Search the Community

I don’t want to open up a debate about copyright on music tracks, I think that’s been done to death several times. However as a photographers and filmmaker, copyright on music tracks does have an impact on the work we do. I think most of us prefer to do the right thing when we can too, so it is always nice to find a source of quality music tracks that we feel we can use, without attracting the attention of the righteous police. I thought I had done this with a company called Audio Network. They have a number of reasonable music tracks, with an option of buying track to suite their use, i.e. home and none monetarised You Tube publications etc. I bought some tracks and published a couple of films on You Tube only to find that Audio Network had made a claim for monetarisation, and consequently I now have some distasteful (in my opinion) advertising popping up with my films. I wrote to Audio Network who responded by saying: Thanks for your email. The home/student licence is a non-commercial licence for use on YouTube. However, in lieu of the low licence fee we maintain control over the monetisation in order to generate revenue for us and our composers. This licence allows you to use the tracks in any videos that aren’t promoting a business, product or service. If you don’t want advertising over your videos, our current policy is to release claims if the uploader has a corporate licence or above. If this is something you’d be interested in, please let me know. Now a corporate licence is £120 per track, so to me, buying the track as home/student licence user is a waste of time, you have effectively bought and paid for nothing. You may as well go and use any track of the internet and just agree when You Tube monetarise your video. Company’s like Audio Network always open the debate with the moral argument, we are getting the best deal for our composers. However we have to understand who the prime beneficiary is, Audio Network is a commercial company. I did get back in touch with them, as they did offer to release one track, but to me, this is just papering over the crack. This is my response, I would welcome your thoughts or comments of how we as photographers and filmmakers can get a better deal: Many thanks for your email…. I will decline your offer to release the claim on my video, I see as papering over the cracks and not as a solution; however, thank you all the same. While I understand your moral obligation to ensure you are getting the best deal for your composers, and your commercial obligations to your company, what is on offer under your present pricing structure give nothing to the filmmakers or photographers. I personal feel that in this now digital age of social media, photography and filmmaking there is an incredible opportunity to promote the platform that the photographers and filmmakers provide that mutely rewards both the endeavours of musicians and the photographers and filmmakers too. With your current pricing structure, business model and terms and conditions, I have effectively paid for a music track, and ended up with nothing. I don't think I need to tell you that the internet is full of billions of music tracks, of which I can use on you tube and just agree the copy write claim. There is also an incredible about of quality work released under the Creative Commons licence; so why buy off audio network? As I have said, I have had some interesting conversations on this subject, where photographers and filmmakers really want to do the right thing, but there need to be a mechanism to do so. Perhaps if you do find a way to review your business model, please let me know, you have some superb music, but your terms of use are not for me. Thanks again