Alright, so it feels like we’ve been talking about Soundcloud on the blog a lot lately, but I guess that goes to show that they’re a company on the rise.
The latest? Soundcloud has announced that they will be partnering with Getty Images Music to offer licensing deals to their artists directly through the music platform.
The new Soundcloud-Getty arrangement will give artists the option to make their tracks available for commercial opportunities by including a “licensing” button right on the music player.
I’m a big supporter of artist’s licensing their music. In today’s cash-strapped music industry, licensing is a great resource for artists to profit financially from the music itself. However, some interesting points were raised by Bruce Houghton in his blog post on the Soundcloud-Getty deal, that may not make it as friendly for artists as the headlines suggests…
What’s the incentive?
This deal will make it very easy for ANY artist to make their music available for licensing. What kind of cash are we talking? Here are some examples of rates from the Getty Image Music rate card:
Single use, Web or Mobile Programming = $99 USD
Podcast Advertising = $125
Radio Advertising = $500
Corporate Use = $1,500
For film or television usage, or national or international advertising, the licensor would have to contact Getty for a direct quote. Not bad, and it costs the artist nothing to sign up and offer their music for these deals
How do the sales break down?
Soundcloud artists receive “35% of the upfront licensee fee plus 50% of Getty Images’ share, as publisher, of any backend performance royalties”.
So what’s the catch?
Artists will have zero control over where their music is used. To quote Soundcloud directly “Your agreement with Getty Images Music allows us to license your music to any client who is willing to pay money for its use. The agreement you sign pre-clears all of your music for potential licensing.”
The reasoning for this: “Pre-clearance is a strong selling point for our clients who are more likely to use music that causes them less hassle.”
What’s more, the artist won’t necessarily be told of where their music is being used before the usage airs. They’ll of course tell you on your financial statement, but they can’t guarantee that you’ll be told in advance.
What do you think?
Houghton makes an interesting point in that 50% (fair or otherwise) going to companies who place and license songs is relatively standard practice for the current music industry. However, that usually involves the company actively pitching the music around to find proper placement. In this case Getty really isn’t doing any of that work, only making it available for licensors to come find.
So I’m curious as to what artists think. This sounds like a great opportunity for an artist to gain licensing revenue, but is it necessarily worth giving up 100% control over the usage of your work?
I can understand the pre-clearance as it creates less hassle for the licensor. It’s the same concept as creating less hassle for the artist having to arrange licensing deals. But again, is total relinquishment over usage of your art asking too much of an artist?
Is the revenue distribution fair? Should Getty be receiving a 50% share? Is this a good deal for your music?
I’d love to get some opinions from artists and others! Post your comments below and let us know what you think!
I’ve written an article on the Getty/Soundcloud partnership called “Getty Licensing Partnership with SoundCloud: 35% Licensing Fees for Musicians” posted on audiogang.org. I believe this is a bad deal for several reasons: The licensing fees are below the average and the agreement allows Getty to use your music for any purpose (not standard in the industry). My biggest issue with Getty is what they do with their profits. As an example, In 2009 they acquired Pump Audio and their first order of business was to lower payouts for music artists from 50/50 to 35/65 in their favor. This is also what Getty has done in the stock photography industry. Put another way, Getty uses profits from unfair rates to buy the competition, lower payouts, increase their market share, and further profit from the industry.
Hey Brad,
Thanks so much for reading and taking the time to comment! Really enjoyed your post on the Getty-Soundcloud deal as well. I think you make totally valid points, and I’d likely be hesitant as an artist/composer as well if I had to relinquish 100% control for a revenue percentage that doesn’t seem to compensate evenly based on work put in.
I wasn’t aware of the Audio Pump reduced payout situation, but that certainly is interesting. Especially considering the 65/35 payout was justified on the need to pay staff. With this Soundcloud arrangement, Getty will take an “industry standard” fee when in fact they’re putting in less staff hours as they’re not actively pitching the music as other licensing agencies do.
Considering your role as a composer I absolutely understand your concerns. Thanks again for posting!
(Here’s the link to Brad’s article: http://audiogang.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1073&Itemid=33)
yep i agree with
I read this. I agree with the conditions. http://www.produmusic.com/
At this point I have about 25 instrumental compositions licensed through Getty Music Imagines. I don’t expect to receive a dime for any of them. I merely use the service to CMA and as free media player platform to post in other areas. I, as many have, received a form letter from pump audio stating, “You crossed the first hurdle, we are interested in your work, please submit two pieces through our mp3 player.” Of course the player does not work so, they’ve got that going for them.