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
PROs...still a mistery for me! Studio Monitors
Old 26th March 2018
  #1
Gear Maniac
 

PROs...still a mistery for me!

...as written earlier, I slowly want to get away from that RF mass market, while still keeping all my old tracks RF. But especially with certain new cues, that costed me quite some money/time, I rather want to go the PRO-registered way. (and of course the top libraries (even most middle tier ones) are only dealing with PRO-registered material)

Still, to be absolutely honest with you guys: even after years on reading about how PROs work, they are still a mistery for me - really! So I hope that with this thread you can help me to finally bring some light into the dark!

FYI: the first PRO I joined was the German GEMA about 2 and 1/2 years ago; for the only reason as there's only this single PRO in Germany, so there's no way to choose between anything else. But after all the GEMA is easily-said one of the worst and infamous PROs in the world; and that for a reason:
high starter fees (also as non-publisher), annually fees (which they just doubled out of the blue - totally shameless), artist-unfriendly to the max, totally unflexible and non-corresponding! The worst part out of all that, was that you are forced to register just anything you have ever composed with them, so they practically forbid any RF licensing. All in all a real nightmare PRO!

...so I decided for a change to BMI at the end of last year, and they seem so much better! No starter/annual fees (for writers), very artist-friendly, very respondent etc. If you take a really close look at their contract then you'll find, that it is at the end quite similar to the GEMA's one, but they handle everything just waaay more openly!

Anyway, up to the questions:

1. Obviously all the different PROs in the world have to work together (except for 'difficult territories', like mainly parts of south america, asia and africa). Somewhere I've heard that there's a catalouge which covers all the registrations from all the worlds PROs. But on BMI search I only seem to find BMI titles, on GEMA only the GEMA registrations, and so on.... so is the first assumption BS, or am I doing something wrong? Is there any easier way to find out who and where my music is registered, like a meta database?

2. In which cases the music library will do their part of registering my music, and when it is actually my turn?! If you give away your music rights in perpetuity - like to an exclusive music library, a film studio, or
a music lable - would they always take care of that? What if I'm giving the publishing/rights of the music to a library for a limited time (like for a course of 5 or 10 years), would THEY have to register, or ME?

3. How can one ensure that the cue-sheets are actually properly filled and that I get my royalties? Like, let's say a client licenses a non-royaltyfree title for a TV show, but never fills the sheet. Do PROs also do detective's work, like with tools as tunesat, or would that be my job? I'm wondering, as I've heard from several illegal track usage discoverings through GEMA, but maybe it's just another myth...

4.Last but not least: what about non-exclusive libraries which do re-titles? Is it generally my job to take care of registering the tracks, or theirs? The problem is that they just sold a blanket at the end of last year, for a production which is running on a nation-wide channel. Cool thing, but how to get the royalties if it's neither registrated with me, nor with them?
Can I demand for royalty supplementary payments, also in this specific case? I even found that audiosparx registered some tracks without asking - and that happened at the time where I wasn't registered at any PRO at all. Does this mean that they got all the royalties (100% writers+100% publishers??) from the placement at once, and me gets none?

PS: Some questions might be a bit confusing - still if someone could at least lift a bit of my mind fog I'd really, really appreciate that!

Cheers!
Old 26th March 2018
  #2
Here for the gear
 

I hope you don't mind me joining in, I've upped my productivity quite a bit
and am actually smothering myself in tracks.

I went with BMI, warts and all, and now comes the "paperwork" to be filled
in my non-exclusive libraries of choice. Guess what? Most of them want to
know who my publisher is, in addition to my name.

Who the hell is my publisher? I'm really confused. I can register tracks with
BMI without a publisher. Aren't the libraries supposed to "publish" my tracks
and enter them into their catalog with BMI?

This is in addition to your questions, which I would also love to see answered.

I too am almost completely in the dark. Can't proceed with uploading my tracks until I get this answered, and I live very far from any help.

