Where is AJ On PRO ?

I’m not currently an AJ seller, so I’m discussing how it works in general, not specifically for performance royalty free sites like AJ:

You won’t pay anything because you aren’t the “broadcaster”, YouTube is. In fact, you are no longer part of the equation relating to our income when it comes to these royalties. All of this is totally separate from your license purchased here. YouTube is the “venue” performing the music and they pay a blanket fee to the PRO’s for the right to perform music that is registered with them. So, YouTube pays BMI a blanket fee to cover all their music use, which is very high, then BMI pays me based on the number of performances YouTube presented for videos with my music. You pay nothing.

Since AJ music is not registered with a PRO, even if a musician belongs to a PRO, there is no way they can get paid performance royalties on those songs despite the fact that YouTube has already paid their performing rights organizations and the money is just sitting in a pool waiting to be collected. Musicians here are simply not getting money they’re entitled to earn because they waived their rights to it on AJ’s behalf, basically for marketing purposes since a very high percentage of their customers would never be responsible for performance royalties. But, YouTube still paid the money. Doesn’t sound fair, does it?

2 Likes

Thanks Mike and Ovation for being a great educator on this issue. If it is true that Envato/ Audio Jungle will not consider allowing writers to register their titles with PRO’s, it would be nice to learn why they are choosing this course of action? I think everyone has explained many times that just about every customer who may buy a track here will not be responsible for “future royalty” payments to AJ artists/ authors. Can anyone on staff please just offer a reason as to why it is so important to not allow PRO registered music? Or really, why wouldn’t you allow writers to at least display their PRO affiliation and IPI number in case a broadcaster or production company needs that information for a cue sheet?

As a side note, Yes perhaps YOUTUBE does pay PRO’s an annual license fee to perform music on YOUTUBE, but from what I have seen, the royalties from youtube are literally fractions of cents. The real money is on TV. It really would be a shame to see music get sourced from AJ and then go on big shows and big networks like BBC, ABC, SKY, NBC, RAI, TV5 (France), etc, etc…air in Canada, Australia, Japan, Brazil, etc…There just is no reason for that reckless deprivation of royalties to writers regardless of where the music is discovered and licensed.

Could you imagine a track on AJ becoming a theme of a show that lasts 40 to 50 years and the writer NEVER will receive a royalty ever again because of a policy? Remember this track written by English composer Johnny Pearson in 1971? It still is a library track!

He’s dead now but the royalties still flow to his family…

2 Likes

I would not say that I am careless about PRO on AJ, but imho increasing item prices would be nice solution in that case. For real, 19 bucks per track it is just nothing. For example, some of my tracks have been making for 2-6 month, and what do I have as a result? I guess I am not the only one.

Most of the micro-licensing companies starts their prices at 250$, even with 50% revenue sharing, thats still fine for 1 item.

I would say AJ will never increase their prices to 250$, so in that case they will lose lost of customers, but I think increasing 19$ at least to 80-100$ would be pretty nice. So 4-5 times increasing I guess would solve such problems like “where is pro” and etc.
Just imagine - you sell you track for TV/Film for 1500$ instead of 300$, thats already makes sense.

Then, another question is: not every track actually fits well for even 80$ price. Solution of this problem require LOTS of reviewing skills, understanding the trends and etc.

We can compare for example music for nursery and kindergarden (what is most popular over here) and trailer music, which can fits for hollywood blockbuster as well. So, if I would change somethings over here, I would stay the prices for corporate tracks as it right now, but increase prices for stuff which fits nice for really big projects (big project not really has to be an epic movie, it could also be some commercial/advertisement).

Of course not every epic tracks has the level of that quality when you can put 100$ for it, and of course not every corporate track has to be sold for 19$. As I said before, in that case, reviewers have to have great skills in understanding of what track has actual price, where it REALLY can be useful, and not just put everything for 12-19$.

That might actually increase the level of skills in this community as well. Imagine - your skills are low, you sell your items for 8$ instead of 100$, like some skilled guys do. Then you increase your level of composing, mixing, mastering and whatever and after some time you also get 100$ like other. Envato could even bring some new badges here :smiley:

So thats it sorry for long post! :smile:

I think it will increase a lot of questions, like “why my skill you set to low level?? My skill too high for all… I’m the best one”:slight_smile: you now… :slight_smile: own price is set all to equal rights… Another question it’s an end prices to each items…

