Posts by AlumoAudio

1200 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Nominated Community Superstar of the month
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Has referred 1000+ members
+8 more
AlumoAudio says


I’m personally going to implement this info in my pre purchase disclaimer, so video makers working on behalf of a client, know the drill.
I think this is a good approach. Communication and transparency is really the best answer to the current friction between RF music and Content ID.

Agreed. In fact I’ve been suggesting authors do this right from the very beginning.

1200 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Nominated Community Superstar of the month
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Has referred 1000+ members
+8 more
AlumoAudio says

But the thing in Kosters post that I see as the really big issue and definitely was a situation I had not thought of, was that AdRev placed ads for a competitor of Kosters client on the uploaded videos, and that this would have to be cleared after upload. I really see how this is embarrassing for both Koster and the client. This is totally unacceptable no matter if it takes 2 or 48 hours to clear the claim. It is also a good point that tracks can be added to AdRev later, and would then place these kind of ads on a video and the client might not notice this for a very long time.

You may have missed the announcement, but we learned this week that we can request AdRev to ‘whitelist’ a YouTube channel and prevent any claims for our music from appearing, before the video is uploaded to the client’s YouTube channel.

It’s good to know there’s a workaround for this, and I’m personally going to implement this info in my pre purchase disclaimer, so video makers working on behalf of a client, know the drill.

1200 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Nominated Community Superstar of the month
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Has referred 1000+ members
+8 more
AlumoAudio says


when I buy something I give you money. you give me what I bought. end of transaction!
You buy a LICENSE.

Throughout this whole discussion it’s become crystal clear to me what one of the biggest overriding issues is here: It’s obvious authors don’t really know what they’re selling and buyers don’t really understand what they’re buying.

This has to be addressed, for everyone to be on the same page and for this whole thing to work out in a royalty free music licensing scenario.

It’s an assumption on the buyer’s behalf to think royalty free music is free from copyright scrutiny or any calls to action; borne out of RF marketplace advertising strategies during their inception several years ago; attracting and catering to smaller, independent producers on a budget (such as wording along the lines of ‘buy no hassle music for your next project’ etc, etc) whilst employing little mention of complex legalese or focusing on the real world purpose of licenses.

It’s become a meme and unfortunately now colliding with copyright owner’s (author’s) interests further down the road. Here, right now.

The only party that has the real power (and responsibility) to ‘set things straight’ and explain to the buyers what they’re actually buying, what their author’s are actually selling and what it’s for, from the outset, is the music library itself. Or more specifically in this case, AudioJungle.

1200 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Nominated Community Superstar of the month
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Has referred 1000+ members
+8 more
AlumoAudio says

I uploaded 2 songs with vocals to ADREV in August 2014. I do not sell these songs on AJ. Both tunes aired on a popular reality TV show as “features” . I then noticed that many people were just uploading my 2 songs to YOUTUBE. Some videos reached 300,000 views.

So I Ad Rev’d the 2 tunes. Mostly to protect my works and let people know that they need to get permission to use my songs.

My Stats today show 55,000 views and $20 earned.

I think most people took the video down once they received the copyright violation notices.

So I conclude:

100,000 views will = $40 1 million views will = $400 10 million views will = $4,000 earned 100 million views will equal $40,000 earned

Does this sound right to those who have been ad reving for some time now?

AdRev suggest that for every 1000 views, the artist will earn around $1.

You mention your music was featured within TV shows. I’m thinking that these videos that featured your music (that people reuploaded) were taken down due to ‘takedown notices’ by the TV networks themselves. Not necessarily because they contained your music, but because they contained other copyrighted material owned by the TV networks.

Video footage can also be tracked and monitored via ContentID too, which I should imagine all major TV networks utilise to some extent (in order to issue video takedowns of exclusive network TV shows, for example).

1200 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Nominated Community Superstar of the month
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Has referred 1000+ members
+8 more
AlumoAudio says

...But eventually I believe all QUALITY music will be fingerprinted in one way or another.

Why? Because producers of quality music are doing it to make a living, and will treat it as a business. It is just a wise business decision to monetize on the ENORMOUS amount of illegal use they face.

Absolutely spot on Prestashop. Couldn’t have put it better myself.

1200 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Nominated Community Superstar of the month
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Has referred 1000+ members
+8 more
AlumoAudio says


To be accused of being ‘cheeky’ however is very disparaging and inflammatory and yet again I’m being made to feel as though I should be utterly ashamed of myself for even considering to protect my personal belongings, in an environment where it was until very recently, impossible to do so.

