Muserk Thinks We Need More Royalty-Free Stock Music…

Screen shot 2014-09-30 at 2.50.11 PM

Companies like Epidemic Sound, Rumblefish, and AudioBlocks are trying to make production and stock music as inexpensive as possible. Now we can add one more company to this trending sector: Muserk.

Muserk has just launched as a music licensing platform for digital content with a library of 50,000 tracks. Licenses are sold for a one time fee and are valid forever. Muserk says a license for a monetized YouTube video costs around $14.95.

The company is also working on a tool that would allow users to upload videos and sync them to tracks in the library. Synced videos can be directly shared on YouTube or Facebook for a fee. Muserk hopes that labels will use the tool in the future, saying:

“Future functionality would allow users to sync their original video content with big-name artists and tracks and share them to YouTube and Facebook as part of targeted marketing campaigns.”

 

Nina Ulloa covers breaking news, tech, and more. Follow her on Twitter: @nine_u

10 Responses

  1. Willis

    They need more free music so they can make money from it without having to pay for it. Yeah, that makes sense.

    Reply
    • Muserk

      Willis, that is not true. The facts are we have a 50/50 deal with all of our composers, so they get 50% of whatever we get. Clearly your statement is not true and not informed. Additionally if anyone has any questions or comments we are more than happy to answer them. We are a company by composers for composers.

      Reply
      • Desire Inspires

        The composers get 50% of whatever you get. Did you mention that you get zero? LMFAO @ these dudes. Still the same BS with most royalty free companies. Hustlers in suits with velvet tongues selling “the dream”.

        Reply
  2. what does this even mean?

    Questions:

    What does synch have to do with royalties? Do you mean cue sheets are unnecessary and there is no pub/writer share? So you’re circumventing things like ASCAP/BMI, right?

    Who gets screwed, if not the artist, on that?

    In addition to the other examples, Pump Audio also just went to this model. How are you different?

    Are you non-exclusive?

    If so, do you retitle?

    Do you see the future of retitling in the world of digital recognition?

    Which 50% do you get – the upfront fee? And is it fair to say you do that by guaranteeing the user no royalties, in effect negating the backend 100%, in effect screwing the composer/artist/creator?

    Do you cloak this plan, which is well known to anyone since Freeplay and before, by saying things like “We are by composers for composers?” The Freeplay people were, too, right?

    Reply
    • Muserk

      What does synch have to do with royalties? Do you mean cue sheets are unnecessary and there is no pub/writer share? So you’re circumventing things like ASCAP/BMI, right?

      Who gets screwed, if not the artist, on that?

      In addition to the other examples, Pump Audio also just went to this model. How are you different?

      I believe there is some confusion regarding the terms Royalty Free versus Non-Rights Managed. We are PRO-affiliated along with our composers and do not forfeit the backend. In fact, many Royalty Free libraries contain music registered with PROs, and outline the cue sheet process within their licensing agreements. In our case, Royalty Free means that tracks can be licensed for a production seen worldwide, in perpetuity. This is simply a way to describe to a modern day content creator that they only need to pay once. In short, on Muserk, a content creator can license a song once and never have to worry about coming back and licensing the work again. Non-rights managed libraries completely forfeit PRO income. As mentioned above, we are PRO-affiliated.

      Are you non-exclusive?

      We have both exclusive and non-exclusive tracks.

      If so, do you retitle?

      Yes.

      Do you see the future of retitling in the world of digital recognition?

      For now, as long as metadata is clean, and composers communicate to libraries their current involvement in recognition platforms (YouTube CID, etc.) conflicts can be avoided. Additionally, retitling a track is just one issue associated with recognition platforms. Loops even within exclusive compositions can and quite often do trigger matches on recognition platforms. As technology improves, PROs adapt and standard practices are established, these issues will most likely be resolved.

      Which 50% do you get – the upfront fee? And is it fair to say you do that by guaranteeing the user no royalties, in effect negating the backend 100%, in effect screwing the composer/artist/creator?

      As stated above, we do not negate the backend. We get 50% of Sync and a percentage of backend, depending on the agreement (exclusive or non-exclusive).

      Do you cloak this plan, which is well known to anyone since Freeplay and before, by saying things like “We are by composers for composers?” The Freeplay people were, too, right?

      Not sure what you mean by cloaking, as you can see we are quite transparent. If you have any other questions about our library, please let us know!

      Reply
  3. There is something...

    Nobody get screwed here… First, nobody is forced to use that kind of library, so it’s up to you.

    Royalty free means that the only thing the user has to pay is the upfront fee, shared between the company and the composer. Music on that kind of service must not be registered with a Pro. I don’t think there are many “artists” working with that kind of service. Most are composer who write dedicated musical content that match this kind of service. Most users are seeking very generic stuff, not the latest top 40 single.

    Reply
  4. Mik

    $7 after the commission with lifetime perpetual use license and retitling on top of that? Doesn’t look like a really good deal for the composer, even in the royalty free market. Just my 2 cents..

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *