The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
An open letter: Are you killing the value of your own music?
Old 28th November 2018
  #61
Here for the gear
 

@ heckadactyl - I'm about to call it a day but wanted to say thanks for your thoughtful note. Input like this does not fall on deaf ears.

@ Etch-A-Sketch - With respect, you're going to a lot of liberties there in saying what we do/don't understand. Our own strategy was not at all to crudely go in with lower prices than everyone else in the market, but to try to fairly democratise the licensing of quality production music. We saw a huge market of smaller production outfits that simply didn't have an option when it came to accessing quality music.

Because of the careful approach we've taken, the quality of our catalogue has increased so much since we launched a few years back - that has brought with it interest from larger brands/productions. I do totally agree with you that representing quality music comes with a responsibility to set the right pricing for larger usages. We have open ears and eyes and we will make changes when clearly in the interest of the industry and our artists. Thank you for all your insights and perspectives.

While I appreciate I deserve some scrutiny myself when putting a letter like this out there, I feel a focus on Music Vine (however imperfect we may be right now!) has distracted from the purpose of my letter which was to highlight the colossal impact that the one-size-fits-all subscription model (which really can't be compared to our own model) is having on the industry. This model is the cause of enormous changes within the last couple of years alone.

If you weren't aware of that model, but now are, then my letter has gone some way to doing it's job!
Old 28th November 2018
  #62
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
LOL... guess what... the chassis that both the Tiguan and Macan use have engine mounts for both traverse and longitudinal engine mounting... it's the same frame, no difference. The reason they mount the tiguan transverse is because they wanted it front wheel drive. The reason they mount the Macan longitudinal is because they wanted it rear wheel drive. How the engine is mounted is superfluous. It's the same frame/chassis and the same line of engines.
Actually, the Macan is built on the Audi Q5 platform, the Tiquan, the Passat - they are NOT the same chassis.

From the wiki:

The Porsche Macan shares its platform with the Audi Q5.The wheelbase and suspension configuration are based on and heavily modified from the Audi,but the engine, transfer case, suspension tuning, interior and exterior are unique to Porsche for the Macan. It is also 1.7 in (43 mm) longer and 1.4 in (36 mm) wider than a Q5.


These are the cars the Macan/Q5 share their platforms with:

Audi A4, Audi A5, Audi Q5, Audi A8, Porsche Macan, Bentley Bentayga, Lamborghini Urus

Here are the cars the Tiquan shares its platform with:

Audi A3, Audi Q3, Volkswagen Golf Mk5, Volkswagen Jetta Mk5, Volkswagen Golf Mk6, Volkswagen Eos, Volkswagen Scirocco Mk3, Volkswagen Tiguan, SEAT León , SEAT Toledo, SEAT Altea, Škoda Octavia, Škoda Yeti

Quote:
Part time AWD vs Full Time AWD is just an option they swap out. How much more does the Macan's AWD drivetrain cost wholesale vs the Tiguan's FWD drivetrain? It's a modular part that can be swapped out. The price difference between the two is probably around $1000 or $2000. that is is.
There's no comparison between the drivetrains, they're not the same, nor are they swappable - where did you get that information?

Quote:
That is incorrect, the chassis is identical. The body panels that attach onto the chassis are different and this give the Macan a slightly wider and longer exterior by several inches. But that is solely cosmetic. the price difference between the Tiguan body panels and Macan is negligible. They are almost the same price.
Nope, proven wrong, and I listed the platforms.

You're overstating your case, and ignoring any and all information that contradicts or or at the very least, sheds a different light on the advantages of platform sharing - you see it as a big rip-off, i see it as a plus, allowing many more interesting cars to be built with proven and cost-effective technology - with increased reliability.

Now ... you can return to the topic at hand
Old 28th November 2018
  #63
Gear Guru
 
UnderTow's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewis_foster View Post
Our own strategy was not at all to crudely go in with lower prices than everyone else in the market, but to try to fairly democratise the licensing of quality production music. We saw a huge market of smaller production outfits that simply didn't have an option when it came to accessing quality music.
You say your strategy was not to undercut the market but then use marketing speak to explain that that is EXACTLY what you are doing.