It is cheeky. I stand by my remark. I came here in good faith expecting to purchase something that could be used freely on my client’s channel without ads popping up on them

I find out months later that the person I purchased the license from has also been collecting ad revenue from it together with my visual creation on YouTube.

It happened. It’s cheeky. It’s taking revenue twice for the same entity. Why should I contribute toward the theft of your music on someone else’s video? That isn’t my problem, but you’re making me pay for it.

I sympathise with your predicament, but I have a right to be annoyed. You may be using adrev to protect your music, but you can’t deny you’re also taking revenue twice from honest folk who have already purchased the license to use your music ad-free.

We’re clearly on very different pages with all of this, and certainly not going to spend any more time trying to convince you otherwise.

But on the bright side, I guess you’re now aware of what to potentially expect when purchasing royalty free music (from anywhere).

1200 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Nominated Community Superstar of the month
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Has referred 1000+ members
+8 more
AlumoAudio says

PS: I wonder why nobody so far gave me an answer to my question what the reason is behind the license documents you get by purchasing a track?

Because some buyers refuse to acknowledge that’s what they’re actually buying. It breaks down their argument right from the start, and as a result, the meaning of ‘royalty free music’ gets twisted along the way.

If licenses weren’t available to the buyer when purchasing royalty free music, I would NEVER have included my music in a system such as AdRev. But then, I would never have uploaded that music to the internet in the first place, just to be stolen from under my nose, totally out of my control.

1200 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Nominated Community Superstar of the month
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Has referred 1000+ members
+8 more
AlumoAudio says

Ok, a very important update from YouTube themselves, announced just last week on their blog (popcorn at the ready guys):

Mystery solved: What happens when you upload a video with music

Also covered by TechCrunch here.

1200 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Nominated Community Superstar of the month
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Has referred 1000+ members
+8 more
AlumoAudio says

How do you know all of those are unlicensed and haven’t had licenses purchased for them? I’m hearing lots of you who have studied your AdRev data, see all your tracks that haven’t been cleared and then assume it must be stolen and unlicensed. It simply isn’t the case and I will tell you why….

As I mentioned following my stats snapshot, we’re able to preview the usages of our music via the dashboard.

I must have checked hundreds, if not thousands of these videos over the past couple of years, if anything to get a good feel of how this is being used. The very vast majority are almost always a rip, originating from my own YT videos from my channel. (I have used a an ever so slightly different version on my videos, than the versions available via RF marketplaces I sell licenses on, so I’m able to tell). There’s cell phone recording versions, and versions where the users have hacked away at the music to cut out watermarks and any other arbitrary noises (because they have ripped it from other videos).

But you’re right in the fact that there are versions up there that could well be genuinely licensed tracks, who haven’t cleared the copyright notice for whatever reason. But we simply cannot tell. This is one of the restrictions of the system I’m afraid, and something I’m not entirely happy with either. I could go through all 5000+ videos each month to check, but I honestly don’t have the resources to do this.

To be accused of being ‘cheeky’ however is very disparaging and inflammatory and yet again I’m being made to feel as though I should be utterly ashamed of myself for even considering to protect my personal belongings, in an environment where it was until very recently, impossible to do so.

I personally go above and beyond to tell my buyers that they must visit AdRev once they have purchased a license to use my music in their videos and I’m in a good position that I run a fairly successful YouTube channel with an ever growing subscriber base, especially of younger users. I refer many users from there to purchase music licenses and I communicate directly with these folks regularly, as part of my job and responsibility of being an online composer and creator.

These are the next generation of video producers, and the legitimate license buyers out of these are seemingly very understanding when I tell them that they will receive a copyright notice and will have to use their license. (they also get to see a disclaimer TWICE at least before they purchase my music; first on YouTube, then on the purchase item page itself). I very rarely have any issues from these types of buyers and they’ve always been very quick to adapt to YouTube’s heavy implementation of copyright policy (which has become quite a meme in the world of YouTube).

So let’s not twist this into some sort of scenario where we’re ‘taking advantage’ of our users, as you’re suggesting.

1200 posts Where words leave off, music begins.
  • Nominated Community Superstar of the month
  • Elite Author: Sold more than $75,000 on Envato Market
  • Has sold $75,000+ on Envato Market and is now an Elite Author
  • Has referred 1000+ members
+8 more
AlumoAudio says

Well, as for me, after reading all this thread, i changed my view on this problem. I decided to NOT submit my music to AdRev. Thats it. Koster, you win. It seems drawbacks of this system overwheight benefits.

Well that was a conversation stopper!

I’m off to bed. Night all! :)

by
by
by
by
by
by