KVR Audio

SampleScience · Post by **SampleScience** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:41 pm

http://blog.soundcloud.com/2012/10/09/getty-images/

You can now easily license your music with Getty Image through Soundcloud. The detailed infos are in the link above.

I'm trying it. I hope I won't get screw somehow. I'm not an expert in music licensing, but I have a very good book I haven't read yet on this topic.

Anyways, I trust Soundcloud so I guess it's alright.

any thoughts?

Gonga · Post by **Gonga** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:46 pm

Like you I know little about licensing, but this is an interesting topic, thanks for the thread, which I'm now following...

Zombie Queen · Post by **Zombie Queen** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:42 pm

I have little experience with Getty, which is running iStock service - if it's done the same way, Getty will get 9/10 and you will get 1/10, paid next year if you reach 10000$ threshold, on the other hand they actually can sell stuff. Getty is a giant in image stock business and I guess they try expanding, I only hope they won't buy out soundcloud, as they bought iStock.

Shabdahbriah · Post by **Shabdahbriah** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:51 pm

... interesting. thanks for the heads-up.

Tricky-Loops · Post by **Tricky-Loops** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:53 pm

Zombie Queen wrote:I have little experience with Getty, which is running iStock service - if it's done the same way, Getty will get 9/10 and you will get 1/10, paid next year if you reach 10000$ threshold, on the other hand they actually can sell stuff. Getty is a giant in image stock business and I guess they try expanding, I only hope they won't buy out soundcloud, as they bought iStock.

Maybe that's why they call themselves Getty and not Givy?

Shabdahbriah · Post by **Shabdahbriah** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:00 pm

Tricky-Loops wrote:
Zombie Queen wrote:I have little experience with Getty, which is running iStock service - if it's done the same way, Getty will get 9/10 and you will get 1/10, paid next year if you reach 10000$ threshold, on the other hand they actually can sell stuff. Getty is a giant in image stock business and I guess they try expanding, I only hope they won't buy out soundcloud, as they bought iStock.
Maybe that's why they call themselves Getty and not Givy?

Cute

fwiw: "Getty" is founded on "old (oil-baron) money".

SampleScience · Post by **SampleScience** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:14 pm

Tricky-Loops wrote:
Zombie Queen wrote:I have little experience with Getty, which is running iStock service - if it's done the same way, Getty will get 9/10 and you will get 1/10, paid next year if you reach 10000$ threshold, on the other hand they actually can sell stuff. Getty is a giant in image stock business and I guess they try expanding, I only hope they won't buy out soundcloud, as they bought iStock.
Maybe that's why they call themselves Getty and not Givy?

indeed...

tehlord · Post by **tehlord** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 10:33 pm

It's a weird move as they will be inundated with a tsunami like sea of shite from Soundcloud.

Getty give you 35% of initial fees and 50% of royalty payments (should there be any) and as has been mentioned they can be monumentally slow.

There are plenty of other library sites out there with solid reputations that would be my first choice before Getty tbh.

SampleScience · Post by **SampleScience** » Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:05 pm

tehlord wrote:There are plenty of other library sites out there with solid reputations that would be my first choice before Getty tbh.

Like...?

bradstark · Post by **bradstark** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:22 pm

The getty deal is a bad one. Here's why:

1. Getty acquired Pump Audio last year. The first order of business? Lower the royalty rate from 50/50 to 35/65 in their favor. Source: Film Music Mag

Just check out some of the comments if you'd like to know how composers reacted to this (hint: not too well).

I thought the 50/50 split was the final bastion of fairness between composers and 'publishers'. This is opportunism at its very worst, and I can't help feeling it exploits composers' sheer desparation to keep/get music in catalogues. I hope this is a one-off, and I hope even more that composers (for once) take a stand - not that I really expect it.

The new royalty rate is a disgrace. There is no justification for Getty to implement them other than pure greed. Pump ran so well under the old rates that Getty bought it! I am pulling my music off and finding an alternative. At some point you have to stand up against this short term thinking.

Here's an article that explains the royalty split:

Many musicians are unhappy since the rate you will receive is 35% of the upfront licensee fee plus 50% of Getty Images' share, as publisher, of any backend performance royalties... this is not an opportunity you need to be pursuing, especially since it can under-value the licensing opportunities you have on other services.

source: Museformation

50/50 split is basically standard for the industry and there are several companies out there that offer it.

Aside from the obviously unfair arrangement, there are other bad things about this.

Getty takes full control of how your music is used for any purpose that a producer is willing to use it for. If you don't want your music used for political parties, etc. You are out of of luck.

I had a lot more information to post but this forum is not allowing me to post it with constant "spam" warnings...

bradstark · Post by **bradstark** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:26 pm

And Getty has a history of lowering their rates too. Just last year, Getty lowered their rates for editorial contributors. Source: PDN Pulse

standalone · Post by **standalone** » Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:13 am

bradstark wrote:I had a lot more information to post but this forum is not allowing me to post it with constant "spam" warnings...

Now that you have five posts the spam filter won't bother you again.

bradstark · Post by **bradstark** » Sun Oct 14, 2012 2:21 am

My larger issue with Getty goes far beyond their "35%" rate. That's terrible enough as it is, but what's worse is what Getty is doing with the profit.

"Getty's brutal 'all you can eat' model is an attempt to price everyone else out of the market.... The other strategy Getty employ is to simply buy up the competition.... So now photographers are capturing their files digitally, making adjustments on their computer, captioning and keywording files before uploading them to Flickr. And all Getty are doing for their massive 70% cut is negotiating a price when someone asks and sending the invoice. That doesn't sound like a fair deal for photographers who are doing more than 70% of the work... This is a bad deal for just about everyone but Getty, unless Flickr is getting a substantial cut out of the 70%"

http://jwarren.co.uk/articles/the-getty-monster/

Buying up the competition and setting unfair rates. Kind of like what they are doing in the music licensing business? Supporting Getty is going to lead to the continued unethical business strategies in the music licensing business. We can expect that they will continue to aggressively buy out the competition and make rates lower for musicians. All based on our content, of course.

SampleScience · Post by **SampleScience** » Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:19 am

It's unethical indeed, but at the same time with the vast amount of music available, it's hard for musician to get paid for their music. Since the offer exceed the demand by large amounts, it comes as no surprise to me that the share rate changes.

Desire Inspires · Post by **Desire Inspires** » Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:10 pm

Is anybody still working with Getty Images/Pump Audio?

easy licensing with Soundcloud and GettyImage