Help, Gearslutz!
Old 26th March 2018
  #3
Gear Maniac
 

I think (even me, as a PRO noob (yet )) can answer that - just as I asked something very similar just recently. Check out Sam's advice (he knows a lot more about that matter than me!) Writer's share when no publisher?!

So my strong guess would be that they ask that, as also YOU as an individual can be a music publisher, just as well as a writer! It appears that you get a small percentage more of PRO royalties, if you are not only the writer, but the publisher of the work as well. I think if you got a lot of PRO registered tracks, and get lots of great placements (international stuff pays best, obviously) it might be worth going that route!

Hope that helps!
Old 26th March 2018
  #4
I'll see what help I can provide, at least from my experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freshdax View Post

1. Obviously all the different PROs in the world have to work together (except for 'difficult territories', like mainly parts of south america, asia and africa). Somewhere I've heard that there's a catalouge which covers all the registrations from all the worlds PROs. But on BMI search I only seem to find BMI titles, on GEMA only the GEMA registrations, and so on.... so is the first assumption BS, or am I doing something wrong? Is there any easier way to find out who and where my music is registered, like a meta database?
They have access to database that is not searchable by the public but registrations should be tracked internationally by mutual agreement automatically. If you're aware some special performance or placement internationally you can reach out to the international team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freshdax View Post
2. In which cases the music library will do their part of registering my music, and when it is actually my turn?! If you give away your music rights in perpetuity - like to an exclusive music library, a film studio, or
a music lable - would they always take care of that? What if I'm giving the publishing/rights of the music to a library for a limited time (like for a course of 5 or 10 years), would THEY have to register, or ME?
The library should register the work in ALL cases. The only time you will need to register something is for self-published works. If you're signing the track exclusively then the library will register the work with the original title. If they are registering the track non-exclusively the work will be re-titled completely or have an identifier attached before or after the title. On limited contracts, after the time period is up, you could re-title the piece yourself and register this as a new work (as the original library will still need to track and collect on placements they made during this period).

Quote:
Originally Posted by freshdax View Post
3. How can one ensure that the cue-sheets are actually properly filled and that I get my royalties? Like, let's say a client licenses a non-royaltyfree title for a TV show, but never fills the sheet. Do PROs also do detective's work, like with tools as tunesat, or would that be my job? I'm wondering, as I've heard from several illegal track usage discoverings through GEMA, but maybe it's just another myth...
This is a problem we've all experienced and no one has implemented an effective solution. Monitoring via TuneSat can be helpful, as you can then let your publishers know about some placements that didn't show up on the correct statement and they should follow up with the production company.

Your publishers should be the main player in this (as they don't get paid if you don't get paid) but it is helpful to do what you can as well.

Contacting your PRO will rarely work, as they will simply tell you get the production company to file the cuesheet properly. They usually don't accept TuneSat as proof since there are many errors in the system. Video captures can help.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freshdax View Post
4.Last but not least: what about non-exclusive libraries which do re-titles? Is it generally my job to take care of registering the tracks, or theirs? The problem is that they just sold a blanket at the end of last year, for a production which is running on a nation-wide channel. Cool thing, but how to get the royalties if it's neither registrated with me, nor with them?
As mentioned above, non-exclusives should always register and re-title the work they are representing. So maybe you've got a track you originally called "Sunshine Love." The library will register it with "I Love Sunshine." If they place the track, those royalties will be split with them. If you place the track on your own, then you'll collect the full 200% under your original title.

Different libraries handle blankets differently. Many don't share any upfront sync income from blankets with the composers, but any placements resulting from the blankets should pay back-end performance royalties as usual.

Even if something isn't registered but the cue sheet is filed correctly, BMI should track and pay out on it.
Old 26th March 2018
  #5
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShortTon View Post
Contacting your PRO will rarely work
I'm just quoting this to make sure it didn't get washed over accidentally. That is the truth. IMO, BMI will do little to nothing to help you in these matters.

