Cutdown and translations

I’m creating a project that consists of the following:

30sec launch video
5 x 5sec cut downs, tweaked messaging/footage but same project/promotion

These items will also likely need translating for each territory (quite a few) to make language versions of the same single project.

If I buy the full Music Broadcast and Film License for $799 am I covered for all of the above on a single license?

I plan to buy non-PRO tracks to avoid any future issues. The intended purpose is the following:

  1. Social media channels
  2. Website streaming (on partner/sponsor sites)
  3. In events (OOH adversing)
  4. Broadcast (online and traditional TV)

Thanks in advance.

Keep in mind that each non pro author can register his tracks with pro anytime. And “he” will probably do it in the future. To avoid problems, you should use pro registered music or sign a contract in which author grants you performance rights for this track which will be probably expensive.

1 Like

And yes, one license should cover it.

Just out of curiosity. Not trying to start a dispute here. What future issues are you trying to avoid by not buying Pro tracks?

1 Like

Mainly the fact my client will hold me liable for any future costs as it’s written into my contract. Pro tracks have the potential to incur future costs so I need a license that covers me for all the uses I listed now and in the future

So you are trying to keep the 3rd party out of liability. That is reasonable. But in my opinion this might be a reason to avoid paying royalties. Any form of artistic creation generates royalties. You can make a personal agreement with an author and pay an advance payment.Otherways this is an infrigement.The fact that you are looking for someone who does not belong to a PRO in order to avoid paying royalties is an infrigement by itself! Again, not starting a dispute here. Just trying to bring some light.
My 002.

No, I’m planning on paying a full license of $799. On any project there is a budget which isn’t infinite and as I would be liable for future charges I want to remove the uncertainty. My understanding of non-pro was precisely for this reason. I can’t guarantee the end product will be aired by someone with a public rights license so to avoid this I was figuring this was the way to go. Prefacing a comment with ‘I don’t want an argument’ sure often leads to an argument.

I’m not looking to skip a license fee. I’m not looking to cheat anything, I do however have a fixed budget for a job and will personally be liable for anything over this now, and in the future.

I’m not sure why this singular point is the focus of my question. I assume the original artist will receive a royalty based on the license fee paid. Also if said track has been sold/used 4000+ times the artist will be doing ok.

So what I’m planning isn’t illegal, morally wrong and non pro tracks exist why do you have a bee in your bonnet? I’m not nicking music I’m just trying to ascertain what license I require and if a single license is sufficient

Ok.I do not want to start an arguement.Thats exactly the case of Discovery network versus the composers. If you have time, and want to see the immorality behind this practice please read the article below.

Regards.I hope no harm was done.

I understand this of course. But hmmm. It is not a standard contract and it is very dangerous to take such responsibility for a non PRO track bought on stock instead of a custom order.

In my opinion it wasn’t a good move to make a contract which includes additional transfer of performance rights for only 799$, that’s a small budget for such clausule.

And once again keep in mind that every non PRO author can register his tracks with PRO anytime and make you troubles. Unless you sign a contract with him confirming this limited transfer of performing rights we’re talking about what can be hard to do in this budget.

If I were you, I would try to renegotiate contract using the low-budget-problems argument and I would use PRO music. Or simply renegotiate higher budget to order custom track/buy performance rights.

I hope you will find a solution. Let us know if you have any further problems.

Ok, I’ve read that article out of respect and can see both sides. From a creative and budgeting side on-going royalties are a pain and it never enables you to close a job. If royalties are ditched the upfront costs should be increased respectively. The ‘retirement’ argument would be moot if compensated properly as you would be able to create and contribute to your own fund as the rest of the working population do.

The argument that this kills the creative process is close to my heart. Being a designer I’m up against ‘fiver’ and such platforms that offer logos for pennies. Truth be told, the clients who choose this route don’t understand or appreciate the value I add so are best avoided. Branding is much more than a squiggle on a page, it’s a time of voice, narrative, research and positioning.

As a freelance creative with a tight client contract and fixed budget I have to work within certain constraints. One is being liable for all future costs and royalties. I’m happy to pay a higher fee for music up front and reduce other deliverables so I come in on budget but what I need is a license that protects my client and me for future costs. An open-ended project is bad for everyone and there absolutely a call for a fixed license hence my search for non-pro with audio jingle actively promote and detail for this precise reason.

You seem to be on a crusade, I understand the issue but you seem a little fixated on it. I’ve seen some none exclusive royalty free tracks have over 4000 sales. If the composer is getting $5 per use then $20,000 is decent imho, especially when that composer has stacks of tracks with similar sales.

Look bud, I’m creative and understand you plight as I get squeezed all the time. I just want a license for my project that is a one off fee.

Are you able to answer my original question with license type and number of licenses required? If not is someone else able to chip in?

