Interesting Music Licensing Info

I received an email from Royalty Free Music Library, which was interesting both because I've never bought music from them, and because of the subject matter. I'm not too sure how I got on their mailing list, but this email had some interesting news about YouTube:

Important YouTube News

If you use production music in your YouTube videos, THIS IS IMPORTANT TO YOU! Youtube faces an increasingly difficult job making sure that any music used on the site is properly owned by the account owner, or properly licensed by the account owner. In an effort to make sure your videos do not get muted or improperly removed, all of our music will be ingested into the YouTube system over the coming weeks for easy recognition.

If you have used our music in your YouTube videos, you may get an email stating the following:

"Your video may have content that is licensed by BFM Digital. No action is required on your part."

There is no action required on your part, and your videos will continue to be displayed as always. We just wanted to give you the heads up so that there is no confusion when the email arrives.

I knew that YouTube had agreements with some big music labels, but this is an interesting development, and suggests that YouTube is working hard to index all music that might be uploaded to their site.

It's rather oblique wording to the YouTube email warning though; has anyone received something similar from YouTube?


Craig D'Andrea
Another thing that I noticed, is that they have a $5 song of the week, and this weeks song is Yesteryear by Craig D'Andrea. That caught me by surprise as I did a short video piece on Craig a year or so ago. Craig's a great guitarist, and I might have to license that song just so I can use it in something in the future!




Royalty Free Music - sort of
And since I was on the site, I was intrigued by their licensing terms (and company name.) It appears - and I did some reading on their site and am still not 100% sure that I am right - that they offer songs as a collection of about 10 or so pieces, which cost $79.99 for download, or $89.99 on CD. Or, you can buy a single song for $39.99 (or $5.00 if you get the $5 song of the week.)

That appears to be the arrangement - if I've got it right - and so it appears to be more advantageous to buy a collection than to buy individual songs; by a wide margin!

BUT, it also appears that their licensing is in two parts:

Standard Synchronization License
With the collection ($79.99) single song ($39.99) or $5 song of the week, you get their Standard Synchronization license:
This license allows you to synchromize our music in tandem with other audio/visual media. Common examples: as background music in a video, commericals, TV programming, film, presentations, on-hold productions, etc...
It appears that this license also allows you to manufacture/duplicate up to 2,000 copies of a DVD etc., with the songs (I'm not sure if the collection license is 2,000 copies per song or 2,000 per collection...)

However, if you go above 2,000, you need the Mass Duplication License, which is $150

Mass Duplication License
This license grants the right to duplicate a production that includes our music (properly synchronized) whether the duplciated media is for sale or given away as in a promotion or the like. Common examples: DVDs for sale or rent, Legacy productions, downloadable or electronically transferred media.
** a standard synchronization license must first be obtained and any music mass duplicated must be properly synchronized according to our Standard Licensing Agreeemnt. Our Standard Synchronization License allows you to manufacture/duplicate up to 2,000 copies. This Mass Duplication License covers an unlimited number of copies.
This is not a bad deal, even if I didn't think it was as clearly explained as it might be on their site.


Comments

Craig said…
www.SmartSound.com offers the most innovative set of features for adding high-impact royalty free music to any type of project. They are the only ones with this patented process that makes the music the exact length that you want. It works great, and saves a bunch of time.
Jul 11, 2011, 5:54:00 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sony GV-D200 review

Image
Sony GV-D200 I've been using a Sony GV-D200 deck to transfer old Video8 and Hi8 tapes. Some of these tapes are over twenty years old, and no longer having a Hi8 camcorder that worked I was concerned that if I didn't do something about transferring them to a more modern format soon, I might never be able to. While Sony no longer make camcorders that use these tapes - that I know of - Sony does still sell the GV-D200 deck (or Video Walkman, as it's sometimes labelled.) They also offer the GV-D800, which is almost identical but adds a small LCD screen for about $120 more. I didn't think I'd need a screen since I was using this to capture to the computer, but you will need an external monitor when you first set it up. Physically, the device is small. At 5 7/8" wide, 5 3/8" deep and 2" high, it's the smallest video deck I've encountered. I used to have a Video8 deck that I thought was small; and it was twice as deep and twice as high. The t...
Read more

Response: Which iPhone to Get?

Image
In response to my iPhone musings, I got the following reader email which actually sums up a lot of my second and third thoughts too: You might have a point about the fancier camera, but otherwise I would buy the smaller model. Its screen is about the same size as that of my Nexus 4, and I don't feel at all like it limits me with a too-small screen. But I do sometimes stretch to get my thumb the reach to the other corner of the screen. It is plenty big for a phone. A phone is a pocket thing. (Well, in my case it lives an ancient REI soft sunglasses case that I have on my belt.) Ubiquitous, handy, convenient, almost always with me. Small is crucial for all of that. Certainly a large screen is cool, but you need a place to put it: don't break a fundamental feature of a pocket phone by getting too big. That is what your small tablet is for. I have my phone with me almost always. I have my Nexus 7 tablet with me nearly as much. The bigger screen is great, yet it fits in some...
Read more

Should you buy the Sony NEX-FS100 Kit Lens?

Image
The Sony NEX-FS100 is available in two configurations: B & H : NEX-FS100U Camcorder only $4,999 B & H : NEX-FS100U (with 18-200mm lens) $5,599 But what does that extra $600 get you? It get's you this: Sony 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 Zoom Lens for NEX Camera This lens is also available separately for $799.99, so at $200 off you'd think everyone would be jumping on it. But not so fast... In his article about switching from the Canon 5D Mark II to the Sony NEX-FS100 , Paul Antico  at Need Creative says of the kit lens: 7) Its 18-200 F3.6-6.3 kit lens absolutely sucks and should be avoided (thankfully, you can order it without one) [ 1 ] But is it that bad? At B & H 's site, 43 reviews give it an average of 4.6 out of 5 stars. That's not a bad rating, though many of these people are using it for stills, and the most common complaint noted is how large and heavy it is. Of course this feeling of size would be exacerbated when you put it on a tiny camera ...
Read more