Personally I have absolutely nothing against youtubers getting there license for 19-49$. I’d appreciate if Envato would raise the price to 80$, but we all know this isn’t going to happen. The main concern here is that some (not all) Broadcasters will keep buying these standard licenses. It doesn’t matter if Envato raises the price for the Broadcast license or not, because those people will keep buying the lowest one. What we need here ASAP is a guarentee that buyers are buying the right license (through directing the buyer to the right license), and if not a compensation (like PRO for example). It’s about making this marketplace more fair for Authors, because at the moment, it absolutely isn’t. I’ve already opened up a thread about adding a “Please choose a license” field into the dropdownmenu: Feature request: “Please choose your license”

2 Likes

Well everyone seems to be missing the main point of it all. Please watch the videos again so you can understand the concept of cue sheets and writers credit on a TV project. The price a client pays to license a cue for broadcast is sort of irrelevant, but the credit given is very relevant. Why is this so important? If someone gets a cue placed into a big show and the music is sourced from audio jungle, what information is going into that slot on a cue sheet? Can anyone answer that question? Who is getting the credit as writer? I really am asking this fair question with a respectful tone and would just love an honest answer? Can anyone answer that question? I am inquiring about this for all writers here in this forum all around the globe. And I’d also love to ask where all of you elite authors stand on this issue? Those of you selling 250 to 1500 licenses a month, every month, How do you all feel about your music going on air on TV shows at times and you not being credited as writer of the cue? How do you feel about your songs getting used on National Spots and you are not able to inform your PRO that the song is on the air? How do you feel about being deprived of these royalties that costs Envato, nor the customer nothing extra?

My final question is this for staff: We all have made it 100% clear that this “PRO issue” is not an issue as it relates to (U.S.A. PRO’s) BMI, SESAC, ASCAP. Those PRO’s do not care if we sell music on Royalty Free sites. That is our right. Can staff please explain which PRO’s are causing rode blocks and creating a hassle or a conflict? Is it GEMA? Is it PRS, Is it BUMA STERMA? APRA? SOCAN? Can anyone offer an explanation as to what the dangers or problems are with writers displaying their PRO affiliation on this web site so we can all have that important knowledge and education…and perhaps understanding of the existing AJ policy?

1 Like

I can only think the anti-PRO position is due to the following:

  • AJ wants to target the small broadcast market, where broadcasters are not likely to pay blankets and performances would generate very little royalties. Most likely, AJ isn’t expecting or targeting larger broadcast involvement. No PRO registration and no performance royalties might attract more of this type of client and others who have productions destined to small broadcasters.

  • AJ doesn’t want to create publishing entities and take on those responsibilities, meaning they would not get performance royalties for themselves. They prefer direct licensing of the performance right (on your behalf) added to the broadcast license to earn the equivalent of what they think would have been a tiny performance royalty through the increased fee. It also simplifies accounting to fall in line with all of the other micro-stock offerings at the other Envato sites. If they have to wait for quarterly statements of royalties, it throws in a minor complication that puts AJ outside of their accounting norm.

  • If you issue direct licenses on PRO registered music, you have to inform the PRO of the license issuance. The composer and publisher would be responsible for the reporting, but failure to comply could result in an issue AJ would have to deal with. Quick example: AJ issues a direct license with a broadcast license, a cue sheet gets filed, composer never informed his PRO of the direct license, PRO looks for a blanket or single use license and none exists for the broadcaster, PRO contacts broadcaster… “What do you mean I have to pay? I got a direct license from AJ!”… problem. To avoid that, AJ would have to take on the responsibility of informing the PRO’s of every direct license issuance. Too much work. No PRO registration.

I’m NOT at all defending that position. AJ could very easily provide our PRO info, explain cue sheets and who pays performance royalties, and leave it up to us to police usage if we wish. If they don’t want to take on publishing and don’t care about performance royalties for themselves, that’s fine. They can still issue broadcast licenses at a higher rate without including the performance rights and that would cancel the direct licensing issue. That is done by so many small RF libraries and micro-stocks. While not a perfect situation, there would still be a possibility of collecting a meaningful performance royalty in the event one should be generated. I’m not sure how a composer would handle the tracking if he/she wanted to use a free method, but there are fee based services that can handle tracking, such as TuneSat ($30/month and up). The question is whether or not it would be worth paying for monitoring if you only sell the tracks in question at AJ and they aren’t going after the larger broadcast market.

I guess the bottom line on PRO is to take a look around at where we are (bottom of the barrel) and ask, “What did we expect?” This is a DIY license and download site, not an actual production music library with music supervisors and marketing reps that talk to customers about the actual project and intended use, and act as publishers that directly market tracks for placements that would bring meaningful performance royalties. This type of site doesn’t attract large numbers of clients that are creating productions that are going to broadcast media. Yes, it happens and even some serious placements that could have generated meaningful royalties have slipped thorough the cracks on a $19 standard license. But, if you have material here that is “broadcast worthy”, maybe this isn’t a good place for it anyway because it wouldn’t get the attention it deserves from this business model.

