The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Getty Music Portal Down
Old 2 weeks ago
  #1
Gear Addict
 
DiggingForRoots's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Getty Music Portal Down

Hey guys! I work with Getty Music but their site has been down for like 2 months. Anyone else having this issue or know what's going on?

Thanks!
Old 2 weeks ago
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Jeff Hayat's Avatar
 

Just tried - works here.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #3
Gear Addict
 
DiggingForRoots's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Old 2 weeks ago
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Jeff Hayat's Avatar
 

Old 2 weeks ago
  #5
Yes, I have noticed that it has been down for a while.

But I did get a few bucks through PayPal from Getty Images a few weeks ago. I have no idea for what music, as I pulled most of my stuff from them a while back.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Audio Child's Avatar
 

Yh i called them abut a week ago and they are aware of it but man, i don't know.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #7
Gear Addict
 
DiggingForRoots's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
ya I finally reached out to them on FB and it took a few days but they say the portal has been down and will be down for another month or so. Why? I don't know and they didn't let anyone know that they were shutting it down.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #8
I sent some music like one week before they wen't down and contacted them with email. They said it doesn't affect to submissions and later got email that my music was approved.
Don't know what they are up to tho.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Amber's Avatar
 

Wouldn't want to be with a library that has let it's website be down that long...
Old 2 weeks ago
  #10
Gear Nut
 

Wouldn't want to be with a Lib that has a new contract stating that you get NO backend on your tracks.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Scott View Post
Wouldn't want to be with a Lib that has a new contract stating that you get NO backend on your tracks.
Pump Audio/Getty Images does?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #12
Gear Nut
 

Yes. I have been in the business quite a while but never tried Getty (Pump Audio).

About a year and a half ago, they updated their contract for any new composers that states they will get the Getty fee for the track but no backend.

I was accepted but declined to sign the contract.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Scott View Post
Yes. I have been in the business quite a while but never tried Getty (Pump Audio).

About a year and a half ago, they updated their contract for any new composers that states they will get the Getty fee for the track but no backend.

I was accepted but declined to sign the contract.
Good for you!

They must be doing the direct license thing. I’d imagine that the prices they are selling music for are terribly low.

And if they do a blanket deal, you no front end or back end money.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #14
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Scott View Post
I was accepted but declined to sign the contract.


This another case of library ignorance. Or trying to give their clients some sort of fake perceived advantage instead of educating them. Good move on your part!
Old 2 weeks ago
  #15
Gear Nut
 

It was an obvious thing to do. Getty is becoming the new Audio Sparx, selling your tracks for 40 bucks to be used in a high school film.

You are right. In their POS contract, they urge you to use the no backend model because they claim the clients will buy more often, knowing they don't have to fill out cue sheets.



Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post


This another case of library ignorance. Or trying to give their clients some sort of fake perceived advantage instead of educating them. Good move on your part!
Old 2 weeks ago
  #16
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Scott View Post
It was an obvious thing to do. Getty is becoming the new Audio Sparx, selling your tracks for 40 bucks to be used in a high school film.

You are right. In their POS contract, they urge you to use the no backend model because they claim the clients will buy more often, knowing they don't have to fill out cue sheets.
That's beyond stupid. (Sorry, not you. Their reasoning in the contract....) Clients / end users don't have to fill out cue sheets if it's not being broadcast, so the high school films / you tube videos have no worries. If it IS being broadcast, they have to fill out cue sheets anyway as part of the delivery requirements from the broadcaster so..... All I can say is... People don't even know how to do business anymore, and don't even have a fundamental understanding of how things work.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #17
Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
That's beyond stupid. (Sorry, not you. Their reasoning in the contract....) Clients / end users don't have to fill out cue sheets if it's not being broadcast, so the high school films / you tube videos have no worries. If it IS being broadcast, they have to fill out cue sheets anyway as part of the delivery requirements from the broadcaster so..... All I can say is... People don't even know how to do business anymore, and don't even have a fundamental understanding of how things work.
These music licensing companies are exploiting the ignorance of the clients and the desperation of the composers.

Evil, but smart.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #18
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Exactly. Are we really that desperate as a creative community?
Old 2 weeks ago
  #19
Gear Nut
 

Yes Bill,

I meant in general.

