Conversation with a producer

This is a real talk with a producer (with my very limited english). I just want to share this to know opinions,…,
Yesterday I sent to him my youtube channel with my (obviously) watermarked music.
Usually I have nice conversations wit producers… “good job,.,.” “like your pianos”… “I usually use Audiojungle for my projects…” etc. and some of them accept to subscribe. No more additional arguments.
But this conversation is a little bit different… and makes me to think that some people think that the music authors should offer music compositions for free, as an usual way to work by this hard world!
Of course I wanted to avoid tough discussion and be nice with him.

This is the conversation:

“”"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Producer
Thanks for sharing

Me
hope you like it…

Producer
I am a music lover and its great to connect with talents from far off

Me
:blush:
:pray:

Producer
so this music is royalty free but it has "Audio Jungle " as watermark on it
not a very pleasing experience to hear it like that

Me
yeah… I know… but it’s normal… royalty free is not free… you have to pay a license for use

Producer
dude royalty free means free

Me
dude, talk with them… www.audiojungle.net and teach them that they must give the music for free
royalty free means “free copyright” … is not fair for the artist doing a hard work for nothing
:wink:

Producer
I am not asking you for free music my friend
an artistic work is always priceless

Me
?
well… is “stock music” and yes, it has a price for use

Producer
there is alot of FOC music

Me
very cheap price… you buy a license for use in some project

Producer
even youtube has it

Me
:+1:

Producer
you should tell everyone that you have stock music
good way would be to but it up on website and optimise it on search engine

Me
:+1:

Producer
it sounds misleading when you start by saying its royalty free
second of all …its very difficult to enjoy music with the sound bothering it
instead …there should be smaller clips
like 20 seconds
without any sound overlapping

Me
Hmm
well it’0s the way of the most of libraries…

Producer
you can reduce the quality of upload…or can mention that 8 tracks are available on some added price

Me
ok
good advice

Producer
…sorry …just suggesting based on how we finalise on music for ad films here in melbourne
actually thats what we did even in NY

Me
Yeah
thanks

Producer
You’re welcome

“”""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
That’s it

Some thinkings:
20 seconds - the exact lenght of some productions… isn’t it?
reduce quality - what’s the limit from someone who want to use freely your audio?

Well… wat do you think?
opinions?

Greetings and good luck to all! :smiley:

I am very surprised by this perception of how the business should work by this “producer”. Of course we know nothing about this individual. I would think that a producer, who has used Royalty Free / Stock Music for their work, would understand the situation. Perhaps he/she has only used contracted authors. Who knows…
Thanks for sharing.

7 Likes

I don’t want to offend anyone, especially not knowing the person, but it seems to me that if the “producer”, the person who is engaged in the production of music, even not for stocks, believes that “royalty free = free”, this makes one think about the degree of his professionalism.He probably knows perfectly well that the production of music is not a child’s play, it’s a work that requires knowledge, skills, practice and experience. Why should this be free? Let him come to the bakery and say, “Dude, your donuts should be free.” I imagine that he will hear in response)

7 Likes

Yeah, this sure shows the level of professionalism of this “dude”.

4 Likes

hi @MidnightSnap
Actually I think most of authors understand… I can talk with some (via linkedin) and I have had nice conversations with them… this was different and to be honest the idea that the “watermark must be removed” surprised me .

Or you can taste a “lower quality donuts”… or you can bite this but you have to give it back to me (ouch!)
yeah, it’s souspicious.

absolutely!

“Royalty-free, or RF, refers to the right to use copyright material or intellectual property without the need to pay royalties or license fees for each use, per each copy or volume sold or some time period of use or sales.”

It’s the definition from Wikipedia, and as we can see, Royalty Free definitely is NOT free))
So I agree with other authors, this producer is either a liar or simply inexperienced.

In our work we communicate with a lot of great, interesting people, but it’s ok when we meet a strange dudes like this one from time to time)) :laughing:

1 Like

Yes, it’s of course very obvious to us that “royalty free” does not mean free, but this is not the case for the majority of people needing music, especially on YouTube.

And quite frankly, who can blame them? “Royalty free” is a terrible and misleading term from the 1980s, and without knowledge of the history of licensing where you paid per use, it is indeed confusing. Let’s be honest here, if we had never heard of it before, what does “royalty free” sound like? It sounds like it’s free. That I don’t have to pay any royalty.

Our job is to educate anyone we speak to, in a friendly way, and point them to that Wikipedia article or any other place with a clear definition of RF. I do it all the time on my YouTube videos where they always ask the same question: “copyright?”, or get angry when they find out that this “free” music actually costs money to use…

The term “no copyright” has come to be very popular, and most YouTubers equate RF to “no copyright”. This is of course an even more ridiculous term, as all music has copyright, even free music, but it’s the terminology that is used.

It doesn’t help that YouTube themselves use this term… I try to think of it more as “music that won’t get a copyright claim”, which is really what they mean.

3 Likes

While I wholly agree with you, I just have to say that when I first came to the US and barely spoke any English, I was intrigued by the phrases “fat free” or “sugar free”. But I didn’t assume those yogurts were free and I could just walk out the store with them. So I’m surprised native speakers would just assume it’s the same as free and not bother with the meaning of the word that comes before.

But, indeed royalty-free is misleading. The term as we understand it doesn’t give any useful information to our buyers:

"The music is free of royalties… you wouldn’t have to pay anyway.
-Great!
-Actually, it’s free of certain types of royalties you have never heard of, but it may still have performance royalties.
-uh?
-but don’t worry you wouldn’t be responsible for paying those anyway.
-ok then… so what’s the point again?"

Ideally the whole industry should stop using this term, as it’s inaccurate, incomplete, misleading and belong to a bygone era.