This might be an issue that says, “You’ve outgrown AJ and it’s time take your music and move on to higher ground.” We can’t make them recognize potential or desire to grow in a specific direction they aren’t interested in going. I see no reason to stop pushing the issue because money is being lost. There’s even a possibility that they won’t have much of a choice at some point if composers stand their ground. But, they won’t, and some recent threads I’ve read seem to indicate breath holding could be hazardous to your health.

1 Like

Who is asking AJ to become a publisher? The PRO issue is not that complicated if we display our writers and publisher PRO affiliation, and IPI #'s on our profile pages with a note that says “If you are using my music on a TV show and need my PRO information for a cue sheet, here is the information:____if you are using the track for a personal youtube video or business youtube video ignore this information, you have your license, thank you for licensing my music.” Envato does not have to get involved at all. Remember, the site is set up where we sell directly to buyers on their “selling platform”. Envato, from what I have read and comprehended, has structured the transactions where we are the sellers, who in turn, pay “author fees” or commissions back to Envato for each transaction. So from that perspective, it can be an issue entirely between TV production company and author as far as handling cue sheets goes.

Read this announcement about how transactions are set up:

We are agreeing. I pretty much said the same thing in the paragraph after the bullets. I’m just thinking that the reasons outlined could explain why Envato is resisting PRO registration since the dreaded PRF business model means they’re basically issuing direct licenses. Failure to comply with PRO notification when PRO registered music is involved could cause them headaches if a cue sheet gets filed the the PRO goes after royalties. That’s even if they are not the publisher because the angry small broadcaster, who doesn’t pay a blanket fee to PROs, involved in such a situation is going to go back to the production company that purchased the license and said it was performance royalty free, then the angry buyer is going to go to Envato, not the composer/publisher who should have informed his PRO. I know my PRO, which is BMI, does ask for the notification on direct licensing and it makes sense.

I’m also thinking that marketplace sites aren’t likely to generate much in terms of performance royalties because of who they target. I’m 100% in favor of PRO registration, but don’t expect much blood from a stone.

“then the angry buyer is going to go to Envato, not the composer/publisher who should have informed his PRO.”

Then Envato is going to say “we just supply the platform to allow writers/ publishers to license their music. You need to discuss the matter with the writer/ publisher of the track.”

Envato can decide to have no involvement with the PRO matters, cue sheet matters, etc. Just leave that to authors on a case by case basis. Again, they provide a platform for us to sell, they say they are not the seller of the music content. Authors are.

I think you painting a picture that folks are going to “get angry” is way over the top.

“If a cue sheet gets filed the the PRO goes after royalties.”

They won’t “go after” royalties…they already collected them from the TV networks, small and large. They already have the royalties. ASCAP and BMI collect 1 Billion each annually to pay writers for “Performances on TV”…and for “performances” on radio and in bars, restaurants, retail stores, stadiums, and so on…and the only way to collect is to get credit on a cue sheet(For TV shows) or playlist (for radio).

I’ve explained the PRO situation as I see it in this thread and see no reason to repeat any if that. But am I the only one not surprised here? Hahaha!

Again, we’re on the same side, but I’ll clarify a few things. As we all know, broadcasters cannot play PRO registered music without a license. Not all broadcasters pay blanket fees to cover annual use of all music they perform. While all major broadcasters and most mid and some small broadcasters pay blankets, many small ones do not because they do not regularly perform music or they prefer to perform non-PRO registered music to save those fees. Paying for annual blanket fees is not economical for them. They only pay as needed, per situation. Our usual defense in favor of PRO registration (“the broadcaster already paid the fees”) does not always apply.

While PRO’s have a pool of money to pay you from blankets and single use license fees already paid, if a broadcaster does not pay a blanket, they have to pay for the single use. This is not our problem when it comes to payment because we will get our money from the pool regardless. It’s an issue for the broadcaster. So, when the cue sheet appears on the PRO’s doorstep, if they are unaware of a direct license provided by AJ as a PRF library, and there is no license on file for use from the broadcaster, blanket or otherwise, the PRO can request the license payment. That is how they got the pool of money your payment is coming from. If they did not seek these payments, there would not be a pool to pay you. I’m pretty sure that on duty a “collection agency” has is to request and “collect” payments due, and PROs are collection agencies.

So, if a broadcaster who does not pay a blanket is told by a production company that the music in their production is not PRO registered, they are not expecting to have to pay for the use. When they are asked for it, the result can easily turn into the issue I presented. I don’t think it’s over the top at all to suspect there would be some problems because of that. I’ve even seen people get “angry” over Content ID situations and YouTube where no money is involved, so it’s real. Envato could defer to us over and over again whenever a composer fails to inform his PRO, that’s true. They can also refuse to allow PRO registered music and avoid the issue entirely. It’s looking like they are going to opt for that second one.

