Royalty free music?

photogmomma

I've googled and listened to a TON of different music, but I'm just overwhelmed by the vast amount... And almost everything I've listened to is... well... not what I'm looking for. So! I'd love to know what you use and where you got it!

Mainly I'm looking for wedding-type music. Any suggestions? I'd also love something fun and upbeat. A love song, too, maybe.

Anyway, thanks in advance!

Lee Massey

Hi Andi,

Are you looking for a few specific tracks or a general collection? Just curious...

Thanks,

Lee

urbanaries

this is an interesting question. what's your intended use?

a veteran DJ told me not too long ago that if a photographer used a rights-managed track for a private use, ie. a DVD slideshow, it is covered under the same private use clause that allows him to play the track during a reception.

That clause would prevent him from DJing a public event without paying royalties. He went on to offer to burn me a disc of the bride and groom's "songs" for the intent of using them in their slideshow. Haven't taken him up on it, and don't know if I buy his line, but I can't see that he has more to gain than lose from that proposition.

Totally off subject, if one more person uses that ukelele version of "what a wonderful world" on their website or commercial, i'm going to puke.

photogmomma

Hey, Lee... Mainly I wanted to use it for creating CDs for clients to use.... As for what I'm looking for, I have about 10 songs I love that are all copyrighted that I can't use so exactly dupes of them as royalty free would be great!

Seriously, though, I'd probably just get 2 or 3 songs that have a universal-ish feel to them and see if I like 'em. Who knows, I may not even do them.

I'd also like to use them for short videos I'd post on my site as examples of what can be done. (Now if only I can get SM to upgrade video capabilities! !)

Lynne, that's interesting to hear... I'm not sure that's true, though. Does that mean you'd be okay with someone taking a photo from your site and using it in their private slideshow? That's how I think it works.... If you make ANY copy of it, I'm not sure if it works. But I think it's worth investigating.

I'd probably do that for friends and family, though, and not worry. It's clients I don't know that I wouldn't....

Thanks for the feedback! I'd love to hear what others actually use/do!

urbanaries

photogmomma wrote:

Lynne, that's interesting to hear... I'm not sure that's true, though. Does that mean you'd be okay with someone taking a photo from your site and using it in their private slideshow? That's how I think it works.... If you make ANY copy of it, I'm not sure if it works. But I think it's worth investigating.

I'm not sure either, but photo copyright law could be very different from music law? The fact that DJs can legally play rights-managed tracks for a "private" crowd of hundreds is curious, though.

photogmomma

urbanaries wrote:

I'm not sure either, but photo copyright law could be very different from music law? The fact that DJs can legally play rights-managed tracks for a "private" crowd of hundreds is curious, though.

Very good point! Hmmm.... I think this bears looking into. It would certainly make things easier!

I would still like to find some good songs, but would much rather make a DVD that has music that means something to the client.....

Thanks, Lynne!

Anna_K

Well honey u obviously need some royalty free music for your clients.Saves you from all the copyright mumbo jumbo.

Why dont u try look into some of the websites that provides these kinda stuffs.I am a small time indie movie maker and usually i go to www.opuzz.com to get my music collections.Usually coz they provide music clips that is excellent for my opening sequence etc,i dont need to cut and edit much from it.They even sell a hard drive full of music but it does come at a cost.But if ure really serious about it,it is worth it.

Lee Massey

Hi Andi,

A while back I decided to get some royalty free music for some of my wedding customers so that I could create a slideshow of their day. Quickly I found (IMO) that there was quite a bit of RFM available at a reasonable price, however much of the RFM was ... how to say this politely... cheesy.

The good news is that with searching and sifting through what is available you should be able to obtain several tracks that meet your needs.

Here is a list of the sites that I checked out that might be of some use:

http://www.musicbakery.com
http://www.q-music.co.uk/index.php
http://www.shockwave-sound.com/
http://www.studiocutz.com
http://www.gmpmusic.com/

This one is particularly popular among wedding photographers... Look at "Beyond Words" which sounds much like Enya.

Beyond Words - http://www.musicbakery.com/June98.html

Anyway, like photography RFM is highly subjective. Either way, I hope this helps...

