There is an update about a broadcast licenses in Elements. Please check recent posts in the topic (link below) and live there a feedback. It’s quite important for us and I must say that the update is… controversial.
I think Elements only should sell the first three licenses.
The other two are too big for that price.
Or even no broadcast use.
Maybe Envato needs make it attractive for customers. That colud be the reason.
But two license would be fair.
No deal! Customers get music, video, plugins, photos, themes and more for 16$/month. Monthly subscription is also an option for 33$.
Competition offers only music for the same price and only annual subscription.
So, Envato wins big time, competition is crushed! Web use only is more than enough. No need to push it this far.
In my opinion, Elements concerns mainly
Youtubers, so I believe that the standard license would be the most fair option… Maybe I am wrong about the customers that Envato wants to approach. Don’t know
Every author who has an opinion about the broadcast use should express themselves with a line or 2 in the Elements annoncement thread. Its way to important not to do it, every voice counts for something. Remember authors have fought for getting the license options, now its time to fight to keep them.
Elements is coming and no need to fight that, but the deal especially with including any broadcast licenses for no extra fee is not sane. If competing sites does offer unlimited broadcast use, well… it does not mean its smart.
Done… and i agree, this is WAY too important to just let it slide. Authors need to speak up!
@MojoSoundtrackMusic is right. Please write your opinion in the announcement topic. Link in the first post.
I think it’s pointless to say something and prove it. We have already seen this several times. There is one option … the option of joining the Audio Elements or not. Here everything will depend on common sense.
If we do not give the feedback to Envato, they will not change anything. It’s not a fight against the Elements but normal author-company feedback aiming in the commercial success of both sides.
Of course I agree with you. But last time the authors signed the petition (against the ADP) and also begged them not to introduce these changes. Who listened to us? In my opinion, no one. This time, no one will listen to us … But it would be nice to introduce, for example, only a standard license for Audio Elements and nothing more.
It is gotten to the point where we as a community of music producers for TV, advertising, films, youtube videos, games, vlogs, tutorials, wedding videos… etc have to ask ourselves: Are we all ready to watch the sync license become ancient history?
Are we all ready to watch stock licensing platforms gobble up all the subscription revenue and pay fractions of cents in some weird convoluted manner, where accounting is based on “what they decide is fair”?
Seriously folks, subscription music licensing = the death of the individual synchronization license fee
Do you know that everytime somone buys a license now, you essentially are selling a “sync license” - The right to use the sound recording to a visual on a project.
That seems to be getting replaced with “Toss some money in the pot each month or year, and DOWNLOAD EVERYTHING, UNLIMITED” Just grab it all, use it at will, don’t report how you are using it, just use it and use it over and over as you see fit, our license has you covered.
If you all are ready to watch the sync license go away, forever, and a new normal be born where statisticians and data wizards concoct magical forms of point systems and revenue sharing for unlimited downloads, jump on board.
Finally, It is always artists themselves that destroy the music business. Weak handed artists who will just desperately give away their music to scrape a penny any way they can ruin the music business.
So just ask yourself, how would I rather be paid? One sync license at a time - One license sold = one royalty paid? Or Do I want my music lumped into some unlimited download scheme where the broker controls all the cards?
I really do not have a problem with this model when all the content is owned 100% by the company offering this type of service. If Envato wants to offer music this way they should offer to buy the music from the authors so they have “skin in the game”. I am sure Envato, you’d be able to find dozens if not hundreds of slaves to write music scores for you, and transfer the copyright to you in exchange for $300 a track.
As it stands now under this scheme, Envato is essentially saying “we own 50% of this content but we never invested a single penny into it, we will be the first to collect the subscription revenue and decide how to distribute it, we also will allow the unlimited downloads to be broadcast on TV.”
Folks, this is insane. This marks the beginning of the end. So Sad too. I really do believe we arrived to a healthy place in this business. Now comes the great devaluation, once again. Sad!!!
Just say NO. Do not participate!
Or Envato, make an offer to buy the soundtracks and take ownership of the offering you want to serve up.
Shame on you for asking authors to just devalue their content to fractions of cents and allow that material to go on air.
Remember, you can also speak up simply by not agreeing to participate. No one is forcing you to offer your catalog on the “UNLIMITED DOWNLOADS NO CUE SHEETS REQUIRED FOR BROADCAST USE” elements market.
Once again - this isn’t against the whole idea of Elements but it’s a normal feedback calling for the improvements of existing system. We are not talking about revolution, but evolution - which can be far more acceptable by a company. And yes, I’m not sure if they will hear us, but I can see a chance for that. Especially that it can be commercially profitable for both sides.
BTW I haven’t seen any petition against ADP (?) but I wouldn’t sign it because ADP in my opinion was an indispensable move for a modern stock site. Elements in my opinion are the same. But yes, I am very worried about Elements.
edit: Not against the ADP, but for the lower limit of the price.
I expressed my opinion on the official topic. Perhaps this will help.
They will hear you if you do not agree to participate. Only artists themselves destroy their own careers and earnings potential by giving away their souls. I don’t know about you guys, but I sure do like to sell several sync licenses every day. The thought of the money surfacing from pooled money and subscription fees based on a formula known only to parent company who decides how much and when to pay is a slippery slope.
No matter how one studies this, this will amount to a massive devaluation. Some may argue that the revenue will be made up through volume of subscribers because prices will be so low, but don’t forget about the customers willing to pay $100 to $15,000 for an individual sync license.
Subscription models = the death of selling a sync license
Just as subscription models ='d the death of selling a record, CD, Mp3 soundtrack on I-tunes
In the consumer “personal listening” Spotify/ Apple Music/ Amazon world, Subscription models = .002 cents a stream. This is a fact. I have done the math on my own statements.
You got to the point! That is what is the solution. You do not have to say much, you just do not need to agree to go for unfavorable terms of sales. The only way to solve this trouble!
Made my post, seriously everyone who feels strongly about any sort of broadcast license being included in Elements should say something over there. Your voice matters!
All we can do is get the people who are here to say something. Even if it’s only a few more than usual.
I’m not crazy about Aj being included in elements in the first place but I could see why they were doing it… and I was interested to see how it was going to play out. But having Broadcast style licenses (up to 10 mil) avail is just foolish.