An audience size of 1 million is not as large as it may seem, typically only covering local uses and smaller market areas such as a small to medium sized city in most cases. Larger cities and metropolitan regions will typically fall in the next higher broadcast tier, and national broadcast campaigns (which were previously accessible for $18 under the RL) will now be a much more competitively valued top tier use.
Outside of online view counts, this is not enforceable. A buyer will not be checking census statistics at the time of purchasing a license to make sure they are covered. They just won’t. Besides, broadcasters are responsible for audience size, not the production creating the content and licensing the track. That’s why broadcasters are responsible for paying PRO and not the production company.
But to define ‘audience size’ more specifically, is this potential viewing audience? If you broadcast in New York City area (8+ million people), do you consider the whole potential population as a viewing audience, or is only what you anticipate the broadcaster reaching (which one assumes would be less than 8 million, but only the broadcaster would know exactly, not the production licensing the track)?
With content that airs multiple times, does audience size reflect ‘per viewing’b numbers or the cumulitive amount at the end of it’s run cycle? Hypothetically, a local ad could run in town of 500,000 could potentially exceed 1 million views if it’s by cumulitive airings.
Does Envato have access to broadcasting data to potentially enforce these terms? How does Envato plan to protect authors from buyers who will abuse and exploit their license beyond it’s terms?
I do understand enforcing any license is very difficult but the author has no way of tracking this sort of use so it would be helpful to know that Envato has some way of checking this. Otherwise, everyone looking to broadcast will just buy the cheapest license.
I guess that’s true. AJ could just offer it and not take part in any royalties. Certainly would be nice for those that have registered both as writers and publishers with their PRO!
Without AJ taking any royalties, I don’t really see the incentive for them to offer PRO. Sure it would be nice for composers, but I think AJ would be the ones stuck dealing buyers who had issues/questions about cue sheets or other support that would require time and effort from staff since they are the licensors. So they’d basically function as a PRO library with no extra benefit, giving away their royalty stream to either the composer with a publishing company or to a PRO’s unclaimed funds account.
Maybe someone else could make a great argument for it though. I certainly wouldn’t mind having double royalty stream for my AJ stuff!
Yeah, I’m not sure how sites that offer that do it either. Maybe they just register their PRO content in a couple places and that’s fine for them, or just allow the writer to collect royalties and not take part in publishing (that’s seems quite foolish though!)? Maybe somebody on the forum knows the answer?
At least AJ are starting to recognize that music used in broadcast situations deserve higher value, unlike the current structure which is open season on cheap pricing for anything (though we choose to take part in it). Hopefully as the folks running AJ become more educated about how the music business works, we’ll get a better/fairer deal. I’m pretty sure they had no idea the first time around with licensing….
The PRO issue is big. I’ve only been here a year but it seems like AJ are not budging on this one, am I right? Other issues have been up for discussion and review but this one seems to be firmly ignored. Its odd as it seems easy to implement, would benefit everyone financially and most importantly would stop us lot moaning on a daily basis… These crazy low broadcasts rates would even be somewhat acceptable with the chance of backend royalties.
Becoming a PRO based library is not as easy as it sounds. It’s not the same as signing up as a writer with a PRO (which is usually free for writers, typically not for publishers). If AJ wanted to do PRO, they would probably need to register as a publisher in each territory they plan to sell music in (so every nation that has a PRO since they sell content worldwide), file contracts with every author securing rights as the publisher on every song they plan to sell (or lump them into an album agreement), and register the whole AJ catalogue with each PRO (technically they don’t have to do that but it’s certainly better if they do). That’s quite a huge undertaking just to get started. It would take an equal amount of effort to keep things running smoothly with the amount of authors and constant content on AJ. I don’t think Envato has the resources to do that at the moment.
This is usually why PRO libraries are a bit pickier about who writes for them and how much content they release a year. AJ would most likely need to adopt a similar more restrictive policy if they were to do PRO to help cut down the massive influx of new content/authors.
The only way I could see the PRO route working out easily for AJ is if Envato don’t take on the role of publisher. Then there is no real incentive though for them to do that since they aren’t earning any royalties at that point.
Basically if being a PRO was easy to do, they would’ve done it. AJ loves to make money like the rest of us and aren’t stupid enough to just turn money away without a good reason. For those interested in PRO, you should get involved in a PRO based library in your country.
With audience size, the licensing is better able to reconcile these market differences between Broadcast for large or metropolitan areas compared to smaller or less populated regions of similar geographical nature (e.g. New York City vs. Omaha, Nebraska, or even Denmark vs. the entire USA for example). Finally, as we continue to see more and more online substitutions for traditional broadcast, geographical boundaries become less and less relevant.
Yes, there are extreme population differences across different regions of the world, which is why broadcasters use territorial boundaries/regions for their markets. It really doesn’t matter the number of people who hear/see the content. The intention is that it is either for local/national/worldwide promotion. This about traditional broadcasting only.
