I get emails from time to time from people asking about music licensing opportunities, what the best companies and resources are, etc., and typically I only have my old posts to point them to, as my research is getting a little outdated at this point.

But today someone posted what seems to be a really good link in one of the comments, but unfortunately I lost the comment as I messed up my site’s migration to a new server. So the comment is gone, so whoever it was that posted it, I thank you.

This looks like a great long list of Music Licensing Opportunities and companies. Check it out! Let me know how it is, and if you know of any additional resources or companies, please post them in the comments for everyone to see.

That’s it for now! Happy music to all…

Related posts:

1. Tips for Evaluating Music Licensing Opportunities We’ve looked at a ton of different music licensing services...
2. Pump Audio Music Licensing Controversy I’ve obviously been quite occupied with things unrelated to this...
3. Music Licensing and Re-Title Publishing, Pump Audio… Who is this man?! Why is he on this site?!...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

I’m also delighted(!) to see that we have the third-ranking site in Google’s organic results for Pump Audio. I LOVE that someone new to music licensing that is searching for info on Pump is going to see this headline on their first Google search “Pump Audio Reduces Artist Licensing Payments”. Those of you inclined to lean against the powers that be can continue to help the indie musician cause by linking to these articles.

I too received their announcement about the licensing agreement change, and so I’ve decided to just let my agreement lapse at the end of the year, which I think is what happens if you don’t sign and submit the new contract. I can’t claim to have done much business with them. In fact, I’m not sure they’ve licensed any of it…

This is clearly an issue affecting a lot of musicians out there, and we depend on every little income source we can find these days. Best of luck to those of you that are going the music licensing route! And good luck to all of you fighting the good fight…

Related posts:

1. Pump Audio Reducing Licensing Payments to Artists by 30% Yo yo yo. Any of you guys using Pump Audio...
2. Music Licensing and Re-Title Publishing, Pump Audio… Who is this man?! Why is he on this site?!...
3. Pump Audio’s Re-Titling of Songs for Publishing A reader sent me an email recently asking:  When you/I...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Beginning July 1st, 2009, Pump Audio will move to a 65/35 split with artists, instead of their existing 50/50 split. This means that licensed artists will see a drop in their take from each licensing fee by 30%. Awesome.

I was alerted to this Wednesday by an existing Pump Audio user. I followed up with their Artist Relations contact, and unfortunately the bad news is true. 

Here’s what they said:

“…this move is being made to support the growth of our business on a global stage…”

“We believe and will work tirelessly to insure that Pump Audio continues to be the top music licensing company for real artists.  As we grow and succeed, you will grow and succeed right along with us.  Pump Audio has always been, and will always be one of the biggest supporters of independent artists, and our intention is to see all Pump contributors make more money with us in the coming years.”

Well. Naturally, my gut reaction is negative. Anything that means less money in the hands of music creators sounds like a bad deal to me, being a creator myself. The prevalence of web-based music licensing services, while making some media placements accessible to the average nobody musician, is contributing to the overall commoditization of music, meaning that its perceived value continues to drop. And now, not only do placements pay less because the availability of music is overwhelming, but Pump Audio will be paying you a smaller percentage of those fees. 

Sounds like a winner for Pump.

Pump Audio also practices Re-Title Publishing, which means they re-register your songs under different names with their own publishing company, meaning the artist receives a smaller share of the backend royalties. Awesome.

So. Be forewarned. I’ve gotta get back to my night-shift at the local minimum wage national chain. 

By the way. If anyone has any experience using Pump, please let us know. I heard from someone recently who had a placement in a national TV campaign, and only found out about it when a friend told him he’d seen his song on TV. Apparently this was last September, and no money has materialized thus far. I’m registered with them too but have nothing to show for it. My songs must suck!

Related posts:

1. Pump Audio Music Licensing Controversy I’ve obviously been quite occupied with things unrelated to this...
2. Music Licensing and Re-Title Publishing, Pump Audio… Who is this man?! Why is he on this site?!...
3. Pump Audio’s Re-Titling of Songs for Publishing A reader sent me an email recently asking:  When you/I...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This past week, I had a number of artists ask me about potential music licensing deals that they had on the table. The common concern was whether or not the deal they were being offered was legit. This is something that could be discussed in great detail on a case by case basis, but I thought I would give a few brief bullet points on some things to considerbefore getting involved with a licensing company.

