Music is not really tangible. You can’t sell a sound. A medium on which there is a sound, however, is something to work with. We speak of “rights” for everything that is intangible. And these rights belong to someone, can be granted, transferred and even sold in the USA.
So far, so good.
Disclaimer: The author (that’s me) is not a lawyer and does not give any legal advice. Be sure to consult a specialist. However, the author has to deal with music rights on a daily basis, namely when he grants television stations and film production companies the rights to use his music in their productions. He has also written a book on the subject. Okay, that should be enough. Enough with the third person.
Let’s start with what rights exist to your music.
You write a song, and yes, you’ve probably heard it everywhere, at that moment you also become the creator of your song. Provided you really have made it up yourself. Consequently, you also own the famous copyrights to your song.
So far, however, the idea has only been buzzing around in your head and the best you can do is sing it to someone. But to capture your work for eternity, you have to record it. The result is a recording of your song: you can hear what you have played, sung and produced. Voilà, the rights to the recording, usually referred to as “master rights”. And if you have made this recording completely on your own, the master rights belong to you alone.
These two rights are the ones that are at stake if you want to give away your music for a movie, a TV show, a commercial or a computer game.
You may be able to do this completely on your own, but you may also need a few helpers. Let’s assume the latter, not because I don’t think you are capable, but so that you can understand the topic even better and in full.
Let’s take a closer look at who else may be involved in the copyrights and master rights before we dive into the practicalities.
Clearly, everyone who contributed to the composition of your song is involved in the copyright. In most cases, authors, i.e. composers and lyricists, give their music to a music publisher. It’s great if you can find a committed publisher who will actively promote your song to TV stations, production companies, advertising agencies and game manufacturers. There are publishers who specialize in exactly this, they usually call themselves “Music Library” or “Music Boutique”.
In recognition of his achievements, you grant your publisher the publishing rights to your song. This means that in future, if your song “runs” publicly thanks to his efforts, the publisher will receive from GEMA the publisher’s share of the royalties that GEMA has collected from the television stations, for example. The publisher’s share amounts to 33.3% of the royalties paid out by GEMA. You receive the remaining 66.6% or share it with other authors if they have contributed to your song as composers or lyricists.
In the USA, by the way, the copyright and publishing shares are split 50:50. This may be of interest to you, as the USA provides a very large breeding ground for music licensing.
Everyone who was involved in the recording and production of your song is involved in the finished recording: You, the producers, sound engineers and any studio musicians. As a rule, you pay producers, technicians and studio musicians a one-off fee and – contractually! – their ancillary copyrights to you. If your recording makes money, you no longer have to give them a share (of course you can also come to a different agreement with them). Instead, producers, technicians and studio musicians receive a “supplementary payment” from the copyright collection society (GVL) if your song is further exploited. But that is a science in itself.
Normally, you get a record company on board so that they can send the finished recording of your song out into the world so that they can earn money. Be it on recordings, via download, via stream or even in movies or on television.
In order for the record company to be allowed to do all this for you, you must give it permission to do so by granting it the rights to your recording, i.e. the master rights.
If the record company succeeds in placing your song in a film, for example, it grants the production company a license. It is called a “master license”. And that costs money. Depending on how well known you are, this could be a few hundred euros or even a six-figure sum.
The money that the record company earns for this is split equally 50:50 with you. At least that is the international industry standard.
Now that a music publisher has the say over your composition and the record company can decide on your recordings, all those who want to use your music must obtain permission from both the publisher and the record company:
From the publisher to use the composition.
From the record company to use the recording of it.
Remember that. Please. Without fail.
But what if you have neither a publisher nor a record company? Then you alone control your composition and its reception. You are therefore the author, publisher and record company in one and can grant all licenses yourself, both for the use of the composition and for the use of the master recording. But I think it’s important that you are aware of your different roles as a publisher on the one hand and as a record company on the other, because that’s the only way to really understand how this business works.
Once your music has been placed in, say, a TV movie, you’ll get paid twice:
Firstly, the master license (which you get paid immediately by the production company), and then in the form of royalties when the film with your music is broadcast on television. This will take a little longer, as the royalties must first be collected by GEMA before they are paid out to you according to their distribution plan.
The direct route into films and major television productions is via so-called “music supervisors”. They are either employed directly by the production companies and broadcasters or act as freelancers on their behalf. Their job is to find the right music and, as they say, to clear the rights to it. In other words, to obtain the necessary licenses.
In smaller TV productions, it’s the music editors or the people in the editing room who take care of the music, whereas in low-budget indie films, it’s usually the directors who are your contacts.
It all sounds quite nice if these people weren’t so hard to find and even harder to convince. They receive over 100 music mailings every day, so the chance of getting lost is unfortunately quite high. Are there alternatives? Yes.
You have already read about them above. They combine the activities of music publishers and record companies and thus serve as the sole point of contact for potential music users. This speeds up the licensing process immensely.
You can contact these libraries or boutiques and ask them to include your song – or several songs – in their program and offer them. In return, you grant them both the publisher’s share of your composition and the usual 50% of the master licenses.
For real “sung” songs, please make sure that you grant the library all rights on a non-exclusive basis only, so that you still have the right to publish your songs yourself, perform them live or place them in films without the library earning any money from them.
If you decide to make functional, purely instrumental background music, exclusive contracts with the libraries are fine, almost standard by now.
A sync agent is someone who searches for you to place your song in movies, television, commercials and computer games. The word “sync” here comes from “synchronize”, a term that is often used in the industry. This refers to the integration of music and moving images.
The Sync Agent will mainly look for opportunities for you and your song that yield reasonable master licenses. In return, he will demand a share of the revenue, which can range from a standard agent or manager share of around 20% to the 50% that a record company or library would receive for granting the master rights.
Now you have learned the basics of music licensing. The topic has remained one of the few constants in the music business and is also being increasingly pursued by the major record companies. There is still good money to be made here.
Best regards,
Julian Angel
musicbizmadness
AI Blues
If there’s a loaded gun lying in the middle of the marketplace, there’s no need to worry. Numerous people have already lectured on the responsible use of firearms. Alright, maybe. Someone will pick it up and rob a bank to get the money that others have worked so hard for.
Does the metaphor fit? Or is it too extreme? Someone will use AI to create much more content than ordinary mortals are capable of. And in only a fraction of the time. Just recently, someone told me about a friend who cranks out two hit songs a day with AI.
We won’t be able to stop this entirely— not even the industry, which has proposed measures such as upload filters and compensation for the original voices. Just give me a moment to comment on a few of these myths. Perhaps it will get a few people to think about it. If I’m wrong, I’d actually be delighted.
Maybe we both still have enough pride to stick to just finding rhymes. But someone will perform like a multi-instrumental genius and outshine us. And then people will say, “Hey, look at that as an example. Amazing!” And at least they’ll be able to keep up appearances long enough to make a decent living.
That’s true. But who cares? When I accidentally turn on a typical format radio station with afternoon giveaways, I barely hear music played with real instruments—at least not during the daytime. And the songs are often edited to the point of inhumanity. And to be honest, before I started making music, I also mistook a drum machine for a real drum set. It took me a long time to figure out that Doctor Avalanche was a classic drum machine. In many cases, we already have to measure our acoustic music productions against the sound quality of virtual instruments.
Artificial intelligence “composes” just like we do—it reassembles what we have heard before. Two notes from one song, three from another, combined with the rhythm of other pieces of music—and at some point you will no longer be able to recognize what it has used. And where there is no plaintiff, there is no judge. Do you think you’d even notice if someone borrowed an idea from you? Is there a database with all previously published recordings that is automatically compared on a regular basis?
Some digital distributors are working on filters that are supposed to recognize AI generated music recordings in order to reject such titles. This may work with some songs that are one hundred percent artificially generated. But what if only the foundation is artificial and the rest was added manually? Or if AI spits out the finished song and the “musician” has recreated it themselves?
… because many creators can’t play an instrument at all. So what? Even today, DJs are for many the cheaper alternative with fewer logistics and personnel. And if people are already chasing after AI-created models and booking them for jobs, they’ll soon be attending hologram shows and enthusiastically cheering for them. Oh wait, doesn’t that already exist in East Asia?
Laws are gradually being passed to protect the rights to one’s own voice (“ELVIS Act”). But how low will the compensation be for those who gave up their vote voluntarily or involuntarily? This would also require a database of votes, which would, in turn, be compared and reliably identified despite all the showmanship. Can it also be identified if someone has superimposed several voices—as with a synthesizer? Once again the question arises: Would you notice—let alone recognize—if your voice suddenly sang someone else’s song? Definitely not if a songwriter simply hijacked it to get a better voice for their demo (while you’re still paying a real singer to do it).
