliated companies, successors and assigns, and their respective directors, employees and agents, from and against any claim, loss, liability, damages or judgements, including reasonable outside attorneys’ fees, arising from any breach of the above representations and warranties.

So.... the difference is pretty clear if you know the details. BUT.... I meet so many people who by default look for Royalty-Free, and often their reasons for doing so are two-fold.... 1) Price and 2) Misconception. Price.... I understand. If your music budget is $5... there's not much choice in the matter. The concept that RFM is somehow easier/safer than, or as safe, as contracting composers or using exclusive libraries.... not true.
 
Last edited:
I hear what you're trying to say. Maybe I wasn't clear. (devils advocate here) Is there no chance that a composer, who uses wording like yours hasn't ripped off someone elses work and sold it as their own? and if that happened, would the wording of the agreement really indemnify the producer from being sued?

Don't take this as a slur on you. I'm not trying to make any accusations. I also acknowledge that you (the producer) have to do the best that you can do. In the end, it really comes down to the E&O providers to be happy so they take on the risk. That also assumes that we're now talking with film making teams large enough to both have a budget for this and have administration that does this work.

I also think what soundslikejoe said earlier bears some common sense logic to it. It does depend on the project you're doing. Film makers are less likely to care if they're submitting short films to bottom rung festivals, even Youtube. Of course there are exceptions with those trying to build up a profitable Youtube channel.

As for feature film work where you expect distribution, it'd be silly to risk your whole success with the possibility of a stock site that doesn't do the most basic of checks. I wasn't aware this was happening to be honest. I'm also shocked, but at the same time, I'm not totally surprised as there are a lot of dodgy people out there.

As for corporate/tvc work, my understanding is there are long standing libraries of royalty free music that production companies use often. Are you saying those libraries are tainted, or does it depend on the library?
 
It totally depends on the library..... this thread isn't meant to demonize RFM. I'm just interested in having a conversation with people who use stock music.... Trying to learn why RFM is a popular selling brand-marker.

Corporate work is all over the map.... there is a lot of RFM used but there are also lots of corporate placements in "rights-managed" libraries.

TV often pulls from exclusive catalogs.... often under a blanket agreement which allows full access to the whole catalog for one price.

But... again.... let's not generalize too much. It's not black or white... just shades of grey.
 
Last edited:
Trying to learn why RFM is a popular

Generally speaking?

let's not generalize too much

;)

rights-managed

I apologize in advance if this is a dumb question, but what's the difference between non-exclusive rights managed and Royalty Free? Is it as simple as it's a one time usage thing vs you can use it as many times as you want? What would be a "typical" price difference (assuming similar quality)?
 
Is there no chance that a composer, who uses wording like yours hasn't ripped off someone elses work and sold it as their own?

Yes there is that chance. IME it's extremely rare that a composer will just totally rip-off someone else's work, as there's relatively little to gain but a great deal to loose. What's far more likely is that a composer may use "samples" (loops/short clips of other people's compositions/productions), within their own composition. Not an uncommon practise within the music industry as there's a kind of "gentleman's agreement" between the major labels which allows this (within certain conditions). This "gentleman's agreement" only applies to the music industry though, not the TV/film industry but many newbie/inexperienced composers don't know or appreciate the differences between the music biz and the TV/film biz. So, it's not so uncommon at the no/micro budget levels for inexperienced composers to infringe copyright inadvertently. However:

...and if that happened, would the wording of the agreement really indemnify the producer from being sued?

It doesn't absolutely guarantee that a producer/ProdCo won't be sued but yes, in practise it does indemnify the producer/ProdCo from any costs or losses resulting from the composer infringing copyright. I've personally never seen the exact wording used by the OP but I've also never seen a composer contract which did not include clause/s guaranteeing originality/no infringement on anyone else's copyright. To be honest, many composer contracts contain indemnity clauses which are potentially extremely unfair to the composer, as they require the composer to indemnify the producer/ProdCo not only against any losses/costs arising from copyright infringements but any losses/costs arising from any claimed infringement of copyright. In theory, the composer could find themselves liable for considerable costs even if the claim of infringement is false/fraudulent. It appears the wording of the OP's contract might put the composer in this theoretically unfair position. I'm obviously not an entertainment contracts lawyer though and I'm not certain the specific wording could be legally interpreted that way.

