Hello DMJ _digitalThis has a build up and is motivational, and can be applied to a variety of themes despite saying ‘Business’ in the title: http://audiojungle.net/item/developing-business/2105976 Best wishes for the production.
Hello House of Sounds, perhaps these are a bit too dark, but they do have the tech-work element:http://audiojungle.net/item/machine-world/2361930
For some reason my reply posted twice.
Falling Dream Chill might be what you require?http://audiojungle.net/item/falling-dream-chill/2282191
Hello, I just found this talented guitarist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UpDYOBoQiI&feature=relmfu Perhaps we could post some links to other talented musicians we happen to find around the web? Just an idea.
Hi JamieGraves, Did you find your track? Please let us know, otherwise it is quiet common for authors to carry on submitting replies forever to threads. Thanks a lot
de_signs saidThanks for your info de_signs: For movies, if they are streamed on YouTube, it would be accounted for from YouTube’s licence fee, no? For websites, yes, I think that if someone making a website used a video with music from AJ, the license fee for the website developer would be around £57.75 (I think) annually from the PRO , PRS. This would be placing the value of around £5 per month for the right to play any music on your site.
If a client buys a track on AJ for use as background music for their homepage and this track is registered to a PRO , this client has to pay usage fees to the PRO , the client, not any organization. Same applies to all other usages of works that are PRO registered, public performance, websites, movies etc.
There seems to be a misconception about PRO (Performing Rights Organisation) registered music…the customers here would not have to pay any higher fees at all . It does not come from the film maker, website designer, or other type of user of our music. This is because the money paid to composers from PROs comes from the broadcasters, distributors etc annual license fee, which they pay anyway. So, if a customer buys a track and uses it in their advert for t.v the television broadcaster would let the PRO know which music was played and the PRO would pay the composer. Not the producer of the advert. If making a video for YouTube, the metadata would include the composer’s name etc, and be matched to the PRO ’s computer system, to determine payments. Again the video maker pays nothing. Currently there is money paid by t.v broadcasters each year to a PRO for this purpose. So why deny composers a revenue stream which is already in place, and which helps sustain them? Please correct my details / understanding of the situation if it is wrong. Thank you.
Yes, please start allowing Performing Rights registered tracks on AudioJungle. It would allow composers revenue to help pay their bills (at absolutely no extra costs to the customers here) and would attract more talent here. Thank you.
Hello Polanski.Have a look through here perhaps? http://audiojungle.net/collections/1307597-orchestral-epic
Hope you find what you need.