Of course the internet complicates this and needs to be treated differently for a multitude of reasons (like not needing to run a costly network tv/radio channel just to get content out). You can’t treat the internet like traditional broadcasting in licensing terms, and the opposite is also true.
I can understand the need to have a small number of forward thinking licensing options to cover any potential type of music use for convenience. It just seems that boiling many types of use into a couple licenses is going to raise more questions of ‘what license do I need’, especially when the terms of it aren’t standard to how something as specific as broadcast licensing works. By trying to be ahead of the curve for music licensing, it feels like it isn’t relevant to the way these things (traditional broadcasting) work, and licensing is all about being relevant.
You guys have obviously put a lot of thought into this and feel it’ll work well. I look forward to the new changes and hope that’ll all work out well regardless.
I do have one question regarding audience size, is the number mentioned meant to be per broadcast or cumlutive of each airing? Example: A radio ad plays with an AJ track in the background reaches roughly 500,000 people a day and airs for a month. Does radio ad production pay for a license to cover the 500,000 per broadcast or the total amount of people at the end of it’s run cycle?
Nice to see AJ tweaking things in hopes of making things better.
I’m not so sure that ‘audience size’ is a great measure for licensing. Doesn’t seem enforceable at all, realistically. The person licensing the track will probably have zero control over how many people view their content, and of course they would want everyone in the world to see their content for maximum exposure. I imagine that folks using this sort of licensing measure probably won’t be counting up their audience size and then remember to go upgrade their license when appropriate. I know I wouldn’t!
Say someone online (where audience size is easily trackable, unlike non-internet broadcast streams that use approximate numbers) does exceed their audience size for their license, how is the licensing enforced? Will their content be taken from a request until a proper license has been sorted? Will their be a penalty for people who ignore their licensing terms? If it’s a tv show will the episode be pulled from the air? If I was a customer, I wouldn’t like having those as potential hazards because of a music track that I paid for who knows how long ago. However, as an Author, I would want those things to happen because otherwise the licensing terms are useless.
A suggestion, replace audience size with a system based on territory. Break things up into local/national/worldwide. This would work well for non-internet related broadcast use. It’s like audience size but not dependant on the number of people that view it, just potential numbers. This feels a bit more concrete to me if I were someone looking to purchase music for this sort of broadcast type since I can’t control, or really accurately keep track of, my audience size.
For internet use (which is inherently a bit tricker), you could set things up per site(s). If it’s a youtube video only, offer a one site only license and have the website listed in the licensing terms. Then a multiple site license, followed by unlimited. For single and multiple website licenses, the license should contain the websites the content will be used, which the user would provide at the time of purchase. With a multiple license, they could potentially update those website until they exceed the number sites allowed.
These licensing ideas should be allowed to be combined as separate licenses (maybe with a small discount for multi-use licenses), or perhaps combine them together in general (local broadcast with a one website, national with multi site, worldwide with unlimited sites).
This would also be difficult to enforce (music licensing is in general) but it might be a bit clearer to the buyer how they can use the track, making it less likely they’ll pay for the cheapest one and do whatever they want with it. If the internet licenses contained the websites intended, that would be easily enforceable, though the buyer may not know every site they’ll be posting it at the time of purchase.
This doesn’t address how music should work in a project where someone is re-selling it as part of a larger whole but that seems to something AJ had figured out under their old (current) licensing system, so I’m sure they can sort that out fine.
Anyways, my 2 cents!
Audiojungle itself is a marketplace, not a music production company. It provides an opportunity to sell music and that’s it.
As much as it sucks to have things rejected for no given reason, it’s really not the role of a marketplace to tell their producers how to fix their products/content. Fortunately, the forums have proven to a great place to get feedback in these situations. You’d get way more detailed feedback here, which seems to be what people are asking for in the first place. Having feedback posted in the forum also allows others to learn from those mistakes and how to fix them.
...When you pass by people’s portfolios you see amazing credits like “music featured on BBC, ABC and CBS”...
This might be related to music they have registered with a Performing Rights Organization (PRO). PRO’s will send out quarterly statements to the composer containing the ‘who, what, when, where’ of their music use. This would be for non-royalty free music. The whole job of a PRO is to find out that information, collect royalties on that, and then pay them out to the appropriate people.
Of course, it also could be music from AJ but that’s a bit harder to track down. You might be able to use TuneSat to find that information out but that company is really more for finding royalty-based music that wasn’t reported to a PRO. Some composers could find a lot of missing revenue that way.
Coffee Snob? Only a little…
I roast, grind, and brew my own coffee at home. Preferred brewer of choice, Hario v60 ceramic drip cone. Other options would be a Melitta pour over and a Chemex (I think I still have a regular drip somewhere as well). I also have a Gaggia espresso machine for those moments when you’ve got to have a shot.
So only a little.