OP - Missing cue sheets, inaccurate cue sheets, music useages not being reported, etc.. Get over it now. It's the cost of doing business in the world we live in. If you concentrate on the injustices and mistakes, you rob yourself of the only resource available to further your career in this business - the time, energy and motivation to write more and get it into the marketplace.

Once a piece of music leaves my hands, I never think about it, track it, or try to figure out ways to monitize it again. It's on it's own.

As for an individual publishing company, I cannot see any reason why EVERY composer should not have their own publishing company. Without it you're leaving money on the table.

As for higher percentages if you have a publisher vs. routing the money over your own writers share. I have not found that to be the case.


You've found PRO's beng confusing?????? Join the crowd. We all feel that way. They are the most infuriating, non-helpful, opaque organizations in the world.
Old 26th March 2018
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Sam Watson's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by KAde View Post
I went with BMI, warts and all, and now comes the "paperwork" to be filled
in my non-exclusive libraries of choice. Guess what? Most of them want to
know who my publisher is, in addition to my name.
That is why I went ahead and just created my own publishing company as an individual. $150 one time fee with BMI. That way there are no weird questions or work around. You put your publishing company name there and collect the royalties. I didn't want anything falling through the cracks.

And as I mentioned elsewhere: For whatever reason my publishing royalties are 2%-2.24% higher than my songwriter royalties for the same projects *in total*. Not per use. It is like... a random cue gets missed on the songwriter side that shows up on the publisher side. I should probably recheck my track registrations to see if I botched something in the metadata. Because per *use* they match up.

BMI - When I called the cue sheet department in Nashville they were very nice and responsive. I've had no luck emailing the generic addresses out of NY concerning jingle forms (for commercial placement of music) or other matters. Your mileage may vary.

It is hard learning how to navigate every aspect of the biz. I'm still trying to figure out YouTube AdRev and if it is even worth it, etc.

Good luck all around,
Sam
Old 26th March 2018
  #7
Here for the gear
 

Thanks Sam and everybody else!

Looks like paying the publisher's fee is a workaround around a major
murky hassle.

Guess I'll do that then. But more confusion arises now... What happens
when a track of mine that I register and keep all rights to gets renamed...?
It's another entity now, and allows THEM to keep the publishing? If I remember
correctly...

Back to reading through the forums for the millionth time, instead of doing
the final touches on a sizeable batch of music.

Seriously, thanks for helping us who are prepared to grind and make a lot
of music, but are stumbling through the business part of the equation. It is
very generous.
Old 27th March 2018
  #8
Gear Maniac
 

Thanks guys! Especially ShortTon, Sam and Bill!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
I
You've found PRO's beng confusing?????? Join the crowd. We all feel that way. They are the most infuriating, non-helpful, opaque organizations in the world.
I'd say, that this^ does summarize it perfectly! The plethora of smileys just speak volumes, lol. (could be sad smileys as well...)

...ah, and did I mention before that BMI is respondent? Just have to correct that, as they are the absolute opposite.

Anyway, at least consider (most of) you guys lucky that you never have joined GEMA before!!
Just two words: German Bureaucracy! Letters they sent have to be read a thousand times till you get it, I wouldn't even consider their writings "German". Horrible PRO. Only worth joining if you do 95%+ of your business in Germany, like as German popular record artist, or score mainly German productions....and not that US organizations can't be bureaucratic (like IRS is actually much worse than the German equivalent of it), but they take it to a WHOLE new level - they are the bottom end boss (and a very nasty, kraken-type one) under the PROs.

Are there even any PROs which can be considered "good"? (SESAC? This 'invitation only' attitude sounds appealing)

Quote:
Back to reading through the forums for the millionth time, instead of doing
the final touches on a sizeable batch of music.
Same here - back in the saddle!