I wasn't aware this was happening to be honest. I'm also shocked, but at the same time, I'm not totally surprised as there are a lot of dodgy people out there.

Yes there are a lot of dodgy people out there. Computer technology and the internet has democratised the market. This means that almost anyone can setup an online music library for peanuts and of course many/most know little or nothing about the legalities of music licensing. So yes, there are a lot of dodgy people out there but the majority (or even vast majority) are dodgy due to ignorance rather than being deliberately fraudulent. Ultimately though this is only a moral difference rather than a legal difference, as ignorance is not a legally acceptable defence. I have to add that this is not just limited to music library operators, there are countless dodgy people out there offering various film/TV services simply because they like the idea of it and often they're so ignorant of the craft/service they're offering that they don't even realise that they are ignorant!

As for corporate/tvc work, my understanding is there are long standing libraries of royalty free music that production companies use often. Are you saying those libraries are tainted, or does it depend on the library?

IME (which is limited to regional, national and international rather than local), all the ProdCo's I work with use contracted composers and/or reputable commercial (not royalty free) music libraries. I don't know the figures for RF libraries, I doubt if there are any official figures, but my guess would be that the vast majority are "tainted" to some degree. It maybe only be a handful of tracks out of a catalogue of hundreds/thousands or it maybe a very high percentage, it would depend on the individual library and the knowledge, diligence, resources (and honesty) of those running it!

I apologize in advance if this is a dumb question, but [1] what's the difference between non-exclusive rights managed and Royalty Free? [2] Is it as simple as it's a one time usage thing vs you can use it as many times as you want? [3] What would be a "typical" price difference (assuming similar quality)?

It's not a dumb question but it's also virtually impossible to answer.

1. In theory a non-exclusive license means that the track can be licensed to multiple different film/content makers concurrently. However there are potentially different meanings depending on the exact wording of the license agreement/contract. "Rights managed" is a more complex issue because RF music can also be rights managed, it all depends on the conditions of use for the individual RF track. It could be that the composer/musicians have given up all claims on copyright, in which case there are no rights to manage but it's fairly rare IME to find completely rights free music (IE with no conditions or limitations of use, copying, changing, etc.) and if there is any retention of rights then those rights have to be managed by someone, namely the composer/music producer. In other words, one can retain some rights over a track (conditions or limitations of use) while still allowing it to be royalty free or RF under certain conditions. Rights managed usually implies that royalties are payable by whoever is broadcasting/exhibiting the content. It also indicates that the rights of use have effectively been signed over by the composer/music producer to a third party, IE. A music library. The advantage to the film/content maker is that there is one licensing agreement with one set of conditions of use covering all the tracks in that library's catalogue rather than every track potentially having a different set of conditions for use, each of which the film/content maker has to research and comply with. Potentially an enormous saving of time/effort.

2. No, it's not that simple. It all depends on the licensing agreement/terms of use of both the non-exclusive rights managed tracks and the RF tracks.

3. There isn't really a typical price difference, it varies from composer to composer and from library to library. Hopefully I've explained that one can't assume a similar quality of service. I mean this partially in terms of the quality of the score itself but more especially in terms of the service provided by the music library. The knowledge, diligence and resources I mentioned previously obviously costs money and generally the more knowledge, diligence and resources a music library has the more it'll cost. The general rule applies; you get what you pay for and if you are paying nothing or next to nothing you are going to have to do most of it yourself and risk any limitations of knowledge you may have.

If all the above sounds overly complex, that's because the reality of the situation is that it's complex! Like most things in life, when you start digging into the detail there tends to be far more greys than black and whites and far more complexity. With amateur filmmaking one can largely afford to deal in black and whites and therefore make films for little money and largely by oneself. Provided you don't do anything really stupid, say use a really famous and obviously unlicensed track, then most likely you'll be OK. As I keep trying to explain though, professional/commercial filmmaking is not the same game as amateur filmmaking just maybe better executed, it's an almost entirely different game! At the commercial level it is completely impossible to make films largely by oneself and indeed there is really no such thing as "a filmmaker" at the commercial level because no one person or even small team of people can learn all of the grey areas which exist and have to be accounted for. Look at the credits on a commercial film and you'll find a "Music Supervisor", whose job it is to appreciate and account for the grey areas which exist in music licensing, you'll also find credits for a legal department or a company who has provided the film with legal services. Most filmmakers here are used to making films for a few hundred or a few thousand and dream of what they could do with the few million $ of a typical low budget commercial film. In reality, a budget of a few million $ does not go anywhere near as far as most amateur filmmakers would imagine, because of all the expensive specialists which are required to meet all the technical, legal and financial requirements.