Are they a licensing company or a music library? - The lines can be a bit blurry here, but a general distinction between the two is that a licensing company will pitch individual tracks, where a music library might supply clients with a searchable hard drive of music with thousands of tracks. In general, a licensing company will get higher fees.

What rights are they asking for? - At a minimum, you have to grant a licensing company the right to represent your music, but there can be varying levels of artist involvement for each placement they negotiate. Some contracts are pre-cleared(Meaning they don’t have to get the artist to sign off on each individual placement), and others give the artist the right of refusal before the deal goes through. Most indie artist will encounter pre-cleared contracts. Another thing to look for is if it’s exclusive or non-exclusive.

What type of placements do they typically get? - All licensing companies are not created equally. Most of them have areas of strength and weakness, so one company may be really strong on network TV, but not as great at getting songs placed in film trailers. Another company may specialize in getting music into video games. One thing to watch out for are companies that do a lot of bulk licensing deals that return little money to the artists they represent

What percentage do they take? - Fees can range between 20%-50% of the gross licensing fee, but it’s important to keep that in perspective. A small company that gets a high number of placements for you might be worth the 50% fee.
 
*Things to Avoid*
 
Don’t work with a company that asks for an upfront fee - They should make their money off of getting songs placed, not by getting you to sign up more songs

Don’t grant them mechanical rights - Some licensing companies will slip some language into the contract that allows them to release your music in album form and make money off of it. A standard sync license contract is pretty straight forward, but granting mechanical rights ventures into record company territory which is far more complex. This should be avoided at all cost.

Don’t permanently sign over any rights to the song - That would be more of a publishing deal, which can be beneficial, but it’s important to make a distinction between a publishing deal and a sync licensing representation deal.

————————————————

Thanks Kevin for your guest blog! If you enjoyed reading his thoughts, check out his blog, and the DIY Musician Podcast he runs at CD Baby. 

Related posts:

1. Music Licensing Opportunities & Companies Clearly I haven’t been posting anything in several months. Hopefully...
2. Using Online Services to License Your Music As CD sales continue to dry up, music licensing has...
3. Music Licensing and Brand Marketing: Rumblefish Rumblefish is a web-based company that connects artists and labels...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Read below to find out…

We’ve been having a very interesting and informative dialog in the comments section regarding re-title publishing.

Re-title publishing is when a company re-registers your songs under a different name with a performing rights organization (ASCAP, BMI, etc), so they can license your music and collect a percentage of the publishing royalties, and track these royalties separately from any other licenses you may have given out for these particular songs.

Check out the comments section of a previous post on Re-Title Publishing, where you can read the opinions of someone who claims to own a re-title music publishing company. He argues that re-titling is a decent option for bands that don’t have endless hours of time to spend promoting their songs to online music libraries and music supervisors. His particular company seems to promote their catalog actively, spending money to create promo CDs, edit tracks, etc., which you certainly aren’t going to get from a fully-automated web service.

It’s an option.

Our Mystery Man Unveiled

Another reader likens choosing between online music licensing companies to a Cornelian Dilemma.

This man is Pierre Corneille. According to Wikipedia: “The Cornelian dilemma is named after French dramatist Pierre Corneille, in whose play Le Cid (1636) the protagonist, Rodrigue, is torn between two desires—that of keeping his girlfriend Chimène’s love and that of avenging his father, who has been wronged by Chimène’s father. Rodrigue can either seek revenge and lose the love of his beloved, or renounce revenge and lose his honour.”

Related posts:

1. Re-Title Publishing – Update Last week I wrote a post about “re-title publishing”, and...
2. Pump Audio Reducing Licensing Payments to Artists by 30% Yo yo yo. Any of you guys using Pump Audio...
3. Re-Title Publishing – Is it Legitimate? I recently submitted music to a licensing opportunity via Sonicbids,...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

When you/I sign a contract with e.g. Pump Audio, does this “re-title publishing” come automatically with this deal or do they send some other deal to sign?

Does this “re-title publishing” end at the same time after the year or so as the normal contract ends, and what happens with the publishing deal info they’ve made with e.g. ASCAP?

My response was:

“I am not a lawyer, but the way I interpret the Pump Audio deal is that the re-title publishing is included automatically in their contract. They do not explicitly elaborate on it, which is no doubt intentional.
 