I myself am not afraid of artificially generated music. However, I have my reservations if many “musicians” use them to their full extent and their customers eventually accept them. I won’t be able to keep up with the pace of production, and artificial mass production certainly won’t drive up the price of the final product.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is currently suing the AI music generators Suno and Udio for copyright infringement (June/July 2024). After all, their AI has been trained with the help of the music catalog of the labels represented by the RIAA and therefore constantly retrieves elements of the songs contained therein in order to reassemble them. According to the definition, the RIAA is probably right here. GEMA was also the first collecting society worldwide to file a lawsuit against OpenAI for copyright infringement.
Sorry if I’ve ruined your day. Perhaps we can still find ways to adapt and thrive
The Spotify 1,000 streams rule: Continue or look for alternatives?
When Spotify first came onto the market, nobody was quite sure what it was. Spotify was meant to replace conventional radio by allowing its users to listen to their favorite songs directly – around the clock, as often as they like, and at a monthly price around one third less than buying a long-playing CD.
Basically, nothing has changed. Except that what many musicians had feared has now come true: For many fans, streaming is replacing the purchase of physical media. And this is precisely what self-marketing musicians in particular are feeling the effects of. Because the €10–15 that can be earned from a CD sale can be earned only with considerable difficulty via streaming portals. A fan would have to listen to a 10-track album 300–500 times for the musicians behind it to earn as much as they would from a CD or a paid download. This requires much more persuasion than selling a physical album.
At least Spotify has a discovery function, which fans can use to find and get to know new music. But do they also discover relatively unknown self-marketers? The chances are rather low. According to the Luminate Report for 2023, 86.2% of all songs available on Spotify receive fewer than 1,000 streams per year. Incidentally, that equates to €3 per song or €30 for an album – the price of two CDs.
Now here’s the kicker from Spotify: Songs that record fewer than 1,000 streams in a year (i.e., a staggering 86.2% of the material available) will no longer be remunerated. Spotify claims this is to make things more difficult for tracks that consist solely of sounds cut up into 31-second chunks – such as the ominous whale songs or simply white noise.
However, it’s obvious that eliminating time-consuming administrative work will lead to cost savings. Spotify does indeed need to start presenting its investors with profits. After all, up to 2023, it hadn’t been generating any profits.
What does this mean for musicians, especially those who market themselves? Okay – €3 more or less probably doesn’t matter in the end. Nevertheless, it is annoying that a service like Spotify also earns money from these seldom-played songs but does not want to pass any of it on to the musicians themselves.
The big question we should ask ourselves is this: Do we increase our efforts to crack the 1000 mark with every song on Spotify. Or should we look for an alternative instead?
If we look at the cost/income ratio described above, we realize that we earn considerably more money from a piece of music sold – be it a CD, a record, or a download – than from streams. And even faster. Because once you’ve bought an album, you’ve paid for it and don’t have to be constantly encouraged to listen to it again.
And that’s where a MIDiA report from last year comes in handy. According to analysts from the entertainment industry, music lovers are looking for and finding music beyond social media and streaming services. But what exactly are “real music lovers”? In the report, they were defined as people who listen to music beyond the usual trends and who are prepared to spend over USD 100 a month on it. That sounds good. Should we focus on such fans instead? And where do we find them?
The report also provided us with an answer to this question. Real fans read magazines and music blogs in which new albums are presented. And there are magazines and blogs for almost every conceivable genre. As if that weren’t enough, many of them are even divided into obscure sub-genres. This allows us to address potential fans in an even more targeted way.
And that, of course, raises the most important question: Do such blogs and magazines write about small self-marketers like us? In fact, many do, often without the unpleasant “unsigned” or “home recording” stigma. Let’s go on a search using terms like
blog, magazine, reviews, underground reviews, album reviews, website, and webzine
in connection with our musical style. In the end, we even find quite a few of them, make contact, and put together a noteworthy media campaign. With six self-released albums under my belt, I can confirm that it’s worth it.
****************
Julian Angel
Julian Angel makes music for Hollywood films and television, mainly in the USA. He has also released and marketed six albums as a solo act and with his band project Beautiful Beast. In 2021, his book Music. Sync. Money was published. Julian has been running the website MusicBizMadness.de for over 10 years now. Good luck!
