Comments on: Rumblefish

By: MichaelL

MichaelL — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:03:28 +0000

Please Login to view this Content. (Not a member? Join Today!)

By: TimV

TimV — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 21:52:25 +0000

In Wednesday's email from CD Baby there's an article about licensing. At the end of the article they mentioned a new partnership with Rumblefish, which they said would be officially announced the next day. (That should have been yesterday, but I haven't yet seen an announcement.) I'm wondering if this is a cause for concern. I imagine there would be an option not to participate.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 03:45:14 +0000

Hi everyone; Here's a heads up on Rumblefish. Rumblefish has been using a digital ID system that identifies any music in the Rumblefish library when it is used on YouTube. This has caused conflicts when someone licensed some of my music through another library and received a notice from Rumblefish that they were in violation because the music was owned by Rumblefish. I was contacted by the other library and asked to solve the problem. My deal with both libraries was non-exclusive. I contacted Rumblefish and informed them of the problem and that our deal was not exclusive and they should remove the digital ID from my music. They refused and I was forced to remove all of my music from Rumblefish. I then found out that Rumblefish also sells the music on Friendly Music for $1.99 per track! It took another email to have them remove it from that site as well. I’m all for the digital ID system if the music is exclusive. But in this case it was done with music that is in place with multiple libraries and is non-exclusive.

By: Art

Art — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 18:37:49 +0000

Please Login to view this Content. (Not a member? Join Today!)

By: ChrisS

ChrisS — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 01:30:49 +0000

Please Login to view this Content. (Not a member? Join Today!)

By: MichaelL

MichaelL — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 00:05:29 +0000

Hi Chris, Time is a big issue. I read a lot of posts from writers who submit 75 tracks to this or that non-exclusive library and then get 74 of them rejected. I just can't do that and do my primary composing work too. I am in a different position. Because of my television work, it's just more efficient for me to develop and nurture a few good relationships rather than chase 400 different libraries. There is no single path. It took many years to get to this point. If I was starting out, yes I would try everything. Best of luck to you. Michael

By: ChrisS

ChrisS — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:24:13 +0000

Thank you Michael. As a new member, I am still trying to figure out the best way to submit songs. Why wouldn't you submit to non-exclusives.? It is the new model and it is vital. You get to keep all of your copyrights of your songs. I see the re-title issue as necessary to keep the songs sorted out between the different libraries. Instead of taking a chance that your songs sit on the shelf of one exclusive library, never to be pitched, you have many libraries exposing your music. Also, the smaller exclusives tend to be bought by the larger ones, and when that happens your song sits again on the shelf. I really appreciate your input. ChrisS

By: MichaelL

MichaelL — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:39:27 +0000

Hi Chris, I have music in 7 exclusive libraries and two RF libraries (at this time). I have not submitted to any non-excluive licensing agent re-title libraries (like Crucial), and I don't know if I will. I've been at it for 30 years (except for that dark time when I practiced law :lol:). The vast majority of my library work has come through personal networking, not online submissions, so I can't really answer your question regarding percentages. I'm very fortunate now in that I am composing for a number of syndicated television shows, nothing too high profile. But, it takes up most of my time, so, I don't spend a lot of time submitting tracks to libraries. I am, however, starting to put some of my catalog into a few RF libraries. I like that business model as another potential revenue stream. Sorry, I wish I could be more helpful. Cheers, Michael

By: ChrisS

ChrisS — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 16:58:48 +0000

Hi Michael: I am new to musiclibraryreport, but have been in music most of my life. I have to admit that I am cynical about the writing end of the business because I have been hosed in the past from the traditional publishing model. I am looking for a new and better way to do it without losing control of my songs forever. You seem well versed and involved in a vision of the bigger picture. How are you proceeding with your submissions? What percentage do you submit to exclusives versus non-exclusives. Thank you, ChrisS

By: MichaelL

MichaelL — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 01:14:37 +0000

Hey Dan, I don't think that you're being cynical. There's a reason that Rumblefish is on AudioSparx "banned" list. As far Rumblefish's association with Crucial (and I think you said APM in another post), it makes perfect sense. "New media" for lack of a better term is exploding. There are thousands, if not millions, of home grown videos being shown on social media and youtube. That market is exploding. But those producers only want to spend a few dollars on music (most likely a whole week's allowance :lol: ). APM and Crucial are tapping into the low end of the market. It's worth noting that at the PMA meeting Ron Mendelsohn said that the real battle was not going to be between exclusives and non-exclusives, it was going to be between non-exclusives and royalty free libraries for lower end customers. If Crucial is in fact associating with Rumblefish I'd say that gives credence to Mr. Mendelsohn's prediction. "If you can't beat 'em join 'em" as the saying goes --also known as a strategic alliance. "Lets hear from someone who can say yeah rumblefish and have actually made good money from them." I don't know how that would be possible except if someone licensed thousands of tracks. _Michael