Alistair
Old 28th November 2018
  #64
Lives for gear
 
jiffybox's Avatar
I'm about to crash this car into a brick wall at 100mph.
Old 29th November 2018
  #65
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lewis_foster View Post


@ JohnFulford - We're a very young company still and have had to invest heavily in tech, while we'd love to pay upfront, we simply don't have the funds available at this stage. .

Old 29th November 2018
  #66
I am interested in how Music Vine will be doing in two years.
Old 29th November 2018
  #67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
You can't whip a stock Altima around Lime Rock at 140 MPH, you can an M35, and drive it home.
you can if you do the same mods to it that Nissan does at the factory before rolling it out.

Quote:
is there a 10% difference? Probably, but whether that's worth it or not depends upon the consumer/target market.

Noe of this is groundbreaking news, it's (consumerism) marketing 101 and it's been with us for decades.
EXACTLY!!!!!! That was the point I was trying to get across with the car analogy!!! Now you see where I was going with all of this.
Old 29th November 2018
  #68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
Actually, the Macan is built on the Audi Q5 platform, the Tiquan, the Passat - they are NOT the same chassis.

From the wiki:

The Porsche Macan shares its platform with the Audi Q5.The wheelbase and suspension configuration are based on and heavily modified from the Audi,but the engine, transfer case, suspension tuning, interior and exterior are unique to Porsche for the Macan. It is also 1.7 in (43 mm) longer and 1.4 in (36 mm) wider than a Q5.


These are the cars the Macan/Q5 share their platforms with:

Audi A4, Audi A5, Audi Q5, Audi A8, Porsche Macan, Bentley Bentayga, Lamborghini Urus

Here are the cars the Tiquan shares its platform with:

Audi A3, Audi Q3, Volkswagen Golf Mk5, Volkswagen Jetta Mk5, Volkswagen Golf Mk6, Volkswagen Eos, Volkswagen Scirocco Mk3, Volkswagen Tiguan, SEAT León , SEAT Toledo, SEAT Altea, Škoda Octavia, Škoda Yeti



There's no comparison between the drivetrains, they're not the same, nor are they swappable - where did you get that information?



Nope, proven wrong, and I listed the platforms.

You're overstating your case, and ignoring any and all information that contradicts or or at the very least, sheds a different light on the advantages of platform sharing - you see it as a big rip-off, i see it as a plus, allowing many more interesting cars to be built with proven and cost-effective technology - with increased reliability.

Now ... you can return to the topic at hand
you are wrong... You actually proved me right in your first statement in this post, because I said the Macan is based of the Q5... but if you keep digging you'll eventually find other articles that talk about how the Q5 is based off the Tiguan.

I'll PM you so we don't completely hijack this thread...
Old 29th November 2018
  #69
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewis_foster View Post
@ Etch-A-Sketch - Just to confirm, Music Vine is neither a buyout nor a royalty-free platform. I think you may be getting the wrong impression about what we do / our relationship with our artists - if I've been unclear somewhere, please do let me know.
When looking through your site your licensing terms and rate card structure is that of an RF company.

For example, look at your licensing rate card for Film/Documentary.

You have small/medium/large budget film categories... and then the clearances you have are Web, Festival, Theatrical, and Broadcast. and then you say "you can include any combination of coverage options within your license"...

But... these are all in perpetuity. What happens when I release my film on Bluray and DVD? What happens when I place the film on airlines? What happens when I place my film on VOD? What happens when I originally licensed the music for Festival but then it goes to Cable?

All of these additional payments are normally considered "royalties" by the Copyright Convention and this was why libraries were originally deemed "Royalty Free". they were in perpetuity rights all the time, for every license.

Composers, took RF to mean that there were no performance royalties, but that is not the case. Most RF sites do still pay royalties when the use is broadcast because the client licensing has no control over and does not pay the performance royalty, the network broadcasting does.