Cheers!
Old 27th March 2018
  #9
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Watson View Post
That is why I went ahead and just created my own publishing company as an individual. $150 one time fee with BMI. That way there are no weird questions or work around. You put your publishing company name there and collect the royalties. I didn't want anything falling through the cracks.

And as I mentioned elsewhere: For whatever reason my publishing royalties are 2%-2.24% higher than my songwriter royalties for the same projects *in total*. Not per use. It is like... a random cue gets missed on the songwriter side that shows up on the publisher side. I should probably recheck my track registrations to see if I botched something in the metadata. Because per *use* they match up.

BMI - When I called the cue sheet department in Nashville they were very nice and responsive. I've had no luck emailing the generic addresses out of NY concerning jingle forms (for commercial placement of music) or other matters. Your mileage may vary.

It is hard learning how to navigate every aspect of the biz. I'm still trying to figure out YouTube AdRev and if it is even worth it, etc.

Good luck all around,
Sam
As for AdRev; go for it Sam! I'm with them since quite a while...and no major headaches yet...
...also no major earnings, but that's not the main reason I'm with them.

Only thing which is dissapointing, is that the detections are much lower than the actual amount of videos featuring your music on YT (and that other video services are excluded). But your experience may vary.
Old 27th March 2018
  #10
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
AdRev can be a nightmare for non-exclusive titles in multiple libraries though.....

Constant irate clients with (legit) complaints about "someone" monitizing their video's when they want to monetize them, and legitimately purchased a license so they could do so. Then, wasted time spent trying to figure out who is monitizing it, and getting them to white list it.
Old 27th March 2018
  #11
Gear Maniac
 

Well, but shouldn't be anyone who has bought a valid license (and wants to monetize his stuff) just quickly whitelist his stuff, by sending adrev an inquiry??!

Should be a matter of a few minutes, and if he/she does not, then in my opinion it is his/her own fault...
Old 27th March 2018
  #12
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by freshdax View Post
then in my opinion it is his/her own fault...

Keeping clients happy is what keeps em coming back.....
Old 28th March 2018
  #13
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
Keeping clients happy is what keeps em coming back.....
Sure, but out of many, many licenses I sold, only 2 claims from clients occured. One occured actually before I had my stuff on AdRev (so it was actually an system error), and the other one was a few weeks ago, were the client released the claim without any of my help. No 'pissed' clients at all. Ever.

Bill, as you had wrote before; in this fastly-fluctuating world you can never be sure who, or where your music is being used. And of course there are also plenty of people who just "rip" your stuff (from youtube videos with just your music, from CDs, or from un-watermarked library music, and I guess especially that in certain states of Asia, where they don't care as much about copyright as we do in our western cultures). So AdRev is just a tool to bring a bit more control to copyright owners and not at all to rip of any people, who actually bought a valid license for your music.
Old 28th March 2018
  #14
Here for the gear
The blockchain technology is the future. Pro's soon will be something of the past.

Behold... https://www.forbes.com/sites/nelsong.../#510bd7ef71f4
Old 28th March 2018
  #15
Gear Maniac
 

@Bill

...and certainly I can also imagine from a producers view, how they have to be annoyed with all these strikes coming up. I think the whole content id system needs MAJOR changes anyway. Why not implement some new features? Like for each video you upload on youtube, you also fill which tracks exactly you are using, and enter something like a code you got from the music library when purchasing a valid license, so the system automatically knows you have had licensed the music.

But back to topic: Thanks to you I gained quite some new wisdom regarding PROs! ..but I still don't understand why the PROs aren't caring at all for their artists?? Is their own cut they get from the artists royalties that low?! How small is the percentage actually?
Old 28th March 2018
  #16
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by freshdax View Post
..but I still don't understand why the PROs aren't caring at all for their artists?? Is their own cut they get from the artists royalties that low?! How small is the percentage actually?
They ARE caring for their artists. Their FAVORITE artists. Generally, composers are seen second class citizens (unless you're a superstar composer like Hans or JW), and PRODUCTION MUSIC composers are seen as 3rd class citizens. The PROs have many times gone on record that they didn't even think they should pay out for production music. Even though production music accounts for a HUGE percentage of the income they take in.

