Synchrotron saidWe're actually not collecting royalties, but rather advertising revenue. A thin line, but a difference nonetheless. Also, YouTuber's that wish to have their videos monetized have to have all third-party matches cleared first before they can do so. As a result, we can't collect advertising revenue on these videos, so there won't be any conflict in this scenario.Still, music here is marketed as royalty free and with a service such as AdRev we are collecting royalties based on ads. Isn’t that a conflict? We could steal a stream of income for those who want to monetize their videos, no? Or am I missing something with who gets the ad revenue?
AlumoAudio saidOk, I understand.Synchrotron saidWe're actually not collecting royalties, but rather advertising revenue. A thin line, but a difference nonetheless. Also, YouTuber's that wish to have their videos monetized have to have all third-party matches cleared first before they can do so. As a result, we can't collect advertising revenue on these videos, so there won't be any conflict in this scenario.Still, music here is marketed as royalty free and with a service such as AdRev we are collecting royalties based on ads. Isn’t that a conflict? We could steal a stream of income for those who want to monetize their videos, no? Or am I missing something with who gets the ad revenue?
AJ should be on top of this since it will increase support tickets regarding claims if more and more authors here start to use programs like AdRev.
Matt, wow! You really have a well informed grasp on all of this, kudos to you!
I really wish all libraries and content-id companies could get on the same page with all of this. It just seems there is so much confusion going on about all of it.
The one thing I fear in the future is that libraries will adopt content-id BUT they will also want a cut of the revenue which would create a lot of issues if you sell on various platforms. i.e. who placed which version and who gets the percentage.
If you don’t mind me asking, how well does it pay out? No need for exact figures from your end. Just a general view to payout ratio. I have heard that it takes millions of plays/clicks to even show a small return.
Thanks for all your information on this thread!
Synchrotron saidI do agree with this, although I'm very certain the folks at Envato are very aware of the situation. As I mentioned, I've spoken directly with the guys at support about it, and they were very understanding, helpful, and took on board what I explained.AJ should be on top of this since it will increase support tickets regarding claims if more and more authors here start to use programs like AdRev.
I think because it's still early days for digital fingerprinting, libraries in general are still learning the legalities and how the whole thing works. Therefore they have to step very carefully, especially on the marketing side of things. It really isn't something that should be shouted from the rooftops just yet, simply because there's so much uncertainty and misinformation surrounding it, and therefore could put potential customers off buying stock. But once it's got a foothold, things have been worked out and it becomes the norm, I believe there will generally be more openness from the libraries to both buyers and authors regarding ContentID, and similar systems.
It’s important to remember, the very same thing happened several years ago when stock music was first instantly available online for everyone for just a few dollars, as opposed to high-end, exclusive libraries for many thousands of dollars. I’ve heard that it was largely met with disapproval from many in the stock music industry. But of course, time moved on and here we are now.
jinglepopmusic saidMatt, wow! You really have a well informed grasp on all of this, kudos to you!
I really wish all libraries and content-id companies could get on the same page with all of this. It just seems there is so much confusion going on about all of it.
The one thing I fear in the future is that libraries will adopt content-id BUT they will also want a cut of the revenue which would create a lot of issues if you sell on various platforms. i.e. who placed which version and who gets the percentage.
If you don’t mind me asking, how well does it pay out? No need for exact figures from your end. Just a general view to payout ratio. I have heard that it takes millions of plays/clicks to even show a small return.
Thanks for all your information on this thread!
Thanks! Yes, it’s evident that there’s currently much misunderstanding out there regarding the fingerprinting of our work. And this is coming from three sides; composers, customers and libraries.
I have to admit, in the early days of getting on board with this, I was met with a degree of confusion myself, simply because I was overwhelmed by the amount of different parties involved, and who had to deal with who. But once the claim process is understood, it’s actually quite easy to understand and a simple procedure to follow.
What you’ve mentioned about the different libraries getting on board is again something that could possibly change the way the stock music industry operates, but again only time will tell, and something I’m following very closely. To my knowledge however, each fingerprinted track held within ContentID has an individual code assigned to it, which corresponds to the person or library who registered it. So I’m guessing this would minimise payment conflicts. And it’s also worth noting that exclusive rights have to be held before music can be submitted to ContentID. So therefore, I believe multiple sources wouldn’t be able to submit the same material to ContentID. I’m not 100% sure on this right now though, so please don’t hold me to that statement!
In the meantime, it’s still very important for us as composers to do full research on a library before submitting to them, and be aware of all the implications of doing so (ie. are you even allowed to sell if you have your tracks fingerprinted, will your music automatically be registered with ContentID, etc). Currently there’s a few major libraries I can’t sell on myself for this very reason, so these needs to be considered.
One of the added bonuses of having our material fingerprinted is indeed the fact it’s monetized. But I should point out that this should not be the sole reasoning for joining such a program, as I’m sure this would only set the composer up for disappointment. First and foremost should be the protection of our music from theft and redistribution.