Anyway... this spawned libraries like Epidemic music which consider themselves "performance free" libraries. Instead of going after the production companies they targeted the networks, saying if you pay for our music directly and then tell your production companies to use us, then you don't have to pay performance royalties.

So when I say RF, I'm not referring to performance royalties. I'm referring to license royalties that come from additional clearances or extended licenses.

In your TV/Radio broadcast rates for adverts... where do you list the length of term? You don't. If I pay $476 for Large Budget International ad, I am then allowed to air the thing for the next 20 years! And you don't mention anything about cut downs. I can pay $476 for a 60 second spot and then edit the commercial down into 20 different 30 second and 15 second spots and not have to pay again.

That is what royalty free is. That is what you do. That is NOT what most music publishers do and music copyright law allows and expects you to charge for every little thing.

For example I just did a $30,000 TV spot for a food brand. How was it $30,000? First and foremost because the production quality and the writing were both excellent and I was able to quantify that with the client. Second, because I charged for EVERY different version of the spot, I charged for EVERY 13-week ad buy they were initially planning on doing, I charged for every broadcast classification (Local Radio, National Radio, Cable, Free TV, and Internet), and I charged for every territory. How was I able to do this? Because it's expected by the client and the ad agency. This is how it has been since the 1920's or 30's.

So yes... when I look at your rates and your licensing structure... to me, you are an RF library. You may not realize or understand that you are. But you are. You are doing the same thing as Audio Jungle, Audio Micro, Pond 5, Sound Taxi, etc.
Old 29th November 2018
  #70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
Automakers began platform sharing back in the 30's, it's a plus not a negative, it allows for more models and more technology to be amortized among more car lines. it also allows cheaper cars to receive much of the same engineering as their more $ counterparts. It also allows for many more interesting models to be built. It's ok that your Porsche shares some of its parts with VW's and Audis, that means greater reliability and lower cost, unless you have to replace a transmission in a Porsche Panamera, that's going to cost you a whopping 30 grand, way more than in a VW (rest assured, it isn't the same box)!!!!
exactly!!! and that was my whole point as it relates to music production.
Old 29th November 2018
  #71
Here for the gear
 

@ Etch-A-Sketch - cheers for your thoughtful note.

- If a type of distribution becomes required that wasn't included in the original license, then yes - of course - clearance for the additional distribution must be granted via a new/custom license.

- Getting clearance for a specific number of edits of a single ad/production is catered for in our license-builder system.

- You are totally right, similar to the stock sites you list, Music Vine is clearly a platform intended to provide folks with a convenient way of accessing great production music. For the vast majority of small-to-medium scale production companies, going through the process of getting a customised license for each and every video simply isn't a viable, practical option. That is who our platform serves. We are fundamentally different to the stock sites you list because we take great care with building our catalogue, our UX, our license structure is much more comprehensive & variable, we invest a lot of time in assisting and working directly with our artists.

What we do is different to what you do. There will always be a place for high-end & very specifically selected / bespoke music that requires custom licensing & a premium for such service. I agree that for larger commercial usages we have a responsibility to consider our price-point very carefully, or whether it's appropriate to have off-the-shelf licenses at all.


@ UnderTow - with respect, democratising is totally different from crude undercutting. The reality is that video industry has evolved hugely within the last 10 years - with a huge amount more content being created for much smaller-scale commercial usages. We are catering to that evolution by seeking to marry convenience with fair pricing and quality. Custom licensing is not a practical option for a huge proportion of video production companies/freelancers out there.

@ Desire Inspires - Feel free to keep track buddy. We've been off to a good start.
Old 29th November 2018
  #72
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
He doesn't care what you think or I think, he's not listening ... he's going to lecture you into submission ... your mistake was in thinking a discussion would ensue ...lol.
Hehe

I just find it amazing that a) someone has the time to type all that (where do they get the time??) and b) it matters to them sooooo much that they are seen to be right, important and well connected. Just seems a bit desperate to me.

You get alot of that on music forums I find it quite funny tbh.

Good chatting VWs and Nissan's with you Sharp!

Just off to fill my Polo 1.4 up with diesel before I start on some more Pond5 trax...