As for percentage, who knows. As mentioned, they are not transparent in their finances.
Old 29th March 2018
  #17
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
They ARE caring for their artists. Their FAVORITE artists. Generally, composers are seen second class citizens (unless you're a superstar composer like Hans or JW), and PRODUCTION MUSIC composers are seen as 3rd class citizens. The PROs have many times gone on record that they didn't even think they should pay out for production music. Even though production music accounts for a HUGE percentage of the income they take in

As for percentage, who knows. As mentioned, they are not transparent in their finances.
How PROs collect usage information is highly flawed, they sample from public performance, use cue sheets, online usage and radio/TV plays. This is all combined then distributed as royalties but is unfairly biased to the biggest performing songwriters but if you know and can prove your work is being used you will get paid.

Yeah PROs are slow to pay, they don't track usage well enough for the digital age but choosing the right PRO for the territory you operate in the most will definitely help to speed up payments.

I'm with PRS for Music (UK) who are pretty good when it comes to answering questions, reporting usage and general helpfulness, phone lines always open and so can ring and ask random questions at will.

Alot of people don't know that their underlining database is provided by and ran by ICE (international Copyright Enterprise) they also provide this database to Gema (Germany), Stim (Sweden), Buma-Stemra (Netherlands/Holland), Sebam (Belgium) and finally... PolarisNordic (An alliance of Danish, Finnish & Norwegian PROs)

The database is supposed to bring together song information for European writers, composers and publishers works to eliminate double entry errors, slow international payments and weird terminology that is not unified across PROs, and its all to speed up licensing and distribution of royalties.
But does it work? Yes to a certain extent, however most PROs have still got their own ways of doing things. Example.

I get broken down statement of where and by who my songs have been used. E.g Gyms in Bulgaria or TV channels in Australia. Not sure if others do this?
Old 29th March 2018
  #18
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FranRevert View Post
The blockchain technology is the future. Pro's soon will be something of the past.

Behold... https://www.forbes.com/sites/nelsong.../#510bd7ef71f4
Yes definelty one to watch, PRS for Music, Sacem and BMI have teamed with IBM to test Blockchain for a unified copyright database. Currently ICE manage the databases of all Major European PROs like PRS for Music (UK), Gema (Germany), Stim (Sweden) and since ICE was founded by PRS it could mean all US and European PROs will finally have the same information for song registrations which will speed up payments and encourage transparency.

Wether it will be implemented is another question though?
Old 29th March 2018
  #19
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by KAde View Post

Guess I'll do that then. But more confusion arises now... What happens
when a track of mine that I register and keep all rights to gets renamed...?
It's another entity now, and allows THEM to keep the publishing? If I remember
correctly...
Not the case, this is classed as a derivative work. You should make a claim against the newly registered work for your share or all of it.

Had a similar thing happen with me. A producer Duo out of Europe sampled some of the lyrics from my one of my songs, named it as their own, packaged It, sold it performed it and kept 100% I disputed through the PRO, they excepted my claim of ownership but I allowed the new work to continue being used and decided on splitting the royalty three ways at 33.33%.
The original is still 100% owned by me too
Old 29th March 2018
  #20
Lives for gear
 
VitaEtMusica's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FranRevert View Post
The blockchain technology is the future. Pro's soon will be something of the past.

Behold... https://www.forbes.com/sites/nelsong.../#510bd7ef71f4
Having a common ID system only works if the data collected is open and transparent. You could feasibly identify 95% of performances, but if the PRO, publisher or record label is the only entity holding the keys to the info... Then nothing has changed. I think if you could capture a true census of music use across all networks right now you'd find about 80% of the music is production/library music. Are production music publishers and writers taking home 80% of the revenue generated by network licenses?