Monetization is based on the total amount of YouTube views a video gets (on all platforms and embedded videos, etc), containing our compositions. It can take many months for music uses to start filtering around YouTube and showing the first signs of return, and payments are offset by three months. You are correct that the ratios can seem pretty pathetic at first glance (around $10 for every 20,000 views). But the key here is how many videos ones music eventually ends up on. And then there is the ‘snowball effect’. A very popular video that contains our music is then inevitably exposed to rampant mp3 ripping and re-uploaded to many new videos. Those videos in themselves may garner many views, and so on. So it’s easy to see how things can culminate.
Thanks once again! Great info.
You should write a how to book or industry guide on the subject 
jinglepopmusic saidThanks once again! Great info.
You should write a how to book or industry guide on the subject
Thanks JinglePop!
Hmm, now you’ve got me thinking! 
I’m seriously considering about jumping in on the AdRev bandwagon. This seems to me lika a viable option to have my tracks copyright protected against copyright trolls (which I am victim of for one of my tracks from here). Does anyone maybe know how can I reclaim my copyright after someone illegally claimed it on ContentID?
dejans saidI’m seriously considering about jumping in on the AdRev bandwagon. This seems to me lika a viable option to have my tracks copyright protected against copyright trolls (which I am victim of for one of my tracks from here). Does anyone maybe know how can I reclaim my copyright after someone illegally claimed it on ContentID?
Dejans, as much as there is antagonism against systems like AdRev (even from composers who complain of their music being used illegally!), I think they are our best option currently to protect our music on YouTube at least.
Even if it is only on YouTube at this point in time, I think it’s a step in the right direction in educating people that not everything on the Internet is intended to be free. I believe it will become standard practice for all libraries and composers to have their tracks in a database (including all PRO registered tracks) that is checked against for illegal use in future. AdRev is the first of these companies and taking a lot of the brunt of criticism as a result.
Anyway, to answer your question, I would contact AdRev directly and say you’re interested in getting involved, but someone else has illegally registered your track(s) in ContentID. They should be able to sort it out and transfer the rights to you.
The rights and the revenues the troll had made so far with your tracks.
Thanks Taco! Fully agree.
Just came across this video by a frustrated youtuber:
At this stage, AdRev doesn’t seem like a good option for the authors selling royalty free music.
Yeah at this point I wouldn’t even think about going near it. Sounds like a possible headache inducer for everyone.
Maybe in the future when it becomes common knowledge for buyers that they need to submit the license to YouTube, and YouTube would know not to even question the audiojungle license making a smooth user experience.
Although I really wish we could use AdRev to manually target just people using my un-licensed watermarked version, would love to make money off them.
This may be the answer Dejans. Official Copyrighting. Seems pretty easy and cheap, and I’m sure these content iD services would back right off if you showed that proof to them and would release your music if someone else id’s is as theirs falsely.
@Soundengine: Yep, and there’s plenty more videos, and forum posts, and angry support threads to Google about this. But there’s also plenty of people who support the idea that creators can now finally monitor and monetize theft of our creations. The fact is, negativity is a hell of a lot louder than positivity on the internet.
Let me put this into perspective for you guys. My current total license sales here in 2 years currently stands at 3295. Total YouTube claims showing in my AdRev dashboard currently amounts to an average of 1950 claims…a month. Over 23000 instances a year where people haven’t even considered purchasing a license for my music. And that number is growing. That should paint a clearer picture of what we’re dealing with here.
@Ryan: You’ll have to trust me on this one dude, but I’ve been using AdRev for over a year now, and no major headaches have been induced as of yet. Just recently, it got even easier for our customers to clear claims, without having to go through the whole YouTube claim process. It’s like a 30 second process to clear a claim now. (via here: http://adrev.net/contact-us). And the guys over at AdRev are pretty helpful and always get back promptly with any questions I ever have.
Looking at the AdRev dashboard (which gives you direct links to videos containing your music) I’m pretty sure you’d need a sick-bucket if you saw exactly how many unauthorized and unlicensed instances of your music has been used across YouTube. You’d also be equally sick seeing how much you could’ve potentially earned from that. Trust me, over time, we’re not exactly talking pocket money.
However, If there is anything could be done to streamline the process, is that we could add a text file to our uploads here mentioning that if the customer uploads the music to YouTube, if they could enter their license certificate details and video link on the AdRev claim page. At least they’d anticipate it and would minimize any surprises or knee-jerk reactions.
I have a feeling that the main target buyer of royalty free music are not big companies.
Unfortunately, many of those who already listen to music for pleasure illegally, are those who are probably using royalty free music for their projects illegally. If they are doing it for their everyday pleasure, why not for their small projects?
It is definitely something that needs to be addressed and it sounds like AdRev is doing just that.
If it is a headache for paid customers, then they should thank those who are breaking the law, not AdRev. Somebody needs to do the dirty work.
Thanks for the explanation Matt, some good points as always. I’ll give it a deeper look.
One thing to consider before entering the world of AdRev if you are a non-exclusive author (or exclusives for that matter as you could submit tracks that aren’t on AJ) is that some libraries do not allow you to submit tracks that are art of any YouTube ID program.
-Gari
This is pretty cool! thanks so much! registered
Thanks for that insight, Alumo, that really helps! I registered with Adrev about a month ago but haven’t uploaded anything yet, but I now think I will start uploading my work soon.