Thanks,

Lee

jziegler

It might not be quite what you had in mind as "royalty free" music, but you might want to take a look at www.magnatune.com and see if they have anything of interest to you. They are an online record label that works directly with their artists. There would be a licensing fee for what you want to do, but probably pretty reasonable. All of their music is free to listen to online so you can listen to anything that you'd like for samples. And it supports the artists directly, when I looked at them before (for other reasons, my wife is a singer) half of any sale goes to the artist.

populus

Greg Maroney is a pianist who creates music that is perfect for wedding CDs/DVDs. His music is not a cheap as some of the $.99 stuff you find on the internet, but if you want a quality of music that matches your photos, Greg's work is worth a listen. Greg's site is here. (And despite my enthusiasm, I have no commercial or personal connection with him).

And yes, you absolutely do need to use royalty-free music for which you have the proper use rights. You can't sell CDs/DVDs using rights-owned music unless you want to risk getting sued. Keep in mind that if you get sued by someone who owns a registered copyright (and all professional musicians do), there is an automatic $15,000 penalty per violation plus federal court costs and attorney's fees. Definitely not worth the risk.

mercphoto

populus wrote:

And yes, you absolutely do need to use royalty-free music for which you have the proper use rights. You can't sell CDs/DVDs using rights-owned music unless you want to risk getting sued. Keep in mind that if you get sued by someone who owns a registered copyright (and all professional musicians do), there is an automatic $15,000 penalty per violation plus federal court costs and attorney's fees. Definitely not worth the risk.

I've seen people ask about RF music before on the Sports Shooter forum and those people usually get flamed pretty quickly. "If RF is bad for us, its bad for the musician as well".
But how exactly to you risk getting sued by using Rights Managed music as long as you negotiate a fee and pay for rights you are using?

populus

mercphoto wrote:

I've seen people ask about RF music before on the Sports Shooter forum and those people usually get flamed pretty quickly. "If RF is bad for us, its bad for the musician as well".
But how exactly to you risk getting sued by using Rights Managed music as long as you negotiate a fee and pay for rights you are using?

RF is not bad for musicians if they are the ones selling it!

Let's take the wedding photographer as an example. Typically, a wed photog would produce a few copies of a DVD for her clients. If she buys a RF piano tune from Greg Maroney, as an example, she can reuse the same tune for multiple clients without having to negotiate or buy a new license for each use. Eventually, she will want to diversify her tune base, so all clients don't get the same tunes. So she is likely to go back to Greg and buy some more.

With Rights Managed tunes, she will have to get a license for each wedding, or pay for some kind of bulk-usage license. Rights Managed is a good choice if you are going to make hundreds of copies of the same DVD, but that is not what most photogs do.

At the other end of the scale from a musician like Greg Maroney is Kevin McLeod, the proprietor of the wonderful Incompetech site. He just gives his stuff away. A great source for stings, tags and other short pieces, but I have used his longer pieces for presentations lasting many minutes, especially sports events. Again, you are not short-changing Kevin - he gives his stuff away with his eyes open.

My point about getting sued is the original post implied that rights-managed music was being used without a valid license (indeed I think this is very common among photogs). That exposes the photog to a small, but extremely expensive, risk of being sued.

The choice about whether to use RF or RM music is up to the photographer, but just as we don't want people stealing our intellectual property, we shouldn't steal the work of musicians.

mercphoto

populus wrote:

RF is not bad for musicians if they are the ones selling it!

The traditional argument on Sports Shooter is that RF is usually priced low, even though in reality the person making the purchase is getting MORE usage rights and LESS hassle, but for a lower fee, which seems a bit paradoxical. Getting less for more. Great for the customer, bad for the photographer. Same argument applies to the musician.

My point about getting sued is the original post implied that rights-managed music was being used without a valid license (indeed I think this is very common among photogs). That exposes the photog to a small, but extremely expensive, risk of being sued.

Agreed. I didn't catch onto the implication that the RM music was going to be used without a license, and that is bad and risky, as you state. But same with RF music --- you cannot use it without paying a fee either. Perhaps the word "free" in "royalty free" is a bit misleading.