I am out of this thread though (hurrah I hear you cry!) cos some peeps are transmitting but most definitely not receiving.

Peace

x

P.s. Apologies to the mods for going O/T.
Old 29th November 2018
  #73
Gear Guru
 
drBill's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiffybox View Post
I'm about to crash this car into a brick wall at 100mph.
My favorite post of this thread, and ironically, closer to being on topic than half the other thoughts.
Old 29th November 2018
  #74
Here for the gear
 

@ Etch-A-Sketch - I noticed that you're involved in Megatrax. Which goes some way to explaining your hostility toward Music Vine in this thread - to some degree we're a competitor and we're a much younger company that is geared toward a video production landscape that looks very different to when Megatrax started out and that simply isn't comparable to how the music/film industry worked in 1920s as you referred to earlier.

You've talked as if the way you value music and your approach music licensing is inherently right, and that any other approach is wrong. Whereas it can of course be argued that cheap stock music has its place, quality production music has its place - a premium will clearly always be paid for either the privilege of using music from mainstream artists or bespoke music from esteemed composers.

The economics for each of these types of music is in flux, they're not something that's set in stone somewhere. The media industry itself is relatively young and, as with everything else, is in a state of evolution.

In my letter it certainly isn't my intention to claim that our own approach to valuing music is inherently right. I am simply highlighting that the extreme devaluation that is now happening (which makes the difference in pricing between Megatrax and Music Vine pale into insignificance) clearly is something that should be discussed and brought to the attention of musicians.

One of the main reasons I wrote the letter is because we have seen that many of the musicians getting involved with this model simply don't know what they're signing up to, and they themselves are usually shocked when we explain the model with more perspective - we know this because we've received artist applications from a good number of the musicians in question.
Old 30th November 2018
  #75
Lives for gear
 
VitaEtMusica's Avatar
 

Are you killing the value of your own music?

I don't know. Are you?

Old 1st December 2018
  #76
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaEtMusica View Post
Are you killing the value of your own music?

I don't know. Are you?


Surprised to see my Uncle G on Gearslutz. Reminded me of this video in context of the value of my music going "down".



Old 3rd December 2018
  #77
Gear Nut
 
Ukiah Bass's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lewis_foster View Post
@ Etch-A-Sketch - I noticed that you're involved in Megatrax. Which goes some way to explaining your hostility toward Music Vine in this thread - to some degree we're a competitor and we're a much younger company that is geared toward a video production landscape that looks very different to when Megatrax started out and that simply isn't comparable to how the music/film industry worked in 1920s as you referred to earlier.

You've talked as if the way you value music and your approach music licensing is inherently right, and that any other approach is wrong. Whereas it can of course be argued that cheap stock music has its place, quality production music has its place - a premium will clearly always be paid for either the privilege of using music from mainstream artists or bespoke music from esteemed composers.

The economics for each of these types of music is in flux, they're not something that's set in stone somewhere. The media industry itself is relatively young and, as with everything else, is in a state of evolution.

In my letter it certainly isn't my intention to claim that our own approach to valuing music is inherently right. I am simply highlighting that the extreme devaluation that is now happening (which makes the difference in pricing between Megatrax and Music Vine pale into insignificance) clearly is something that should be discussed and brought to the attention of musicians.

One of the main reasons I wrote the letter is because we have seen that many of the musicians getting involved with this model simply don't know what they're signing up to, and they themselves are usually shocked when we explain the model with more perspective - we know this because we've received artist applications from a good number of the musicians in question.

The landscape for licensing music reproduction rights is also behind the times. The best word to describe it is byzantine. For example, I'm a very small production guy creating sub-1-minute videos for my LinkedIn channel. Educational themed. Obviously to promote myself indirectly, but it's information for everyone that's given as a gift. I'm also a musician, so I want to take a song that's familiar to people, and is related to the theme of the video, simplify and arrange it to fit about 50-55 seconds of run time, play all the parts and produce it myself, and use it as the music track for the video. Hiring a lawyer for each video to work out contract licensing terms is ridiculously over the top. The audience is low hundreds. There is nothing commercial about the videos. So it's not worth much to me to pay for a license(s) entailing music rights companies' traditional processes.

