I have no problem with 1099s. They will make filing easier in some ways. My biggest concern is the amount shown on the 1099 is not the same as the amount deposited into my account. If we have to jump through silly hoops with a crazy fee story and deductions it could get ugly come tax time. Especially since we never see the money supposedly paid in fees.
Just to reiterate and to make sure I understand. Envato’s stance is that they are only a facilitator and the author is licensing directly to the buyer and paying a fee to Envato for facilitating.
So Envato is bringing authors and licensors together via their marketplace – Essentially doing the same thing Ebay does. But with Ebay I know who each buyer is, I am paid directly from the buyer and I deal with each buyer directly. Once the transaction is complete I pay the listing fees to Ebay.
I am really confused how Envato can take the stance that they are only a facilitator when the financial flow of the transaction and the communication with the licensor does not in anyway reflect this.
I would love for someone from Envato to explain where my understanding is wrong.
Today I had the distinct opportunity to meet Gareth Coker in person and hear his amazing music being performed by a 50+ piece orchestra. He has composed the music for a video game that will be released soon and was in Nashville recording the score. (I am not sure how much he can make public so I will let him chime in if he can give more information).
His music was absolutely wonderful – what an incredibly talented composer!
Thanks for listening and making some changes to the licensing! Excited to see how it rolls out.
For acoustic I use a guitar I recently built (I have taken up guitar building).
Thanks for the response. One problem you are going to have with your licensing is that when people license music based on audience size they ALWAYS think in terms of DMA or audience reach. I sold television advertising for years and it is ALWAYS sold on audience reach not audience cum. 99.9% of advertising producers will look at the total number and assume it is the market DMA or audience reach not the cumulative audience views because buying based on estimated cum is not a common concept. I think you will have many advertisers buying the $18 license because they honestly believe they are purchasing the correct license based on how the industry works. (By the way one of my best friends produces one of the #1 radio shows in the us and ALL of their add sales are based on audience reach/DMA).
I have been selling on AJ for quite a while and am glad to see some movement in addressing audio needs.
Firstly I have to agree with the other posts that including ANY kind of broadcast rights for $18 is just wrong. For all intents and purposes $18 is a micro license and should be used only for things like youtube videos. If you have a budget for broadcast you certainly have more than $18 to spend on audio.
The PRO issue is one that is not going to go away. I have done several projects for websites that required me to be non-PRO because the ASCAP and BMI contracts are draconian for website owners. Take a look at their contracts sometime. If I were a website operator and was going to post a video with music I would never use PRO music because of the way the contracts are written.
I do believe that the composer/owner of the music should have the choice as to whether or not their music is registered with a PRO. Many of the other sites I am on allow the user to choose whether the music is registered with a PRO. This would be a very simple solution for AJ. By adding one field in the database and a simple check box on the upload form the problem is solved.
I have to agree with Tim McMorris. The changes are nice but the pricing is rediculously low.