For the record I'm personally not for or against RF or RM myself. People can decide which business model they want. RF has the advantage that the photographer doesn't have to police the client and be sure they don't use the image beyond the rights they paid for. I am a bit puzzled by those who give their creative endeavors and hard work away for free, but I also realize that stupidity and short-sightedness isn't a crime. I do, however, get in a bit of a huff when I see the guys at sportsshooter.com gripe about free photos and RF photos, and then start asking about free music and RF music.

jziegler

mercphoto wrote:

The traditional argument on Sports Shooter is that RF is usually priced low, even though in reality the person making the purchase is getting MORE usage rights and LESS hassle, but for a lower fee, which seems a bit paradoxical. Getting less for more. Great for the customer, bad for the photographer. Same argument applies to the musician.

While it is usually lower priced, it sometimes can earn the musician more than RM would. In the example of magnatune.com, the musician(s) is paid half of the licensing fee. In the case of a major record label, which would be RM, the artist would get a tiny percentage of a much higher licensing fee, with the record company making a huge profit. I'd imagine that much of the RF music similarly benefits the musicians. So, it might just be a case of getting more (for the photographer and the musician) for less (thanks to having less/smaller middlemen).

briangold

its a bit late to add this 2 royalty free music websites. What makes this 2 sites different to the other royalty free music websites is that you dont have to fill out cuesheets or something else. the music is free of rights to any performing rights organisation world wide.

http://www.massivetracks.net/royalty-free-music.htm
http://www.gemafreie-musik-online.de

greets
brian

takeflightphoto

Licensed and Royalty-free Music...similar to photos
As a published composer/songwriter and 40 year member of ASCAP, I can speak to this issue with a bit of knowledge.

All music that is published is subject to licensing, just like our photography. A license can be limited in scope or broad in application. Take a popular song, for instance. The composer/writer either has their own publishing company or works with one. The publisher of the music files the copyright and then licenses the work through one of the rights management agencies (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, etc). When a song is played on the air, the radio station, through their license agreement with the agency, pays a performance royalty. If another artist "covers" the song on a recording, they pay a royalty for that right. A DJ, whether playing music at a public or private event, is "supposed" to pay performance royalties for the music they use, but this is the least enforced area of music. Almost all clubs/bars/hotels, etc., have licenses with ASCAP and BMI to cover music played in their establishments. A church or school where a DJ might do a private gig is typically not licensed. So the writer and performer lose royalties when their music is played there.

Royalty-free music is a different animal, but still is licensed in a different way. It is not published or filed with the rights management agency, but sold outright with a license for use of some sort. If you are buying tracks online for $ .99, I am sure there is some sort of statement that says "for private, personal, not for profit use only" or some such. The composer is hoping to sell lots of $ .99 clips of music to pay for their creative efforts, but don't want to deal with the whole idea of publishing/agency/royalties when they can just sell downloads on their own website.

The analogy here is the difference between limited rights sale of a photographic image, with a very specific license afforded to the buyer, and placing your work with a stock agency where folks can go in and pay a set amount for whatever use that agency sets. Hopefully, the smaller fees you get from the agency will add up to be an amount equal to the value you would set for a single sale.

Just the same as we talk about licensing and rights-grabs and other issues to protect our photographic work, musicians have the same issues. Be absolutely sure that when you take/buy so-called "royalty-free" music, that you really do have the rights to play it as much as you wish and to put it on a CD/DVD for your client to play as much as they wish.

jon

Sweeper

What about funeral related music
I recently had a discussion with someone in the music recording biz about using music in memorial DVD's and web shows for the deceased. He stated that there is a special relaxation of rules for use as long as it was applied to an identified memorial DVD or if the show was posted at or linked from a funeral homes website. He was supposed to get back to me with contact numbers so that I could investigate this more.

Is anyone aware of such an easement of the rules and if so, where can I check this out.

...Steve

Photog4Christ

Triple Scoop Music

The Music Bakery

barnyard

Waaaaay back in the day, I bought music from Charles Lewis a photographer from Michigan. I would guess he would come up in a google search.

We produced 'Reflections' slideshows, back in the day. Slideshows set to music. We always resisted using client CDs to avoid any copyright issues.

It's my belief that a photographer that uses other's music without paying for it, has no right complaining when someone scans their photos and makes copies without paying for them.

Tom B

griffed

found good selection at http://www.themusicase.com