Just simply modifying it for their YouTube video.In this case the buyer doesn’t have to request permission. Editing track and combining it with additional content is a standard part of any RF license. Clause 6: You can modify or manipulate the Item. You can combine the Item with other works and make a derivative work from it.
I guess that clears it up. Thanks for the responses guys!
Hi, so I’m sure this happens a lot and I wanted to get some of your thoughts and experiences. I’m talking about buyers modifying tracks, specifically slapping their own vocal on an instrumental. I’m not talking about the cases of artists reselling it as their own works on iTunes or whatever. Just simply modifying it for their YouTube video.
When the buyer does request permission, how do you deal with it?
Congrats indeed! Well done Gareth
Haha, congrats & congrats AudioPapa!! Hope that million comes your way too
AKG 702 for the bulk of my mixing. Awesome cans but as Gareth mentioned they do lack a little low end. Thats when I reach for the ATH-M50’s. These bad boys are so detailed in the low end its crazy. You can hear everything!
Shut the doors, dim the lights & lets have a lock-in!
That was my initial thought but having read the suggestions here I’m more in favor of keeping them open and implementing:
- Auto delete function on tracks that don’t sell after three months - Capped portfolios (100 tracks) - Author acceptance based on quality of past work (submissions) - And of course, a killer search engine!!!
Hi Ben, that’s awesome news. Can’t wait to hear more!
$1,000 will look inexpensive. By contrast, a $17 licensing fee doesn’t seem legit to these same companies.
Exactly.. The low licensing fees can look a bit Mickey Mouse to a lot of production houses/agencies.
How about an opt in/out option for T.V usage? That way at least composers who feel they’re getting ripped off have a choice.