Despite the fact that i appreciate your smooth irony and sarcasm, i am not close to be a ‘fixist’ and i am definetely not on some crusade. I’ve attached the article and i do appreciate you read it, out of respect.Pun intended. Following your logic, those well established composers were on a crusade too. Being a creative,aswell, i would expect a bit more solidarity coming from your side. I understand your needs but i never encourage any creative to sell his music with zero royalties. Well, at least not for the sum you mentioned. But i am sure you will find an author for your needs. I am out of this dispute. My sincere apologies if my post did create any disturbance. Have a good day.

If you read this topic carefully, you will find my answer few posts above where I said that one broadcast & film license should cover all your cuts and translations. I’ve also said that buying non-PRO track doesn’t guarantee that this author will not register his tracks with PRO in the (near?) future and ask for the royalties. I have explained this in another post which was written today before your response to Soundtrickz, I hope, you’ll find it.

All the best :slight_smile:

1 Like

Apologies, I’ve never used this forum before and was receiving updates in my email which prompted me to reply within my email client. This means some of the previous messages weren’t included so I was only getting part of the response.

I appreciate your struggles and you shouldn’t be strong-armed into anything. Big clients flexing their muscles post delivery is bang out of order and current contracts should be honoured. Going forward I would just expect more money upfront then no on-going royalties. It’s then up to the individual if the fee is worth it or not. If the quality of composers drops as a result the stations will have to decide how to proceed.

I 100% sympathise with this situation and i’ve been directly impacted but some clients are cheap and will never see the value of creative professionals. I try and stay away from these people now as it’s just not worth the hassle.

No offence intended. This is an area i’m not used to providing services in and I would like to find a license that locks this down, if this means it costs more and there is less budget on other deliverables so be it.

sincere apologies. As mentioned above, the way this forum works caught me out. The first response I got (and subsequent responses) seemed to be aimed at me personally for wanting to avoid future costs.

I haven’t negotiated a fixed fee for the music on this job. There is a budget for the whole project which is down to me to divide as necessary with client approval. I’m trying to ascertain the best way forward, if this means contacting an author direct and negotiating an additional fee that’s fine I also (budget depending) might be able to get a custom track composed. What I can’t do is include music that might incur royalties further down the line as once the project is closed there will be no more budget and my contract with the client makes me liable.

Hopefully this is a bit clearer and I haven’t offended anyone, i’m at the scoping stage and want to plan this correctly and assign budget appropriately.

1 Like


Any license allows for variations, cut downs, and translations. Broadcast requires one of the Music Broadcast licenses, the other uses you mention are covered by the standard license.

No license on AJ can guarantee that there won’t be performance royalties involved at some point. This is because most authors will eventually join a PRO once they realize how crucial this is for their career.

Out of curiosity though, have you ever had any issue with performance royalties? In most cases, neither you nor your client should be affected at all. So I wonder what specific cases you’re referring to as being a hassle for you or your customer.


Ok.Let’s try to clarify a bit these things. I believe i know where is the confusion. Royalties are revenues generated by the : public executions, streaming, ambiental execution of the related musical or media content. That does not imply a direct reponsability from your client whatsoever ! That means that whenever the music created by the author is streamed,played on a radio/tv station, CCTV (here is a bit different but it does generate revenues aswell) or any other form of public execution , a percent will be collected by the PRO and the income goes to the author. The only obligation of your client is to declare the author’s name and personal identification number. (IPI). If the author has his media monetized via an AdRev you (the client) will get the specific details in order to benefit from the media which he paid for.
The only reason the client wants a Non PRO author is if he wants to perform an evasion of author’s paternal rights. Or to get the benefits of the royalties for himself. Which is an infrigement. False in documents. The only way to get this done is a special contract which clearly specify that the author is willing to release all his patternal royalties or/and revenues in exchange for a sum. ( The sum may be negociated ). What your client cannot do is to claim that he is the rightful author of the media involved. Not a single contract in the world will cover false in documents. Unless ghost producing which is 99.99 an accepted infraction. Hope this helps.

1 Like

no I haven’t and my lack of experience shows!

I just don’t want something coming back on my client then ultimately me. In my experience people don’t really consider all eventualities and just ‘hope’ things will be ok. I’m just trying to make sure I understand what i’m buying/providing so everyone is clear. If this means I need to accompany the job/files with a checklist and restriction usage guide then that’s ok. I just need it to be clear.

ok, that makes sense. Neither me or my client will ever try and block an authors right to royalties and this isn’t the intention. We just don’t want an invoice in 18 months time from an entity where we’re are liable and need to pay a fee – ultimately this will be passed onto me and as a very small business I can’t cover this.

I guess what might complicate this a little more is if I create a master UK video with English footage. Then supply this as editable files (after effects) and local countries translate the text and swap the footage for country specific clips where do I stand? The created movies will be 100% for the same campaign but local agencies might handle the translated versions.

sorry, it’s a minefield. I usually do single UK movies for online usage which is a lot less complicated.

Absolutely not.Unless your client is using the media as a background music in which case he will pay an ambiental licence. (e.g hospital waiting rooms,elevators,some dining areas,etc). But this licence is a fixed price and a declared repertoire or contract with a designated radio station. (or CCTV which i have mentioned in my previous post) .

1 Like