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!
@RobertReid Sure you are right. But the problem is that’s always the same few guys whom participate activily to the forum.
@RedOctopus is the only one Top Author here…We never hear the others.
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.
Come on dude… I can understand your thoughts on the broadcast license vibe, but the formula is there in black and white, you’ve even posted it in the forums and you’ve had it explained to you more than once.
While I’m 100% in support of the idea that Elements not include broadcast licensing, or even corporate use, you do have to deal with the reality of what is already available from the competition. There are already subscription services specializing in royalty free music, some of which allow broadcast and commercial use and have very good music. I’m not saying Envato needs to match that. I’m just saying it’s out there and people are taking advantage of it.
Subscription services, whether we want them or not, may be the unfortunate destiny of this industry. Despite what you’re constantly told by some, supply has far surpassed demand. The rise of YouTube has not caused a significant change in need when you consider how much free and Creative Commons music is available on top of the vast universe of licensed music, and the fact that many of those videos do not use music at all. In fact, several of these existing subscription services specifically target YouTubers, so that “big demand” is already being supplied. While everyone is aware of market saturation, I think the market in general has become even more saturated than any of us realized. Subscription services make that worse and I think they are the inevitable death of the single track licensing market in RF. They also technically exist in the non-RF market in the form of “blanket licenses” (yes, blanket sync licenses, not performance licenses) at the corporate level. They are expensive annual rates, but they are still a “subscription”. Give it time, and those rates may also drop, decreasing the opportunities for single track licensing in the traditional market as well.
I think corporate powers will continue to have their way because we as musicians have continually failed to stand up for ourselves and sold out on every single point made during the decline of this industry. No matter how bad the deal is, there are always too many musicians standing in line to sign the paperwork.
But in this topic the majority of us do not fight against a subscription model. Right know we are trying to negotiate the best conditions of existing model. Conditions which will be profitable for both sides and which will be competitive with other markets.
We propose no broadcast use in Elements but we are open for negotiation hoping that staff will hear our voice.
Can anyone explain the elements payment process for an author?
That’s cool. Sounds like it’s too late to turn back.
So, if that’s the direction you want to take maybe there are some options that might allow you to get a better deal. Perhaps checking out the competition on music subscription services that are NOT associated with digital asset marketplaces selling other things under the same subscription might be useful. A music subscription service should be different than one for other types of digital assets because there are more variables, like corporate and broadcast use, that can be used for higher rates within the subscription model. You probably want higher rates on those to make up for the losses you’ll suffer on the single track licenses if Envato refuses to remove those use types from Elements.
Here are some possibilities:
- You might be able to get a two tier situation with a standard subscription and a more expensive enhanced one that would allow limited broadcast use. I know of one service that has a standard license for $150/year that only allows YouTube and social media and an extended one for $560/yr that allows corporate and local (but not national/international) broadcast use.
- One very popular subscription service has three rates ranging between $15/month for basic YouTube users going up to $150/month for corporate YouTube users. That is scaled according to monthly estimated YouTube views. It does not, however, include corporate use, which also rules out broadcast use - not that it matters in this case because they only work with composers who are not PRO registered. But, the tier pricing idea is there for consideration.
How do those compare to Elements?
There are several others out there. Unfortunately, the service that might be your hardest competitor is being heavily promoted by video makers, has one yearly fee of $135 and allows unrestricted broadcast use. They claim to be adding about 600 or so subscribers weekly and 200 new songs monthly. Their music is overall probably the best I’ve heard of the subscription offerings at this point.
All reasoning from profit is very good, but I want to draw attention to the fact that the" element “will get less than half of the” elite authors " not to mention the rest.
Those people who write music in the home Studio may not even dream of an invitation.Many customers will prefer this system. This fiasco.
Hey Everyone. Thank you for your comments. We hear you and understand your concerns. I’ve posted in the main Audio on Elements thread and encourage you to read our reasoning for the decision there.
Thank you.