ASCAP and BMI claim that 100% of the TV license revenue they collect goes to the composers whose music was performed on television. And 100% of the radio revenue goes to those whose music was played on radio. No one can prove whether this is true or not. And no one (that I know of) can really get info on how much of the overall revenue at the PRO's comes from TV and how much from radio, but it's assumed that the lion's share of revenue comes from network licenses (it's easier to find the OIBDA of a given network and guess that the PRO charges 2.5%-ish of revenue for the blanket license). That's mucho money.

The wrench in the works of all of this is the "Premium Credits" calculation and it's iterations at the different PRO's, which has no further explanation than a composer/songwriter hits some sort of magical threshold and they get bonus credits! Nice. So if Bono has a song that plays behind a feel good montage on American Idol, and you, the lowly television/production music composer has an identical use... Bono will make 16x what you did in performance royalties. For the same use. Seems only right that we reward Bono for his contribution to the music business. Right?

Honestly, if there were a uniform ID system and all payouts were transparent and equitable... well, that would be a total revolution. Look at the powers behind the OMI and tell me if you think that's going to happen. The only way things will change is if the production music, or even all television, production and advertising composers band together and make their own GMR type collection organization. I suspect if such a thing even started to gain momentum you'd see the existing PRO's get with the program very quickly.
Old 29th March 2018
  #21
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaEtMusica View Post
Having a common ID system only works if the data collected is open and transparent. You could feasibly identify 95% of performances, but if the PRO, publisher or record label is the only entity holding the keys to the info... Then nothing has changed. I think if you could capture a true census of music use across all networks right now you'd find about 80% of the music is production/library music. Are production music publishers and writers taking home 80% of the revenue generated by network licenses?

ASCAP and BMI claim that 100% of the TV license revenue they collect goes to the composers whose music was performed on television. And 100% of the radio revenue goes to those whose music was played on radio. No one can prove whether this is true or not. And no one (that I know of) can really get info on how much of the overall revenue at the PRO's comes from TV and how much from radio, but it's assumed that the lion's share of revenue comes from network licenses (it's easier to find the OIBDA of a given network and guess that the PRO charges 2.5%-ish of revenue for the blanket license). That's mucho money.

The wrench in the works of all of this is the "Premium Credits" calculation and it's iterations at the different PRO's, which has no further explanation than a composer/songwriter hits some sort of magical threshold and they get bonus credits! Nice. So if Bono has a song that plays behind a feel good montage on American Idol, and you, the lowly television/production music composer has an identical use... Bono will make 16x what you did in performance royalties. For the same use. Seems only right that we reward Bono for his contribution to the music business. Right?

Honestly, if there were a uniform ID system and all payouts were transparent and equitable... well, that would be a total revolution. Look at the powers behind the OMI and tell me if you think that's going to happen. The only way things will change is if the production music, or even all television, production and advertising composers band together and make their own GMR type collection organization. I suspect if such a thing even started to gain momentum you'd see the existing PRO's get with the program very quickly.

I'm wondering how many thumbs up emoticons I can give this post by vita!!!



Hmmm...that still doesn't seem like enough.......better give it some more......


Old 30th March 2018
  #22
Lives for gear
 
VitaEtMusica's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
I'm wondering how many thumbs up emoticons I can give this post by vita!!!



Hmmm...that still doesn't seem like enough.......better give it some more......


Hahahahahaha! Nice!
Old 30th March 2018
  #23
Here for the gear
A common ID system has nothing to do with Blockchain technology. Blockchain technology allows the creator to be his own PRO thru a non-centralized network, which is just the opposite of the whole concept of a PRO.
With blockchain, piracy would be over as we know today, licensing contracts would be an online transaction, reproductions would be tracked in the network and validated (no more guessing, no more 16x compensation for XYZ artists, etc). It is a game changer...
Best.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaEtMusica View Post
Having a common ID system only works if the data collected is open and transparent. You could feasibly identify 95% of performances, but if the PRO, publisher or record label is the only entity holding the keys to the info... Then nothing has changed. I think if you could capture a true census of music use across all networks right now you'd find about 80% of the music is production/library music. Are production music publishers and writers taking home 80% of the revenue generated by network licenses?