Your $40.00 track on the POS website may be used for a highschool film and of course no cuesheet is needed but if your track is used in a 30 second, national Toyota commercial, you can bet your butt that that Getty is collecting ALL of the sync as well as ALL of the backend.

These sly foxes are telling the sups that they have a new, great model. No worries about spliting pay with those stupid composers for ANYTHING because they signed off on it!




Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
That's beyond stupid. (Sorry, not you. Their reasoning in the contract....) Clients / end users don't have to fill out cue sheets if it's not being broadcast, so the high school films / you tube videos have no worries. If it IS being broadcast, they have to fill out cue sheets anyway as part of the delivery requirements from the broadcaster so..... All I can say is... People don't even know how to do business anymore, and don't even have a fundamental understanding of how things work.
Old 2 weeks ago
  #20
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Scott View Post
Yes Bill,

I meant in general.

Your $40.00 track on the POS website may be used for a highschool film and of course no cuesheet is needed but if your track is used in a 30 second, national Toyota commercial, you can bet your butt that that Getty is collecting ALL of the sync as well as ALL of the backend.

These sly foxes are telling the sups that they have a new, great model. No worries about spliting pay with those stupid composers for ANYTHING because they signed off on it!

Unless the sups are ignorant or unawares, they should know they don't have to pay any backend. I don't see how Getty is collecting any backend without the composers getting backend as well. I think they are just throwing it away and no one is getting any. Otherwise they would have to be fraudulent and say they are the composer. There has to be a composer listed on a cue sheet as well as a publisher (Getty presumably)
Old 2 weeks ago
  #21
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Unless the sups are ignorant or unawares, they should know they don't have to pay any backend. I don't see how Getty is collecting any backend without the composers getting backend as well. I think they are just throwing it away and no one is getting any. Otherwise they would have to be fraudulent and say they are the composer. There has to be a composer listed on a cue sheet as well as a publisher (Getty presumably)
The newer contract literally says composers forfeit their PRO income. Getty will not say what they are getting.

I would like to paste the contract here but I forgot the Getty log in info.
Old 1 weeks ago
  #22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Scott View Post
The newer contract literally says composers forfeit their PRO income. Getty will not say what they are getting.

I would like to paste the contract here but I forgot the Getty log in info.
So Getty must be forfeiting their publisher PRO income as well. If there is a publisher, there has to be a songwriter. That is how PROs work.

So they are just saying to heck with the PRO system and collecting money upfront. That could be lucrative for them. It could make a lot of sense if they are only providing micro licenses for non-broadcast usage.

But if they are also selling the same music to clients that sync music to video and broadcast the video, they are cheating themselves and the songwriters out of PRO money.

Also, if Getty is only going after the upfront money and are providing blanket licenses to clients, then they should be splitting all of that money in half and giving each songwriter whatever portion was earned. Even then, the songwriters are making chomp change for their music.

If Getty is pocketing all of the blanket license money, the composers are getting screwed from every angle!
Old 1 week ago
  #23
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desire Inspires View Post

If Getty is pocketing all of the blanket license money, the composers are getting screwed from every angle!
That seems to be what's happening on more than one front in the Lib world.
Old 1 week ago
  #24
Gear Addict
 
DiggingForRoots's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
There is only no back end royalties if you opt for the "royalty free" model. When you submit you check a box to have this song as royalty free or not. They highly recommend royalty free and say if you don't your licensing opportunities will be "more limited". Needless to say I never check the box.
Old 1 week ago
  #25
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiggingForRoots View Post
They highly recommend royalty free and say if you don't your licensing opportunities will be "more limited". Needless to say I never check the box.
“More limited”?

Lmfao!
Old 1 week ago
  #26
Gear Addict
 
DiggingForRoots's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desire Inspires View Post
“More limited”?

Lmfao!
Ya so basically they are saying that if the customer wants royalty free they are not going to pitch your music. Its all kind of ridiculous but with quality libraries being more and limited you gotta deal with a lot of bull****
Old 1 week ago
  #27
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiggingForRoots View Post
Ya so basically they are saying that if the customer wants royalty free they are not going to pitch your music. Its all kind of ridiculous but with quality libraries being more and limited you gotta deal with a lot of bull****
Sounds good to me. I can just work with other companies. Cutting back on the bad companies is almost better than chasing the good ones. No need to waste time on making bad deals.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump