Sarah Gavigan » Music Licensing

Creative Commons in Fashion; how does it realte to Music Licensing?

admin — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:32:19 +0000

I love getting my weekly TED email with the incredible 20 minute speeches from people all over the world, talking about everything from our food sources to electromagnetic fields. It’s a modern media encyclopedia of genius theorems.

In this talk, Johanna Blakley explores the results of an industry that embraces creative commons.

This is serious food for thought in relation to the music copyright industry.

Licensing music of deceased artists to Advertising; moral or not?

admin — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:20:22 +0000

I am not the best at checking on my social media channels, but today as I was working today I checked my YouTube page and found that the Chevy Corvette spot I finished last month and posted to my YouTube page had some serious comments on it. I felt the need to share this. First, take a look at the spot:

This track is unmistakable if you have ever been a fan of folk or bluegrass from the 60′s and 70′s. It’s timeless.

Here is what my commenter had to say:

A trend in the commercial music industry I have become greatly upset with is the using of classic American music, largely from the 60′s, to sell things on TV. After hearing the Stones or Nick Drake or now (sadly) John Fahey, countless times lined up with AT & T or Chevy I can’t help but think of their products when I listen to these artists albums at home. This makes me sad.

I don’t want to think of AT & T when I listen to Nick Drake, and I certainly don’t want to think of Chevy when I listen to John Fahey. It’s one thing for the Stones to sell the rights to their songs as they’re living, but lending deceased artists’ music to products in a manner they probably wouldn’t approve of is a morally dubious endeavor.

The two recent and unfortunate choices ( Nick Drake & John Fahey) of using tragic folk musicians, (Drake suicide, Fahey died alone and penniless) to sell items for large multi-billion dollar corporations smacks of a sad irony that plagues today’s commercial industry.

It is important that we do not treat art as a mere commodity. Most certainly John Fahey’s music has nothing to do with selling Chevy’s and I hope in the future you consider the importance and seriousness of the artists and their music whom you align with advertisements on TV. I ask you to think twice before lending deceased artists music to TV ads, ( especially people like John Fahey)

MY REPLY:

I think it is an extreme view to say that using their music is a “morally dubious endeavor.” When a piece of music is used, the rights holders are paid quite well. The music is used legally and the rights are given by the “owners” of that music.

As a matter of fact, one of the gentlemen who helmed this project is the son of one of the former members of The Kingston Trio, whom many consider to be as important a touchstone to folk music as Mr. Fahey was. I think he would agree, if the estate needs the money and the music is reflected in a positive light, it is a great thing for all parties.

So, let me repeat – the rights holders AGREED and they were paid well for the use of music in this commercial. I hope that Mr. Fahey was smart enough to see to it that his estate was set up in a way that his loved ones will get to see that money.

Music Licensing is one of the only consistent and reliable sources of revenue and marketing for artists today, and as the music business does, licensing in advertising follows the trends, and dare I say, sometimes we help set them. There are hundreds of artists who will see this spot and be inspired by the music. There are thousands of people who will see this spot and go buy John Fahey’s record, or even pull their old record back out.

You see this as a tragedy, but we see it as an homage that is one way to keep his spirit alive and back into the collective conscious of the music lovers everywhere. For the record, due to the resurgence in popularity of Nike Drake’s music after the Volkswagen commercial “Pink Moon” (which is arguable one of the best commercials ever made) the record label re-released his music with great success.

HIS REPLY:

You seem to miss my point. My point was not that the estates of Nick Drake and John Fahey may or may not being compensated nicely, it is that these artists, especially John Fahey, would not have wanted his music used to help sell Chevy cars. His music has nothing to do with Chevy cars. Fahey was an avidly independent and non-commercial artist by principle. It is simply inappropriate to use his serious and important music for a car commercial without his permission.

You repeatedly point out that , “everyone is paid nicely” . This however misses the principle of my point : John Fahey certainly would not have approved of his music being used to help Chevy boost its image.

MY REPLY

Your point is taken, but how do you know that Fahey and Drake would say no if they were alive today? There is simply no way to know. I staunchly (as said here) support artists right to say no to music licensing in ads or any other medium. I personally have worked with bands that have turned down hundreds of thousands of dollars based on principle. But I, again choose to see this as a positive broadcast of John Fahey’s music. Albiet that I am slightly biased, being a music supervisor in commercials.