There are essentially 3 basic types of filmmaking: Joe Public's average home video, amateur filmmaking and commercial/professional filmmaking. Each step up introduces a large range of completely new challenges/difficulties and requires a great deal more time, effort, resources, knowledge and skills, just to achieve what looks like exactly the same result! While experienced amateur filmmakers are only too aware of how much more difficult/expensive amateur filmmaking is compared to a home video, they are rarely fully aware of how much more difficult/expensive commercial filmmaking is compared to amateur filmmaking. This becomes a serious issue when amateur filmmakers mistakenly believe their amateur film is or could be a commercial/professional film. As I said previously, this thread is largely irrelevant to amateur filmmakers but it's extremely relevant/important to commercial filmmakers and therefore by extension, it needs to become more important to amateur filmmakers the more they attempt to commercialise their filmmaking!

G
 
Awesome answer G. Thanks for taking the time to type it out.

Looks like I'll have to order a clearance and copyright legal book to read to get a better handle on the subject.

At the moment (to me at least), there seems to be little reason to choose Rights Managed over Royalty Free music. Dodge the dodgy vendors but most importantly go for the music that best fits your production. That seems to be the key. Obviously tailored composing specifically for the production will often give you the best result if you can afford those resources.

One thing I couldn't work out: What IME means. I assumed you meant IMO (In my opinion) but it doesn't quite fit.
 
Agreed! Excellent post G.

From what I've read... The origin of Royalty Free came from "Free of Mechanical Royalties," which were more problematic during the days of physical reproduction (DVD). Otherwise, RFM and right's managed are very similar. One big difference.... true Royalty Free music would allow you to use the same song, again and again and in multiple productions, without paying a second time. That said... I've seen a few "Royalty-Free websites" that don't allow multiple use. So.... read the license.

Similarity... Royalty Free music often still requires a cue sheet be filed for television distributed programming. Broadcast royalties are then paid to the composer AND the RF Library (publisher). Occasionally RFM libraries will be "performance royalty free" too.... but it's all in the fine print.

"Rights Managed" can be broken down into a "pay per project" or "pay per needle drop." In one the song is licensed for a project and can be used many times in that production. The other is pay every time the song is used. (Needle Drop contracts are becoming more rare but were common long time ago) Rights-managed also has the "buffet price" where the entire library can be used as many times as, or in as many productions, as you like..... but they call that a blanket deal.

Enter the value of a music supervisor. When the project is professional in nature, these people are hired for a reason. If a music supervisor is not in the budget, at least do yourself the favor of choosing a library that protects you and your work. RFM is a higher risk.... If Disney forbids their productions from using Royalty Free music, it should clue everyone in.

But... you're def right in that "most importantly go for the music that best fits your production."
 
Last edited:
Looks like I'll have to order a clearance and copyright legal book to read to get a better handle on the subject.

Generally I'd agree with reading up on a subject but in this case it might end up confusing more than helping. Firstly, legal terminology/wording often has very specific meanings which can easily be misinterpreted and secondly, although copyright law is international, in practise exactly how it's applied and enforced can vary considerably between different legal jurisdictions/countries. It also evolves a fair bit even within individual legal jurisdictions, as it's application is often/usually precedence driven. It can therefore be difficult or even impossible to find a book which is both up to date and relevant to your particular legal jurisdiction.

One thing I couldn't work out: What IME means.

IME = In My Experience. I was trying to imply that the info I presented has a fair amount of validity because I have quite a lot of experience, however it shouldn't be relied on exclusively as I'm obviously not an entertainment rights lawyer.

G
 
Back
Top