Nav: Home
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2012, 21:59

Login with username, password and session length

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors


« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print

Topic: Frampton Sues over Royalties  

(Read 282 times)
rubyroo



« on: December 31, 2011, 14:56 »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16353744

From the article:

"In the past, record labels have argued that online sales should be treated the same as physical album sales.

"But artists say that, because online music does not incur packaging and shipping costs that are usually paid for by the record company, they should be entitled to larger royalty percentages."


Ignore | Logged


DepositPhotos.com
Karimala



« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2011, 15:29 »

Which reminds me of a chart I saw recently showing various royalties for musicians based on distribution method.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/


Ignore | Logged


Karimala



« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2011, 15:40 »

This part of the original article at the Tennesseean is quite interesting and could apply to us (and IS's ridiculously low royalty structure):

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20111224/BUSINESS06/312230091/Peter-Frampton-sues-digital-music-royalties

Quote
Record labels have argued that online sales should be treated the same as physical album sales, with the company getting a lion’s share of the royalties for such transactions, typically between 80 percent and 90 percent.

Artists have argued that because the sale of music online involves none of the expenses that record labels typically incur for selling an album — such as packaging and shipping — they’re entitled to the same larger royalty checks that artists typically get for music licensed to movies or TV shows. That is most often a 50/50 royalty split.

A federal appeals court earlier this year sided with rapper Eminem and his producers that music sold online is “licensed” and therefore entitled to the larger cut. That decision has opened the door for other artists with similar contract language to stake their own claims in court.


Used to be the agencies sent out print catalogs and sold images on CDs, which all cost extra money.  IS has yet to adequately justify why 20% was unsustainable when it has none of these types of associated costs.  Do server costs require that much of a cut of the royalties?
« Last Edit: December 31, 2011, 15:49 by Karimala »

Ignore | Logged


gostwyck

Dreamstime GaugeiStock Gauge
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2011, 15:47 »

Used to be the agencies sent out print catalogs and sold images on CDs, which all cost extra money.  IS has yet to adequately justify why 20% was unstainable when it has none of these types of associated costs.  Do server costs require that much of a cut of the royalties?

Exactly. It looks like they are getting their comeuppance though. With sales falling H&F's little cash cow has turned sour on them. Istock's re-sale value will be worth a lot less now than it was before they got uber-greedy. Trouble is we've all lost money as a result of their greed and impatience.


Ignore | Logged


rubyroo



« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2011, 15:59 »

Used to be the agencies sent out print catalogs and sold images on CDs, which all cost extra money.  IS has yet to adequately justify why 20% was unsustainable when it has none of these types of associated costs.  Do server costs require that much of a cut of the royalties?

Exactly indeed!  

I do hope these musicians' cases will have a positive ripple-effect towards all downloadable art forms.

Thanks so much for those links.   I feel bad enough receiving a lowly commission for the hours I put into image creation.  If I'd spent one to three years of my life producing an album, I'd be absolutely livid.



 


Ignore | Logged


djpadavona



« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2011, 15:59 »

One of my favorite new bands, The Civil Wars, are selling a ton of music unsigned. They embraced the internet and digital sales, said to heck with finding a record label. There is an interview with them on Youtube where they talk about the benefits of keeping the money they earn, rather than splitting it several ways with the label. As they say in the interview, by staying unsigned they are able to make a living with their music, whereas they would not with a label.


Ignore | Logged


rubyroo



« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2011, 16:18 »

That's great to hear.  I'm afraid the musicians and performers in my life have been trying to crack the market through CD Baby etc. for years, and have hardly sold a thing.  I suspect that's a more common experience, but it's always wonderful to hear a success story.  Good for them  Grin


Ignore | Logged


Envateo Photo ToolsMicrostock Insider
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
Confusing Royalties
Dreamstime.com
phildate 7 1311 Last post June 09, 2009, 22:26
by rene
Greek sues over photo on 'Turkish' yoghurt « 1 2 3 »
General Stock Discussion
gostwyck 69 8464 Last post July 14, 2010, 18:44
by jsnover
$ 100 000 royalties? « 1 2 3 »
iStockPhoto.com
MicrostockExp 55 8928 Last post August 17, 2010, 16:57
by cmcderm1
Associated Press sues retailers over iconic Obama image
General Stock Discussion
gostwyck 2 526 Last post March 12, 2011, 18:19
by madelaide
Royalties balance gone?
iStockPhoto.com
click_click 9 485 Last post August 08, 2011, 18:53
by VB inc

TinyPortal v1.0.5 beta 1© Bloc