The publishing registration with the performing rights organization (ASCAP) is indefinite, because publishing royalties are generated not from the sale of a license but from the use of the music in a public context. By registering your songs under different titles, they are staking a claim to a percentage of future earnings that may occur if your music is used down the road by those who purchased the licenses. Most other organizations only take a piece of the initial license, in which case you receive all the publishing royalties.”

Related posts:

1. Music Licensing and Re-Title Publishing, Pump Audio… Who is this man?! Why is he on this site?!...
2. Pump Audio Reducing Licensing Payments to Artists by 30% Yo yo yo. Any of you guys using Pump Audio...
3. Pump Audio Music Licensing Controversy I’ve obviously been quite occupied with things unrelated to this...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Related posts:

1. Music Licensing Opportunities & Companies Clearly I haven’t been posting anything in several months. Hopefully...
2. Music Licensing Success with Rumblefish Welcome to Day Two of our look at Rumblefish, the...
3. Review of Online Music Licensing Services To date we’ve reviewed several web-based services that help artists...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Below is a table that compares several basic features of each service examined so far…

To help you understand it, here are a few definitions:

Licensing Split: When someone buys a license to your music, they pay an upfront fee to the middleman service. The split determines how this money is divided between you and the middleman.

Back-End Publishing: Another source of income from licensing are the royalties generated when your music is used in certain situations, such as on TV or in a movie. These are generated every time your music is “performed”. In most cases, you the artist will receive 100% of the back-end publishing, because you probably don’t have a separate publisher. But in the case of Pump Audio, they re-register your songs with ASCAP, BMI, etc. under new names so that they can “administer” the royalties “more effectively”, and gain access to 50% of your publishing royalties. Sketchy.

See here for an explanation of this practice, known as Re-Title Publishing.

If you are interested in having us review your service, let me know: brian@themusicsnob.com
———————————————

In related news, Rumblefish put a post on their blog about our two part Rumblefish article…

Related posts:

1. Using Online Services to License Your Music As CD sales continue to dry up, music licensing has...
2. Pump Audio Reducing Licensing Payments to Artists by 30% Yo yo yo. Any of you guys using Pump Audio...
3. Pump Audio Music Licensing Controversy I’ve obviously been quite occupied with things unrelated to this...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

What Licensing Pros Are Looking For

Rumblefish sells emotions, not music. Clients are looking for themes and moods to mirror or inspire what they want people to experience.

Pros look for three things:

1. Does the song convey an emotion? (happy, sad, tired, bored…)
2. Does the song convey a situation? (Breakup, arrest, party…)
3. Does the song portray a specific character? (girl in love, rejected lover…)

Up-tempo and happy songs are harder to find. There are many more sad songs written than happy songs. So, if you write great happy songs, push those. You have an advantage. (In my experience, this is true; it’s taken me years to learn to write a good happy song. I think they are much harder to write.)

How to Use Rumblefish Effectively to License Your Music

• When adding music to Rumblefish, it’s essential to assign appropriate and thorough metadata to make it really easy for people to find it via search. You can and should assign “sounds like” info, lyrics, and other descriptors.
• They do a weekly podcast where they discuss some tracks from the Rumblefish catalog and how they might make good placements. If you suggest a good angle for marketing one of your songs, they just might include it.
• Get in touch with their staff with brilliant angles for them to pitch your music to niche industries.

The Rumblefish Music Screening Requirements

• Good recording quality
• No unauthorized samples
• No cover songs that aren’t pre-cleared
• Is the music good, and can it be expected to reasonably meet the needs of a client?

Some Final Words of Wisdom from Rumblefish CEO Paul Anthony

“Never do an exclusive licensing deal!”

“Licensing is one of the few things that will continue to pay the bills for independent musicians.”

