MikeN Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I don't think it's the arrangement rights that are such an issue - it's the sync (distribution) rights. Now those I have *no* idea what they cost. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironlips Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Yes, Mike, you are correct. We are talking about synchronization rights here. In my experience as an audio producer and Fox Network (yikes!) music consultant, these usually take the form of a fee plus percentage. For example, one of the shows on which I worked, The Heights, licensed the R&B tune "Feelin' Alright" for use in one episode. If I recall correctly that came to well over $20k. Additional royalties would have been paid for any re-runs as well as telecasts in foreign markets like the UK and Japan, and any airline onboard entertainment showings...etc. The rates for these usages are usually lower, but not insignificant. Beyond this, a series sound track recording was released containing that tune so a deal would have had to be worked out for participation in revenues resulting from that. Fox had (and has) deep pockets, but ultimately it is the consumer who pays for this in the cost of cable or satellite fees, and as part of the retail price of CDs and DVDs. Advertising (sponsor) income also factors in. That said, all of these fees are negotiable. It really is not feasible for individual corps or bands or school districts to keep entertainment attorneys on retainer for these purposes which is why licensing outfits are used. Their fees are then added to the overall licensing costs. An earlier poster rightly predicted that these issues would ultimately be worked out to the mutual benefit of all parties concerned. That's show biz. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CUDAKITE Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 This is just a gut reaction theory only, not based on any specific knowledge. After I looked at Tresona's video describing their business model, it occured to me that there's a distinct possibility they may be making a play for a potential takeover as the distribution platform for DCI, BOA etc. They are an online platform for securing digital rights for performing organizations (drumcorps, colleges, high schools) but also for content distribution and ecommerce (aka - a replacement for fan network / APDs, VPD's). The short "about us" video can be found here: https://www.tresonamusic.com/page/about-us I may be wearing a tinfoil hat about this, but having been in software licensing business for a long time, that model of being the single source service provider rings true as the kind of $$ play I would want to make in their shoes. They would make money on securing the licensing upfront, and make money on the back end by providing the distribution services / ecommerce platform. Can you say "vendor lock in"? Oh wow, I think you may be right... that video sure indicates Tresona wants to be the media distributor. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mingusmonk Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 An earlier poster rightly predicted that these issues would ultimately be worked out to the mutual benefit of all parties concerned. That's show biz. But the longer it takes, the more the pirating. The availability of pirated shows through various internet sources has skyrocketed this year. No doubt related to DCI not offering playback /on demand / archives. As long as supply is so limited, pirating will only be more pervasive. Which is why it's in their best interest to come up with a solution for both parties. It's easy for me to say sooner rather than later, as I am not at the table. But it is what it is. #corporatespeak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I honor and respect Mr. Cook for many things, not the least his business acumen. But publishers are taking on Google, YT, and other massive streaming services whose total net worth likely eclipse Mr. Cook's by factors. I don't think he'd have any more success in these negotiations that those other CEO's have had, which ain't much. he would however probably have better lawyers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Violating a law simply because one disagrees with it is ethically untenable. The argument that "Music costs too much, therefore I have a right to steal it" is absurd on the face of it. I think BMW's cost too much. Creators of music have the following exclusive rights, by law: 1. to reproduce the work 2. to prepare derivative versions (i.e., arrangements) 3. to distribute copies 4. to perform the work 5. to display the work publicly 6. to perform the work via digital audio transmission These rights belong to the copyright holder and may be licensed, sold or passed on to others by that person alone. The owner of copyright also negotiates the fees for those. To expect to generate some income for your work is not greed, it is simply the way our economic system operates. Consider the following analogy: An author writes a book and signs a publishing deal (issues a license) to distribute through a publisher for an agreed-upon share of profits. The publisher produces the initial run. The first copy is purchased by an individual who scans it, then puts it on his website to "share" with others for free. Nobody ever has to purchase copy #2. This is the situation faced by composers and music publishers. And though some streaming services do pay microscopic royalties (.0001 cents per download, or so) only those writers with millions of downloads ever see even modest profits from this. It should come as no surprise then, that authors seek to collect all legitimate royalties and prevent piracy whenever possible. They are not the bad guys. Those would be people who enable and support the illegal sharing, viewing and downloading of protected content. One is reminded of Pogo, Walt Kelly's iconic cartoon character, who famously said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." Rates are negotiable, on an individual basis, but someone must do the negotiating. the real question is how much does the creator of the music get vs. how much the copyright holder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironlips Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 'the real question is how much does the creator of the music get vs. how much the copyright holder." These are often one and the same, though just as frequently there is a 50/50 split with the publisher. This can be to the advantage of the writer because it frees him/her of the necessity of promoting the work and chasing the money, at the expense of creating more music. A copyright is property (income-earning property) and can be sold by it's original holder to another party. In this case, the creator gets none of the future revenue, in lieu of a lump-sum, one-time payment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) How much money are we talking about for this licensing stuff anyway? Tresona's web site show fees for "stock" songs at $350 or so. Is that about right on average for each license? Even for big name pieces (Bernstein, Williams, etc) that are arranged? How much in total costs does it take for a corps to arrange, perform, and stream a piece of music each season? Any ballpark answers? Hi, Dan! :) I can tell you that we spent $600 to license 2 tunes for our show this year (a TV show's theme and a Beatles number). Our ballad, however, was a pop song from the last 6 years or so and was going to cost us $1,100 just for that number. Needless to say, we got a new ballad. As has been said, though, sync rights (setting any protected music content to *any* visual element, be it live images, edited video, or still photos) are a completely different animal from licensing rights, and the syncing rights are absolutely bananas expensive. Reynoldsburg HS got popped several years back for posting a video on YouTube of the band performing their show, which had licensed songs in it. It got very ugly for the district very quickly. Edited August 12, 2015 by PREMiERdrum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Hi, Dan! :) I can tell you that we spent $600 to license 2 tunes for our show this year (a TV show's theme and a Beatles number). Our ballad, however, was a pop song from the last 6 years or so and was going to cost us $1,100 just for that number. Needless to say, we got a new ballad. As has been said, though, sync rights (setting any protected music content to *any* visual element, be it live images, edited video, or still photos) are a completely different animal from licensing rights, and the syncing rights are absolutely bananas expensive. Reynoldsburg HS got popped several years back for posting a video on YouTube of the band performing their show, which had licensed songs in it. It got very ugly for the district very quickly. Well Hi There! Great to see you post here! Now would you PM me and tell me who the heck you are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PREMiERdrum Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Well Hi There! Great to see you post here! Now would you PM me and tell me who the heck you are? (((That awkward moment when you think your log in name displays as your screen name.))) PM sent. Photo and profile updated. I should look a little more familiar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.