Royalty free vs. Performance Rights Organizations

My understanding of royalty free is that it is an antiquated term that means the buyer would have to pay no other fees other than the upfront fee. This is very confusing because the PRO ’s collect performance royalties, which are different. The production companies using music in their television shows for example do not pay performance royalties, the broadcasters/networks do. Even then, the networks pay an annual flat rate which then is divided up and paid to the composers.

Because of Audiojungle’s policy of not allowing registered songs with a pro, their composers are not eligible to receive their piece of the pie.

In response to Dirk’s youtube example, Audiojungle’s client would not receive a call from ASCAP to pay a royalty. It’s youtube’s responsibility to pay ASCAP an annual flat rate, and depending on how many views that video received will determine what the composer’s royalty will be.

This is why I hope Audiojungle changes its policy at some point.

Thanks guys, this really helps clearing things up. I just didn’t know that there are such significant differences between the PROs like GEMA / BMI and registering only part of your work versus your exclusive catalogue of written material. I think it would be a huge and helpful addition for AJ to allow registered tracks also, you’d only need an additional infobox that this item is registered with a PRO , done.

I don’t think that this should be a problem at all. Hopefully there will be some movement in the near future.

Best Dirk

There is a lot of room for improvement in our licensing and it’s definitely something we’re working on. I hear from our really nice and awesome lawyer Chaman that audio licensing can been a whole heap of fun

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.

Dirk, I wasn’t aware of that major difference between PRO ’s either. I’m very thankful ASCAP doesn’t require all works be registered.

KingDog, that is wonderful to hear. Audiojungle’s steady improvements and transparency with when dealing with issues is very refreshing. I’m excited to be part of its future.

This is a big issue for me. When I post a track on AJ my biggest concern is that I’m leaving PRO money on the table. I hope Envato updates their policy soon to allow PRO registered music.

pinkzebra said
This is a big issue for me. When I post a track on AJ my biggest concern is that I’m leaving PRO money on the table. I hope Envato updates their policy soon to allow PRO registered music.

+1 big issue for us too

+100 will help us a lot!

There are clients that would pay for PRO items, but allowing PRO songs will make disorder in music catalogue on AJ. There are many PRO libraries and IMHO most people comes here because they do not want to pay PRO fees.

The best way is to belong to PRO which menages songs – not whole artist’s portfolio. My national PRO can manage all your activity only for ridiculous rates, so it has no sense to be here, but if you have other options why waste your money.

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.