———————————————————————————-

Note: In the interest of fairness, we updated yesterday’s post with a few potential downsides to Rumblefish’s model, depending on what you’re looking for. You decide what works for you…

———————————————————————————-
You may also want to check out our articles on other music licensing companies…

Related posts:

1. Music Licensing and Brand Marketing: Rumblefish Rumblefish is a web-based company that connects artists and labels...
2. Review of Online Music Licensing Services To date we’ve reviewed several web-based services that help artists...
3. Music Licensing Opportunities & Companies Clearly I haven’t been posting anything in several months. Hopefully...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Rumblefish Licensing Contract Details

• All licenses are non-exclusive
• By submitting music you are agreeing to a 1-year term
• There are no submission or membership fees
• You retain 100% ownership of your rights
• You retain 100% of back-end performance royalties
• You receive 50% of net licensing fees
• They pay out quarterly

How Artists License Music with Rumblefish

1. You submit music to Rumblefish with a completed application and tax forms
2. Your music is approved (hopefully)
3. Your music is added to the Rumblefish catalog
4. People and companies that need music find your tracks on Rumblefish and pay a licensing fee based on what they’re going to use it for
5. Rumblefish splits the licensing fee with you
6. You move out of your cardboard box and onto a friend’s couch
7. Repeat these steps, until you own your own couch

Who Licenses Music from Rumblefish?

Rumblefish sells music to all types of clients. These include the standard high profile targets, which are TV shows, films and video games. But they also focus on “sonic branding”, or creating music personalities for corporations.

Sonic Branding

There are tons of businesses that use music to enhance their customer experiences, such as banks, waiting rooms and restaurants. The amount of music required for the most mundane of things is massive. Rumblefish works with businesses to act as their go-to source for audio. Instead of streaming muzak, companies are finding that licensing real music and using it in interesting ways can enhance their corporate brand identity.

For example, Rumblefish worked with Umpqua Bank to launch a Discover Local Music Project, which licensed the music of many local artists to create an ongoing music experience for bank customers. The project resulted in a 20% increase in bank deposits. While this might not inspire musicians out there, what it means is that more companies will see value in music, and thus be willing to pay us for our labors. (Which is ironic, because consumers and technology are simultaneously reducing the cost of personal music consumption to zero).

Things I Like About Rumblefish

They don’t charge you anything upfront. As Barry Coffing of MusicSupervisor.com says, “If a company doesn’t make money from licensing your music, then that’s not their business.” Instead of charging a fee up front, Rumblefish splits the licensing fee with you 50/50, which I think is very fair. You create the beautiful music. They market and sell it. Everyone wins.

They are targeting not just the TV and film industry, but a whole range of industries that need music. This should translate into more opportunities for musicians to get heard and to support themselves. While being background music in a retail store might not be as glamorous as a movie soundtrack placement, my credit card companies never ask where the money comes from.

Transparency is integral to the artist experience. Rumblefish gives quarterly reports on where your music was place and how much you earned from each placement, and they frequently list their latest placements on their blog. In 2009 they will be launching a dashboard for artists where you can see all of the music you’ve submitted, where it’s been used, and how much you’ve earned from each placement.

They don’t take back-end publishing fees. They seem like good people with a win-win attitude towards their artists and clients. And their CEO Paul claims to write a personal note with every check that Rumblefish mails out. (I’m taking his word for it. Hopefully I will experience this firsthand before not too long).

Some Possible Downsides to the Rumblefish Model

You aren’t asked to approve individual placements. Once you submit your music, you are consenting to it being licensed by anyone that wants it. I suppose you could end up selling cigarette to children or abortions in third-world countries, but I’m guessing it’s unlikely.

Your music is pre-priced and the licensing is automated. Some people really value the “human” aspect of business and enjoy a negotiation based on the specific qualities and intended usage of a song. Rumblefish has prices for different licensing situations, which allows supervisors and other clients to skip the time-consuming negotiation process. They can find music quickly, pay for it immediately, and move on. This works great for some, but may ruffle someone’s ego…

——————————————————————————-

Stay tuned for tomorrow’s Part II of Music Licensing with Rumblefish, where we will share CEO Paul Anthony’s insights into the licensing biz and his tips for maximizing your licensing success…

Other Rumblefish Sources:
You may also want to read about Rumblefish’s involvement in the 48-Hour Film Project

Or listen to a radio interview with their Director of A&R and Licensing at Well Rounded Radio

Related posts:

1. Music Licensing Success with Rumblefish Welcome to Day Two of our look at Rumblefish, the...
2. Tips for Evaluating Music Licensing Opportunities We’ve looked at a ton of different music licensing services...
3. Review of Online Music Licensing Services To date we’ve reviewed several web-based services that help artists...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.