Just a note to let you know that today we launched Source Files, the newest section of our site, as you may have seen in the upper left corner of the screen.
We’re now allowing you guys to sell your project files for a significantly higher amount than the regular audio files go for. You can zip up your Logic Pro, FL Studio, Reason, Cubase or Pro Tools files. At this time we’re not planning to support other software, though lots of pressure, childish demanding and ear pulling may sway our minds.
We’ve got high hopes for source files. On other Envato marketplaces, the equivalent category has often outsold standard file sales by several times over. People really want the ability to customize, and they’re willing to pay a fair price for it.
A word of advice: our reviewers will be checking each submission, and if your files are terribly disorganized to the point where a buyer wouldn’t be able to understand what’s happening with a basic knowledge of audio software, it may get rejected. That said, we don’t expect anybody to hand-hold the author if they haven’t used the software before; we expect buyers to have some level of competence with the programs we support.
A Note on Pricing
It’s only fair that authors are well-compensated for providing the rights to modify their source material and create derivatives — though we’re not planning to perform highway robbery on our buyers, and thus source files will pad the author’s pocket considerably without being unfair on buyers.
In coming up with a fair figure, we counter in the fact that the buyer is not granted a license to resell the original or any derivatives. Selling that sort of license can really put the price of source files up high, and we’re not intending to do that at this time. In the future you may be able to choose this license yourself.
The real information is over here at the blog just wanted to get some of that info out in the air in case anyone was wondering why the files don’t sell for thousands of dollars like in Hollywood. It’s a huge price bump from your regular audio files and the income you earn from it is quite nice. Ask Scott, who has already sold one!
actually this is a great idea, however a few thoughts on that. if i put a source file online and a potential buyer totally fells in love with that music and is willing to pay the higher price to play around with the single tracks – but he doesn´t have logic as he swears on reason (for whatever reason:)) – bummer! let´s assume that in another case i used some vst plugins for the lead synth or to give the bass sound a little distortion and the buyer does not have these, again this might keep people from purchasing the file. what do you think about providing source files containing all the single rendered tracks the music is made of? so it wouldn´t matter if somebody uses logic, cubase or whatever. you could just import the files in your prefered DAW and start to play around with. i know it´s not the same, but might be sufficient for some people. just an idea;)
And what if i upload my Cubase 4 (or soon Cubase 5 )Project and the buyer owns Cubase Sx3 or a LE version?...he won’t be able to open my project.
It’s great i think, but… it will be just a multitrack because buyer might don’t have bunch of plug-ins that i use. Or i wrong ???
Multitrack will be a good solution – no plugin dependence and sequencer either.
VOTE FOR MULTITRACK !
indeed! An incredible idea that i’m VERY eager to try out. With that said, a few concerns which I feel the instructions page didn’t quite cover.
1. As indicated by the other authors, compatibility of plug-ins is a huge concern. I mean I know personally I use a lot of rather high end plug-ins which really unless you’re making music production a big part of your life (and in the gaming genre :P), would not possess. With that said i’d have to export dozens of .wav files in the project file so the user can build the song again… but where’s the customization potential in that? Really they’re just re-arranging things. As well as that Cubase has like 5 versions of it’s software, so does FL Studio, understandably the more advanced versions cannot be opened by the smaller ones.
2. Can we include open source soundfonts in projects? Is that breaking the rules as long as we credit the creators and where they can be found? This is purely to enhance customization by providing the notes and going “well look, these instruments aren’t what I used, but it gives you an idea how it was made. If we could do this we’d have to clearly indicate on the sales page what they can expect to find in there, alongside the wavs to rebuild the project of course.
3. Can I create say a pdf score of my orchestral songs, include a midi and put it under the “other” source files? I personally think this would be more effective as it relies on no DAW other then whatever the user wants.
I can only comment on the plug-ins concern, and its more of a suggestion. Over at VH, we handle plug-in’s in a unique way. We do not allow third-party plug-ins to be used in any project files.
Now I don’t know how feasible this would be in audio production. But what we do is create project files that are strictly included plug-in based. If an author really wants something from say a particle generator, he/she could make an animation, and then use the animation in their composition. They would also have to include that rendered animation as “source footage” within the root directory of the project file folder.
So lets say you guys want to make a electric sound, and you must use a plug-in. Make the sound in the plug-in, export it out as a separate audio file. Import the audio file into your project, and layer it as needed.
Again, it may not work for Audio, but its just a suggestion.
few pointers/questions… OMF format ? cakewalk files?
I really like the idea, but it’s probably going to be pretty messy with the plug in situation, different sequencers etc. I guess most potential buyers would be more than pleased with the opportunity to create their own mix from a pack of unprocessed wav/aiff-files. No need for a certain sequencer or plug in. Just load it in whatever you are using and go.
At least add a ‘Universal’ section to the sequencer list for those that want to upload audio track files only. Not to mention those buyers that doesn’t have access to X sequencer with the Y plug ins but really like the song and would like the opportunity to do a custom mix.
On a sidenote: Someone mentioned the sequencer Reaper in the blog post. It’s excellent, it’s shareware and gaining a pretty impressive reputation. Why not try a joint venture with the developer. Say you plug it here. In exchange AJ members get some kind of discount or something. We could have Reaper tuts and other stuff for buyers of our beloved track files. Well, just a thought.
I think the main point of source files is being missed here. A source file is an opportunity for a buyer to buy a composition and be able to tweak it however they want, note by note, instrument by instrument. You are not going to be able to do that (to the extent that a source file offers) with flattened audio files.
The concept of buying and selling flattened audio files is a really good suggestion, but I’m not sure it should be part of the source files category.
Apples and oranges. Both are good, but completely different concepts and should be kept separate.
Now whether or not another category comes along to accommodate flattened audio loops (that when combined, produce a track), only Joel + envato staff know. Perhaps the current Music section could be enhanced to accommodate flattened audio files/loops a little better and a little more directly than currently? I honestly don’t know if (a) there’s a demand from customers for that or (b) if authors are interested in providing flattened audio files. It’s worth noting that some AJ musicians/producers are already providing flattened audio loops with their audio track uploads in the current Music section. Not sure if it has helped increase their sales or even if there is a demand for it, but note that some people are already doing that as an added incentive to the buyer…