ASCAP and BMI claim that 100% of the TV license revenue they collect goes to the composers whose music was performed on television. And 100% of the radio revenue goes to those whose music was played on radio. No one can prove whether this is true or not. And no one (that I know of) can really get info on how much of the overall revenue at the PRO's comes from TV and how much from radio, but it's assumed that the lion's share of revenue comes from network licenses (it's easier to find the OIBDA of a given network and guess that the PRO charges 2.5%-ish of revenue for the blanket license). That's mucho money.

The wrench in the works of all of this is the "Premium Credits" calculation and it's iterations at the different PRO's, which has no further explanation than a composer/songwriter hits some sort of magical threshold and they get bonus credits! Nice. So if Bono has a song that plays behind a feel good montage on American Idol, and you, the lowly television/production music composer has an identical use... Bono will make 16x what you did in performance royalties. For the same use. Seems only right that we reward Bono for his contribution to the music business. Right?

Honestly, if there were a uniform ID system and all payouts were transparent and equitable... well, that would be a total revolution. Look at the powers behind the OMI and tell me if you think that's going to happen. The only way things will change is if the production music, or even all television, production and advertising composers band together and make their own GMR type collection organization. I suspect if such a thing even started to gain momentum you'd see the existing PRO's get with the program very quickly.
Old 30th March 2018
  #24
Lives for gear
 
VitaEtMusica's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FranRevert View Post
A common ID system has nothing to do with Blockchain technology. Blockchain technology allows the creator to be his own PRO thru a non-centralized network, which is just the opposite of the whole concept of a PRO.
With blockchain, piracy would be over as we know today, licensing contracts would be an online transaction, reproductions would be tracked in the network and validated (no more guessing, no more 16x compensation for XYZ artists, etc). It is a game changer...
Best.
Blockchain is one of the foundations of a common ID system being floated by the OMI, so it does have everything to do with it. Networks aren't going to negotiate licenses with or pay a million composers. There will always be gatekeepers. It doesn't mean it won't be the end of or a diminishing role of PRO's, it has more to do with individual (mega) publishers/content owners negotiating direct license deals. Gotta remember, as a single composer you have no power. That's why the PRO's were created in the first place.

I do appreciate where you'd like to see this all go- it would amazing. But the logistics of what you're proposing aren't in the cards any time soon.
Old 30th March 2018
  #25
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaEtMusica View Post
But the logistics of what you're proposing aren't in the cards any time soon.
aka - in my lifetime. Or most of our lifetimes.
Old 30th March 2018
  #26
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NemisisLondon View Post
How PROs collect usage information is highly flawed, they sample from public performance, use cue sheets, online usage and radio/TV plays. This is all combined then distributed as royalties but is unfairly biased to the biggest performing songwriters but if you know and can prove your work is being used you will get paid.
...but HOW do they do any Content ID- or public performance tracking, if they just have the key data (track's name, duration)? Nor GEMA or BMI (the two PROs I've worked/working with), required me to upload any music, and they also never ask for uploading any of my recordings....OR is there an optional way to send them my music?
...or to say it a bit more simplistically; I really don't get how they should be able to track something, of which they don't even got any idea of what it sounds like?! Just as I highly doubt that they would invest any additional time for researching my music on the online portals, while they wont even invest five minutes of their time to answer an (possibly stupid, but) easy question...

Also, how are online-usage royalties managed? Do producers also have to fill cue-sheets for those??! (..wondering, as I never heard of it) But most likely the online royalties are extremely low anyway.