At this point, we’ve all gone back and forth with what Envato can do if they wish, assumed what they understand and don’t understand without clarification, and some authors have answered questionnaires from Envato regarding PRO registration. I read in a recent thread that one person who has been pushing the issue was provided with a response stating that they have no plans for PRO registration in the future. I, obviously, cannot confirm that the Envato staff member who provided that response was making an official statement, but an author said that such a response was received. Like yourself, I’m trying to understand why that’s the case when there is a simple solution that would allow PRO registration and avoid all the potential problems I can foresee and have outlined as a “devil’s advocate”. Envato has a legal department and I’m sure they’ve gone over this ad nauseam by now. I can’t imagine that there is anything they would not fully understand regarding PROs and performance royalties, not just in the US (where I am), but worldwide at this point. I’m sure their accounting people have been consulted as well and there are some considerations in that area. If we don’t yet have an official response, one should be coming pretty soon, no?

I would like to see PRO registration here just like you do because I think the PRF business model is a bad one for professional composers. It probably doesn’t matter for those who are just looking for fast money to support other endeavors. I don’t like seeing composers cheated out of any possible income even if it would be small. But, there’s no arm twisting here. It is not mandatory to sell at AJ, and if you check my profile, there isn’t anything there because I decided that it isn’t worth the time composing new music just to sell to this market. I’m just here for the forum now because I enjoy these conversations and networking with other composers.

2 Likes

Exactomundo

I’m trying to get an official response since about a year. They made this survey…, they apperently asked their lawyers…, why isn’t there an official response out by now? Tactics? Helplessness? Do they even care? It is money that’s not finding they way to us, although it should. Envato owes us an answer. ASAP.

3 Likes

Maybe they’re prepping the rollout of PRO affiliation? Haha we can dream :smiley:

Please would you provide us with a response about this Adrien

Many thanks

5 Likes

With the recent news about the launch of a brand new Envato product for Graphic river authors, Elements, do you think Envato might create a platform for selling PRO registered music too in the future?

I had not thought about the fact that Envato could leave AJ intact as a PRF micro-stock site and create a whole new site for PRO registered music. While they could, I don’t think they will because it would increase expenses to run a separate site. I think the best we can hope for is that Envato will allow PRO registered music on AJ and stop direct licensing, even if they don’t bother to seek royalties for themselves and keep it under the micro-stock marketplace. That means we’ll have to monitor for any possible missed royalties and incorrect license purchases on our own, but it also means we can add any music already registered with a PRO and don’t have to compose a separate catalog for PRF. I’m interested because of that second part. The first part is actually pretty easy as there are affordable services out there that can do a good job for you.

It’s possible they might add subscription music to this new Envato Elements subscription model for graphics by rolling AJ into to it as well. That’s what they did with Envato Studio, which recently added music composition. If they do that, the PRO issue remains. But, subscription models for music, PRO registered or not, are the worst for composers who are not supplying tracks as “works for hire” with solid upfront payment. I’ve read several composer agreements for subscription based music libraries. The income is often pennies per subscription if there are numerous composers dividing up 50% of the NET subscription revenue after the company’s expenses. That’s not to say that something Envato would do might match, but it’s very likely, and this possibly wouldn’t add much income beyond AJ income.

Ditching “royalty free” would possibly be disastrous for AJ, given their prime position in this field. Google “royalty free stock music” and audiojungle comes up at the top. I don’t want to think about what would happen if all that traffic went somewhere else.

Now, what Envato COULD do, is to keep everything currently running intact, but as a complement also add PRO music to the library - only accessible to buyers actively ticking the “PRO registered” box in the search form. Voila - the PRO affiliation is opt-in, both for buyers and authors on an item basis. Buyers who need to go RF can stay cool, buyers who want to widen their search scope also include PRO items in their searches, and authors get to choose which items go where. Boom, everybody wins.

Granted, not all PROs would approve of their members having both RF and non-RF material for licensing, but hey, it’s a step in the right direction and after a while we’ll at least have stats to get the numbers straight. There’s so much talk about “PRO pays more” but given the competition at hand and the relatively low probability of scoring an international broadcast, it may turn out to be just a lottery among lotteries in the end.

2 Likes

Good point, big companies are looking for unique music. Can be interesting to have the possibility to “lock” a track that is published by an exclusive author for long period of time (3-6-12 monts). I think @collis would be more than happy to experiment this :slight_smile: