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.
Maybe they’re prepping the rollout of PRO affiliation? Haha we can dream 
Please would you provide us with a response about this Adrien
Many thanks
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.
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 
Agreed on all points, but be careful with confusing “royalty-free” with “performance royalty free” - AJ would still remain a royalty-free site even if they did decide to allow PRO usage - ie AJ wouldn’t be “ditching” the royalty free model by doing so. At the moment AJ is classified as a performance royalty free library, meaning no performance royalties are paid beyond the sync-fee (initial license fee). Most (if not virtually all) other royalty free sites offer PRO, whilst maintaining the royalty-free model.
This makes it a compelling argument for AJ to finally allow PRO registered music. Personally though, if Envato did not end up adopting the PRO idea, I’d still be happy for an increase in broadcast license prices instead. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to charge upwards of $1000 for a no-boundaries, music broadcast license. I’m fairly confident that companies broadcasting at that level would be expecting a higher license price anyway. The main advantage for AJ to buyers is the appealing price of standard licenses. This doesn’t mean though that the broadcast licenses should be cheap; I reckon if AJ decides not to implement PRO music, increasing the price of these upper license would be a great compromise.
There is a major micro-stock company that does exactly what you mentioned as far as having checkboxes for PRF music versus rights managed PRO registered tracks. Their standard license is $250, so I believe they are targeting a much higher budget level market. I can’t name them here, but I’m pretty sure many people reading this know who I mean.
Although they offer PRF music, they are OK with it being PRO registered. Their agreement allows composers to opt-out of having their music in PRF and to only be considered for the RM (rights managed) catalog. But even if you agree to being considered for PRF, you can submit PRO registered music. They even explain to potential composers why they should join a PRO and register if they aren’t already a member. I think this is due to the fact that many of their music offerings are coming from what used to be an online production music library that catered to broadcasters at all levels. They were purchased by the micro-stock in question and handle most of the music licensing for the company. Other libraries that have remained independent have agreements with them as well. Because the micro-stock has formed publishing entities to handle administration and collect royalties for themselves, they handle the requirement to inform a PRO of direct licenses in the PRF situations. That solves the direct licensing problem relating to PRO registered music in a PRF library. So, in short, they appear to have found a way to have the best of both worlds and cover both PRF and RM while collecting much higher licensing fees. In fact their standard for PRF licensing is $250, but the enhanced license that allows broadcast use for PRF is $500. They handle the RM catalog using a more traditional model seen with rights managed music. Rates for that can go sky high, but that music is getting used.
Can someone explain how a PRO is going to allow a rights managed track to be registered with them and then allow that track to be for sale on a Royalty Free site? 
And can anyone explain what effect a large increase in Broadcast licences would have on buyers?
I think a lot of people here don’t really have any clue about the differences on licensing.
Can someone explain how a PRO is going to allow a rights managed track to be registered with them and then allow that track to be for sale on a Royalty Free site?
Answer: Very simple. Any composer who is a member of SESAC, BMI, or ASCAP…and perhaps several others STILL has the right to sell direct licenses of their music to whomever they want to. These PRO’s do not control our intellectual property, we do. And we can sell to whomever we want to sell to.
And can anyone explain what effect a large increase in Broadcast licences would have on buyers?
The Broadcast License on this market still needs some work and the price needs to be determined based on the type of usage. Worldwide or National Commercials should = Big bucks, Regional Commercials with 10,000,000 person audiences a notch down, Local spots, another notch down. White elephant, I’ve stated this about 20 times now. The main area where broadcast licenses, and cue sheets are of a concern is when music is sourced here to be used on TV programs. A TV commercial is not a a TV Program and cue sheets are not even filed, BUT advertising and Promo claims can be filed at PRO’s for TV commercials. So paying $308 for a background inst cue on a tv show is something that will probably never happen here. WHY? because those types of buyers already have agreements with other rights managed catalogs to get “blanket” access (Access to every track) for usage on TV shows in exchange for a “blanket fee” to the library. Example: TV Production Company A pays library X $10,000 a year for access to all 200,000 tracks to use as background cues on TV shows. In exchange TV Production Company A agrees to file cue sheets crediting every writer and publisher of every cue used on every show produced. Writers get paid royalties from those shows.
However, it is clear that for whatever reason, some people are shopping here for cues to go on TV shows. The easiest solution is to just have a cue sheet sheet policy in place on audio jungle.
I think a lot of people here don’t really have any clue about the differences on licensing. Possibly true…let’s just educate everyone so no one is “clueless”. It’s quite simple though, the more “visible” a project is and the larger the viewing audience, the more money a customer should pay. Big National commercials for Big companies should pay 4 figures for the track. Kitty Cat YOUTUBE video makers should pay $25. People using music on a TV show as the main Theme of the show should pay a higher price, but background underscore cues a smaller fee. At the same time though credit needs to be given to the writer on the cue sheets.
This business is not an exact science and it never will be. Negotiation and common sense need to be part of the formula sometimes.
I still just want to know which PRO’s in the world are creating headaches and roadblocks for AJ. The publishing and administrative issues should really just become an issue for buyers and AJ authors to work through independently, but some written language educating buyers would also be helpful. Something along the lines of “If you are going to license music here to be used on TV shows, It is required that you credit the author on a cue sheet and file that cue sheet at their PRO.” I am being boringly repetitive as I have stated this above. AJ, the provider of this “selling platform” does not have to get involved at all or take on any responsibility other than allowing us to display our PRO affiliation and IPI # (if an author so choses to do so). Folks, we all have the right to register at ADREV or Not register at ADREV…right…AJ does not care if we do that. So why shouldn’t the policy be the same as it comes to PRO?
Example: If a German writer is going to get fined by GEMA, well that German writer just needs to figure out what is best for his situation and portfolio. USA writers have the right to sell direct licenses even if their music is PRO registered. I actually would find it astonishing if GEMA, PRS, SACEM, and others would some how fine or penalize European writers for selling direct licenses. We still can not seem to get an explanation of the “problems” or road blocks that exist because there certainly are none as it relates to ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC
Just providing a rudimentary explaination concerning the difference between RF and PRF and exploring a potential alternative to implementing PRO music. I wasn’t by any stretch claiming to be the be-all-and-end-all of music licensing 
If you feel authors are being misled by what I and other authors have said here regarding the PRO situation, you’re more than welcome to chime in and enlighten us 
…and yet again, my free file of the month has been aired on national TV the second time within a month. This is ridiculous. C’mon Envato, this has to stop.
I think this is probably part of the reason Envato does not implement PRO, they probably anticipate an influx of previously prohibited music and might not have the manpower to deal with all these tracks without the audio queue going up to 4 weeks and everyone complaining. Other reasons Envato might be unwilling to implement PRO:
I’m not saying these definitely are the reasons, I’m just saying it’s what I see when I look at it from their side and probably why it hasn’t happened and might not happen.
Adam, all valid points, but “Not Caring” is not good period. Who can possibly say that a track on here can not get sourced PRF, and then go on and be a theme of a famous show like MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL 45 years running now!
Never say never. Yes the core business is Youtube usage, but still there has to be a policy in place to deal with the potential big time usage that may happen randomly under weird unintended circumstances.
For example, video editor pulls an AJ track to do a “temp edit” for an opening theme to a new NBC or BBC show, or any major network…All the producers and writers and directors fall in love with the music. They say “where’d you get the track?” The response is “Audio Jungle”. Then they realize that they can have it performance royalty free. The tracks airs and airs and airs and just like that becomes a blockbuster hit. WHO IS GETTING THE PERFROMANCE ROYALTIES in that situation? No One? The son of the writer of the show? His wife?..this kind of stuff does happen folks! I’ve been around long enough to hear all the stories. So Why is it good for anyone to allow this to possibly happen? Does this not take us one step closer to just ruining our own business and all of us once again screwing this up and damaging it ourselves? Where is the leadership from the elite authors who are most likely to have this unfortunate circumstance happen to them?
Fine, If AJ does want to be completely ROYALTY FREE, then change the rules to say that TV networks and the producers of their shows can not buy music here.
Please don’t say this scenario will never happen…Never say never. Because the moment you do say “never” is the moment it DOES happen…and probably already has happened.
Solution: Envato stay out of the PRO issues entirely and let authors handle it independently with their buyers on a case by case basis. Let us deal with the potential paperwork that may arise. Let us just display our PRO affiliation on our profiles if we so chose to do so. Remember, Envato claims to be nothing more than a “selling platform” for all of us to independently deal our music. This essentially means that we all just run our own independent businesses on their “Selling platform” and we pay “author fees” for their service.
AJ is not a library, nor a publisher, rather a “platform to sell”. Am I wrong with my claim? Anyone?
So Adam Yes, nothing gained for Envato, but also NOTHING LOST for Envato, and A LOT potentially lost for individual writers when their music gets inserted as TV show Themes, Movie Themes, TV Show Cues, and National to Worldwide TV and or radio commercials. All markets can be satisfied here with just a little bit of planning.
Can you link us to the spot Mike? I am very curious to see this project.
Why? You don’t trust me? I’d like to avoid calling out Broadcasters, but I can say it’s been mostly french speaking TV shows:
Screen from TuneSat:
Here’s a snippet from that placement with my track “solaris”:
https://soundcloud.com/royaltysea/solaris-2015-11-22-13-11-15-to-13-11-330100
Here’s the original (0:32):
There hasn’t been bought one single broadcast license.
Mike, I am curious to see and hear how the music is being used. I never indicated that I do not trust what you are saying. It does appear that this is a background cue used on a TV show and a cue sheet should be filed at SACEM in France and then they’d send the royalties to your pro. A perfect example of how AJ would not be burdened at all, nor would the customer pay more. Just a simple case where your writer name and PRO affiliation should be entered onto the cue sheet of this show. Mike I see that you are from Germany, What is the problem with GEMA? Do SACEM and GEMA have a similar cue sheet approach for music used on TV shows in France and Germany? I can only assume they would…
I agree with most of what is being said here - @prestashopthemes took me to school and showed me that PRO is the way to go - I just have tempered expectations when it comes to Envato, and these expectations are based on what I’ve seen over the past few years. Everyday this place seems to become a little more “their” market as opposed to “everyone’s” market. Of course they are completely free to run their market however they see fit, so I don’t complain (much) but it does heavily influence what I expect to see happen here. If PRO does happen, it will be a nice surprise for me, but I really feel that Envato tends to operate in their best interests as opposed to the best interests of their authors. That should come as no surprise, because they are a business, and as such, should always operate with their best interests in mind, but ideally when you are running something like this, the interests of the market owners and the content producers should align at least a little, at least on some things. How much the opinions and desires of their authors influence their decisions, I really can’t say.
Purely hypothetical question - Let’s say I mistakenly uploaded a PRO-registered track to Audiojungle, Production Company A licenses it for a TV show, and the show airs on Broadcast Station B. Since the track was purchased on AJ, nobody realizes the track is PRO-registered, and nobody fills out cue sheets.
Aside from the author not getting royalties, could this situation create a problem for any of the parties involved? For example, would either Production Company A or Broadcast Station B be penalized in any way?
Could a non-exclusive author upload the same track to multiple sites and receive royalties only from the ones that support PRO-registered music?