I pay low fees to license short b-rolls, and stock photography. Why can't it work this way for licensing the music alone and let me "do it myself"? Perhaps the new law on music rights will help in this regard. Publishers are not helping us little guys to to easily pay a reasonable fee for our modest requirements.
Old 3rd December 2018
  #78
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ukiah Bass View Post
I pay low fees to license short b-rolls, and stock photography. Why can't it work this way for licensing the music alone and let me "do it myself"? Perhaps the new law on music rights will help in this regard. Publishers are not helping us little guys to to easily pay a reasonable fee for our modest requirements.
It does work this way?

Pond5, AudioJungle and a zillion other sites let you license short pieces of music the same as you do for stock photography/video.

As far as being able to cover a popular piece of music, yes that does get more tricky but it's my understanding that a mechanical license is all that is required, and yes you have to pay royalties when you go this route. If I write a hit song, I shouldn't be under any obligation to license it to you for some small one-off fee just because you happen to be a small creator. Someone with more experience in covers I'm sure can chime in on this.
Old 3rd December 2018
  #79
Quote:
Originally Posted by orbiterred View Post

As far as being able to cover a popular piece of music, yes that does get more tricky but it's my understanding that a mechanical license is all that is required, and yes you have to pay royalties when you go this route.
That is incorrect. a Mechanical license only covers the sale of physical product. Since this person is Synchronizing the music to picture he has created, it is a sync license, not a mechanical. And the publisher can ask for whatever they want for the license.

That is why music libraries are so popular now.

Quote:
If I write a hit song, I shouldn't be under any obligation to license it to you for some small one-off fee just because you happen to be a small creator. Someone with more experience in covers I'm sure can chime in on this.
you are correct. It is your intellectual property, and you can license it to whomever you wish for whatever price you wish.

If you licensing the music to a small time vlogger would hurt your brand and your ability to attract listeners... then you have the right to say no or charge a crazy amount of money.
Old 3rd December 2018
  #80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ukiah Bass View Post
The landscape for licensing music reproduction rights is also behind the times. The best word to describe it is byzantine. For example, I'm a very small production guy creating sub-1-minute videos for my LinkedIn channel. Educational themed. Obviously to promote myself indirectly, but it's information for everyone that's given as a gift. I'm also a musician, so I want to take a song that's familiar to people, and is related to the theme of the video, simplify and arrange it to fit about 50-55 seconds of run time, play all the parts and produce it myself, and use it as the music track for the video. Hiring a lawyer for each video to work out contract licensing terms is ridiculously over the top. The audience is low hundreds. There is nothing commercial about the videos. So it's not worth much to me to pay for a license(s) entailing music rights companies' traditional processes.

I pay low fees to license short b-rolls, and stock photography. Why can't it work this way for licensing the music alone and let me "do it myself"? Perhaps the new law on music rights will help in this regard. Publishers are not helping us little guys to to easily pay a reasonable fee for our modest requirements.
I'm assuming you wanted to use famous songs and re-arrange/re-orchestrate them for educational purposes?

have you looked into "Fair Use"? You can actually use famous music for free without obtaining a license so long as it is for educational purposes. This is how news broadcasts, documentaries and schools can sometimes get away with using music for free.

There are a lot of stipulations and caveats to it. so you have to make sure you are strictly within the guidelines. But if your videos are to educate moreso than to promote you and your skills, then you could make the case for Fair Use. And the fact that only a couple hundred people see it, means it isn't really worth it for the publishers to try and come after you.
Old 4th December 2018
  #81
Gear Nut
 
Ukiah Bass's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
I'm assuming you wanted to use famous songs and re-arrange/re-orchestrate them for educational purposes?

have you looked into "Fair Use"? You can actually use famous music for free without obtaining a license so long as it is for educational purposes. This is how news broadcasts, documentaries and schools can sometimes get away with using music for free.