Quote:
A common ID system has nothing to do with Blockchain technology. Blockchain technology allows the creator to be his own PRO thru a non-centralized network, which is just the opposite of the whole concept of a PRO.
With blockchain, piracy would be over as we know today, licensing contracts would be an online transaction, reproductions would be tracked in the network and validated (no more guessing, no more 16x compensation for XYZ artists, etc). It is a game changer...
Wow, this would honestly be a dream come true! We all have moments of frustration and have to do lots of things that aren't that much joy, and are very far away from doing anything music, but dealing with PROs really was the most annoying experience I've ever had - and that right on from the start. Pitty for the douzens of hours I invested to get behind their peculiar systems, just to only understand the very basic things at the end, as those new announcements of possibly better and easier ways to get there here really give me the strong feeling that all the classic performing rights organisations will belong to the past much sooner as some might think. Interesting allthough, and I'm really looking forward to some major game changes and finaly getting rid of those outdated procedures.
Old 30th March 2018
  #27
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drBill View Post
As for percentage, who knows. As mentioned, they are not transparent in their finances.
Not cool...
Old 30th March 2018
  #28
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
A much better option would be to do as Vita suggested. Composers for film/tv/media form their own PRO and pull out of BMI/ASCAP/SESAC. That would cause a HUGE avalanche of reform, and get us where we should be. Beyond that, technology can march ahead, but with the massive catalogs already in play, any forward progress will take decades - or longer. When large amounts of money are involved, those holding the rein's are not willing to make speedy changes for technology that will wrest control and power from their fingers.

As an example - watermarking has been dialed in and available for close to a decade now, and virtually no one is using it. It would make things SOOOOOOOO much more accurate, and accounting would become a breeze compared to the way things are currently done. And yet......nothing is happening with it. We're still locked in the past. Because that gives control and manipulation to the PRO's - not the rights owners.
Old 30th March 2018
  #29
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by freshdax View Post
Not cool...

Agreed. So??? What's going to change in the next 5 years?

Answer : nothing.
Old 1st April 2018
  #30
Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaEtMusica View Post
Having a common ID system only works if the data collected is open and transparent. You could feasibly identify 95% of performances, but if the PRO, publisher or record label is the only entity holding the keys to the info... Then nothing has changed. I think if you could capture a true census of music use across all networks right now you'd find about 80% of the music is production/library music. Are production music publishers and writers taking home 80% of the revenue generated by network licenses?

ASCAP and BMI claim that 100% of the TV license revenue they collect goes to the composers whose music was performed on television. And 100% of the radio revenue goes to those whose music was played on radio. No one can prove whether this is true or not. And no one (that I know of) can really get info on how much of the overall revenue at the PRO's comes from TV and how much from radio, but it's assumed that the lion's share of revenue comes from network licenses (it's easier to find the OIBDA of a given network and guess that the PRO charges 2.5%-ish of revenue for the blanket license). That's mucho money.

The wrench in the works of all of this is the "Premium Credits" calculation and it's iterations at the different PRO's, which has no further explanation than a composer/songwriter hits some sort of magical threshold and they get bonus credits! Nice. So if Bono has a song that plays behind a feel good montage on American Idol, and you, the lowly television/production music composer has an identical use... Bono will make 16x what you did in performance royalties. For the same use. Seems only right that we reward Bono for his contribution to the music business. Right?

Honestly, if there were a uniform ID system and all payouts were transparent and equitable... well, that would be a total revolution. Look at the powers behind the OMI and tell me if you think that's going to happen. The only way things will change is if the production music, or even all television, production and advertising composers band together and make their own GMR type collection organization. I suspect if such a thing even started to gain momentum you'd see the existing PRO's get with the program very quickly.
I don’t know about BMI, but ASCAP collects about $500 mil a year from TV and cable broadcasters and about $60-$65 mil from all radio stations I. The US.
Top Mentioned Products
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