There are a lot of stipulations and caveats to it. so you have to make sure you are strictly within the guidelines. But if your videos are to educate moreso than to promote you and your skills, then you could make the case for Fair Use. And the fact that only a couple hundred people see it, means it isn't really worth it for the publishers to try and come after you.
Fair use might be stretching it. I get the ownership issues. I guess I'm must sighing with exasperation that the old model doesn't fit modern requirements. I'm hoping the PROs are able to provide a seamless and cost effective way for small-time creators to cross the right t's and dot the right i's when it comes to music rights. It's hard enough understanding the rights, much less figuring out a way to pay for them. It's not like I'm some fancy Madison Avenue agency buying rights for a Global Domination, Inc. ad campaign. More like Joe Schmo in a home studio experimenting with ideas with a minuscule budget and no revenue. /rant off
Old 4th December 2018
  #82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ukiah Bass View Post
Fair use might be stretching it. I get the ownership issues. I guess I'm must sighing with exasperation that the old model doesn't fit modern requirements. I'm hoping the PROs are able to provide a seamless and cost effective way for small-time creators to cross the right t's and dot the right i's when it comes to music rights. It's hard enough understanding the rights, much less figuring out a way to pay for them. It's not like I'm some fancy Madison Avenue agency buying rights for a Global Domination, Inc. ad campaign. More like Joe Schmo in a home studio experimenting with ideas with a minuscule budget and no revenue. /rant off
If you don’t have any money, do not use other people’s music.

Create something new just for your videos. One piece to use for the intro, one piece for the outro, and then something simple for the middle.

Have you ever seen “Seinfeld”? A composer made all of that quirky music with the slap bass and effects. Do something original like that. It sure beats this “poor little me” rant you have going on.

Your original music could be requested from other people to license and then you would be able to charge license fees and make money.
Old 4th December 2018
  #83
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ukiah Bass View Post
More like Joe Schmo in a home studio experimenting with ideas with a minuscule budget and no revenue. /rant off
I think you pretty much answered your own question. There is no money in this, so why would anyone invest any time in trying to come up with a solution to make it easier on "Joe Schmo"?

For guys like you, the stock/royalty free market is the solution for buying music for picture.

Popular music = Big $$$ and it's not the PRO's who are running the show for what you want to do, it's the publishers who control the rights and sell popular tunes for mega bucks.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice but I can't think of a good argument for implementing the monumental task of administrating and monitoring thousands of little youtube videos for a few cents-dollars each... where is the benefit to them?

Why do you feel like you should be able to cheaply license a popular tune? Just because you have no money?

Think about it this way, I got lucky and wrote a hit, it's climbing the charts, a big movie trailer company just approached me to use it for this years big summer block buster, they want to pay me $XXX,XXX - I say yeah that's great! But just so you know I'm also licensing it to everyone who wants for $XX as long as they aren't very popular and don't make much money, but I'm happy to take your $XXX,XXX as well! Don't think it would fly?
Old 5th December 2018
  #84
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lewis_foster View Post
@ Etch-A-Sketch - cheers for your thoughtful note.

- If a type of distribution becomes required that wasn't included in the original license, then yes - of course - clearance for the additional distribution must be granted via a new/custom license.

- Getting clearance for a specific number of edits of a single ad/production is catered for in our license-builder system.

- You are totally right, similar to the stock sites you list, Music Vine is clearly a platform intended to provide folks with a convenient way of accessing great production music. For the vast majority of small-to-medium scale production companies, going through the process of getting a customised license for each and every video simply isn't a viable, practical option. That is who our platform serves. We are fundamentally different to the stock sites you list because we take great care with building our catalogue, our UX, our license structure is much more comprehensive & variable, we invest a lot of time in assisting and working directly with our artists.

What we do is different to what you do. There will always be a place for high-end & very specifically selected / bespoke music that requires custom licensing & a premium for such service. I agree that for larger commercial usages we have a responsibility to consider our price-point very carefully, or whether it's appropriate to have off-the-shelf licenses at all.


@ UnderTow - with respect, democratising is totally different from crude undercutting. The reality is that video industry has evolved hugely within the last 10 years - with a huge amount more content being created for much smaller-scale commercial usages. We are catering to that evolution by seeking to marry convenience with fair pricing and quality. Custom licensing is not a practical option for a huge proportion of video production companies/freelancers out there.

@ Desire Inspires - Feel free to keep track buddy. We've been off to a good start.

I've been talking with local production companies in small town Eugene, Oregon. Their bread and butter work is producing micro budget stuff for non-profits, local businesses, etc. There's enough work in Eugene to sustain a handful of production companies, but none of them are working on large projects. I imagine this is true for every 200k population town in the world.

It makes sense to service this market. They're never going to hire a composer and they often need to turn stuff around quickly. One click platforms serve them very well.

But if Music Vine is servicing larger projects with relatively inexpensive licenses, it is contributing to the downward pressure. You might rationalize it one way or another but in my experience $4119 is very inexpensive for an international broadcast ad license with 10 edits and no specified term.

The flip side of the coin is that, for composers, working with Music Vine might be more profitable than working with a library that doesn't share sync. Yes, a premium library might charge more for the same license, and that license might be renewed several times for additional fees, but the composer doesn't see any of that money; the value of their music remains high but they don't benefit from it.

My limited experience with this model has resulted in a higher dollar per track average than any other model.

It's a crazy world out there.
Old 5th December 2018
  #85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ukiah Bass View Post
Fair use might be stretching it. I get the ownership issues. I guess I'm must sighing with exasperation that the old model doesn't fit modern requirements.
What modern requirements? Maybe I'm missing something here? I don't see how what you are doing is outside of the current model?

Quote:
I'm hoping the PROs are able to provide a seamless and cost effective way for small-time creators to cross the right t's and dot the right i's when it comes to music rights.
just for educational purposes for you and others reading. The PROs have nothing to do with securing licensing rights for use. They only cover performance uses of the music, not synchronization rights.

Quote:
It's hard enough understanding the rights, much less figuring out a way to pay for them. It's not like I'm some fancy Madison Avenue agency buying rights for a Global Domination, Inc. ad campaign. More like Joe Schmo in a home studio experimenting with ideas with a minuscule budget and no revenue. /rant off
I agree the rights can be confusing to someone who has never dealt with them before. But they are important and are there for a reason. It's to ensure the creative people who create music are compensated so that they can sustain themselves and continue creating. While this might be a hobby to you... you could be using music from someone who does not view music as a hobby, but makes 100% of their living from it. And so they need to protect their property and their rights to earn a living off of that property, even if you do not earn a living off of your properties that you create.
Old 5th December 2018
  #86
Gear Addict
 
dcwave's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
They do this because of logistics and cost. It's one of the reasons GM went out of business and had to be purchased by FIAT. GM didn't use the same frames, engines, suspensions, etc for different models in their different brands and it literally bankrupted them.
GM was never owned by Fiat.
Fiat and Chrysler created a holding company several years ago (2014 I think).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
GM didn't use the same frames, engines, suspensions, etc for different models in their different brands and it literally bankrupted them.
GM shared frames, pillars, and parts across most of their brands - Chevy, Buick, Olds, Pontiac.


But I will concede that Porsche is just a VW with lock-washers.
Old 5th December 2018
  #87
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcwave View Post



GM shared frames, pillars, and parts across most of their brands - Chevy, Buick, Olds, Pontiac.

That's right, a Chevy Impala/Caprice was a Pontiac Catalina/Bonneville, was a Buick LeSabre/Electra225, was a Olds 88/98, was a Cadillac Calais/DeVille ...

Same over at Ford and Chrysler - when I was a kid in the 60's/70s, it was fun trying to tell some of these models apart - it dawned on me then the big Buicks were a great value compared to Caddies! Still, each brand had a real identity - Buicks were known for their brakes, Caddies for luxury, Pontiacs for performance and Chevy for value.
Old 5th December 2018
  #88
Gear Nut
 
Ukiah Bass's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
I agree the rights can be confusing to someone who has never dealt with them before. But they are important and are there for a reason. It's to ensure the creative people who create music are compensated so that they can sustain themselves and continue creating. While this might be a hobby to you... you could be using music from someone who does not view music as a hobby, but makes 100% of their living from it. And so they need to protect their property and their rights to earn a living off of that property, even if you do not earn a living off of your properties that you create.
I agree with this premise. What about old music -- where the writer(s) is dead? Not so old as to fit into "Traditional" category. But new enough that a publisher is still collecting tolls?

As for "modern requirements," the old processes fit a world of sit-down meetings with lawyers, drafting agreements, negotiating fees etc. The modern world consists of more automated systems enabling minimum friction and maximum alacrity in implementing ideas and ultra rapid distribution. Numbers for the song writers could be (and possibly are) just as big in the new world. But why should this exclude "small time" operators who could pay what they're worth, which would be a pittance by comparison, but if implemented by electronic systems, could easily scale to fit everyone's needs -- and put in a commensurate amount of compensation. I don't see this as a zero sum game for song writers. If anything, it would be additive, bringing in revenue that would be uncapturable with old, manual processes.

Just trying to be open minded here. There are a lot of creative professions trying to figure out a way forward. Professionally, I am also a creator and have experienced the hammer of forces brought on by the internet. It's not going away. We just have to figure out what will work. What will NOT work is sticking our heads in the sand and insisting the old way is the best way.
Old 5th December 2018
  #89
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcwave View Post
GM was never owned by Fiat.
Fiat and Chrysler created a holding company several years ago (2014 I think).



GM shared frames, pillars, and parts across most of their brands - Chevy, Buick, Olds, Pontiac.


But I will concede that Porsche is just a VW with lock-washers.
you are correct... I was mistaken. Fiat bought Chrysler after the bailout I remembered it as being Fiat bought GM. I mixed the two up.
Old 5th December 2018
  #90
Lives for gear
 
VitaEtMusica's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ukiah Bass View Post
I agree with this premise. What about old music -- where the writer(s) is dead? Not so old as to fit into "Traditional" category. But new enough that a publisher is still collecting tolls?

As for "modern requirements," the old processes fit a world of sit-down meetings with lawyers, drafting agreements, negotiating fees etc. The modern world consists of more automated systems enabling minimum friction and maximum alacrity in implementing ideas and ultra rapid distribution. Numbers for the song writers could be (and possibly are) just as big in the new world. But why should this exclude "small time" operators who could pay what they're worth, which would be a pittance by comparison, but if implemented by electronic systems, could easily scale to fit everyone's needs -- and put in a commensurate amount of compensation. I don't see this as a zero sum game for song writers. If anything, it would be additive, bringing in revenue that would be uncapturable with old, manual processes.

Just trying to be open minded here. There are a lot of creative professions trying to figure out a way forward. Professionally, I am also a creator and have experienced the hammer of forces brought on by the internet. It's not going away. We just have to figure out what will work. What will NOT work is sticking our heads in the sand and insisting the old way is the best way.
The process that is now obtaining a synchronization license isn't up for debate. Libraries/Publishers that don't have hit songs can automate and scale because their assets are not worth much and the value is fluid. Publishers with hit songs can ask whatever they want. And why wouldn't it be this way? This is absolutely the best possible scenario for both copyright and recording owners. Total control over when, how, and for how much money their music property will be used.

As for old and new, many of the most expensive songs to license for a sync are old. Try licensing What a Wonderful World or Somewhere Over the Rainbow and prepare to have you legs wobble. There are entire estates that depend on these iconic songs. They are the inheritance passed down from father/mother to children and grandchildren. Are you saying they should scale the price of the license so people can cheapen the song's value by putting their song up sync'd to a cat video? If you are a professional creator, why would you try to cheapen or steal people's stuff? Having publishers and master owners try to protect their property and generate income isn't putting their heads in the sand.

If you went to license a bigger song you'd see that for the most part the process is automated, but the final agreement does have to be negotiated, and rightfully so.

There is one company and a handful of publishers/record labels that agree with your ideals- songfreedom.com But if you want to do anything besides the basest of projects, yup, you jump right back into individually negotiating a license fee... and it ain't cheap.
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