This brings me to a larger point that you have helped me make sir:

ARTISTS AND MUSICIANS, be clear in your contracts and in your will what you ARE willing to have your music used for. If you have sold your publishing, then you may have lost creative control. The only REAL way we are to know your wishes is if you clearly leave them behind.

Who is to be held responsible for an artist or musicians wishes once he is gone? If the use of your music is important to you, then think about it, write it down and place it into the hands of people you trust. Music is immortal, and there is no way to tell what is coming in the future and in what crazy ways your music might be heard, but give it some serious thought. Don’t let others decide for you.

In the case of John Fahey, the executors of his estate (or if they no longer own the rights to the music, then the label and the publisher) are responsible for making the decision to lend use of a song on behalf of the Artist, not the Agency or the Brand.

To those of you out there who have additional opinions, lets here them.

Should I license my song to a Commerical?

admin — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:25:48 +0000

I have been speaking and teaching so much lately on how to GET YOUR MUSIC LICENSED; how to get that first call and begin to make money, that I wanted to take a very timely opportunity to blog about about what can happen to even the most accomplished band when you GET YOUR MUSIC LICENSED; Franz Ferdinand.

It was just reported yesterday is this Stereogum post that Sony US, via record Label Epic approved the MASTER rights to use the Franz Ferdinand song “Bite Hard” for a McDonald’s advertisement (it was unclear in the article if this was a TV and internet or soley an internet license). Alex Kapranos (@alkapranos), an accomplished foodie himself, was more than bitter about the match as you can see on his Twitter page.

I could not agree more with Alex, or with the writer of the Stereogum blog. I would be upset to see my music placed somewhere that I did not think represented my music, and yes it is a great way to fall out with your record label.

So let’s stop here and take count of the real issue at hand. The band’s rights. In a standard record contract or music publishing contract, a band signs away their rights to say yes or no to any potential license when they sign a contract. The Label owns the masters. The Music Publisher owns the music. Now, as a Music Supervisor I speak to many labels and music publishers that need to check with the artist before approving a synchronization license, and I have had many licenses refused by the band for artistic reasons.

The message here is, if you choose to sign with a label (and may I say there are still MANY great record labels out there) make sure that you maintain the right to refuse any synchronization use that you do not feel is in line with your band or your image.

Licensing your music is not selling out, but licensing it to the wrong company, for the wrong message, could damage you in the long run.

A good label will care about such matters and want to help you protect your image. But it is up to you make sure that you have that right. Don’t give it up, or you could very well end up on Twitter having to air your anger and irritation, because you have no legal rights to the claim whatsoever.

When you become an artist the size of Franz Ferdinand and you can actually sell a good amount of records, you can make a stink and they will likely listen to your wishes, just make damn sure you don’t put yourself in that position. NO Record contract is worth giving up your rights as an artist to say no.

Why YouTube Matters in Music Licensing

admin — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:16:08 +0000

Thanksgiving weekend, in my house means ALOT of football. And gratefully so, as it gave me the chance to catch up on new commercials.

I decided to conduct a test from my Dad’s couch regarding the connection between Music Licensing in commercials and You Tube. After seeing a spot with music I thought could be licensed, I would go to You Tube and type in “BRAND NAME commercial” to see if the spot comes up.

Most times it does, but not by the brand itself, simply posted by a fan.

Let’s back it up for a minute and talk about a very important issue if you are going to license your music. GET AS MUCH PROMOTION OUT OF IT AS POSSIBLE! I am talking to the music owners as well as the Brands here. If you are a brand that runs national TV spots – you should have your own You Tube channel and be the first one to post your spot. Fans are great, but don’t rely on them, and why miss out on cross-pollination with fans or potential fans of that hard won (and possibly very expensive) track you just licensed?

This is a fundamental theory – ‘You want to license your music to gain exposure and sell records.’ RIGHT?

And Brands, you want as many eyeballs on your brand as possible – RIGHT?

So let’s start making some meaningful connections and make Music Licensing about more than a paycheck. Artists, Bands and Labels, don’t throw away the opportunity of a multi-million dollar ad campaign, this may be the chance that takes your band from obscurity to fame, and it CAN sell records – but you have to drive users and make it easy for them. In case you haven’t noticed…..You Tube is FREE.

When I owned a Music House I was always preaching the gospel of “let the consumer know what the music is by talking about the brand everywhere the fans of the Artist live.” 2 Years ago that was a tall order, today it’s as easy as YOU TUBE TAGGING.

When you upload a video to You Tube you get the opportunity to add a DESCRIPTION and TAGS. Both are golden free opportunities to get your name (brand AND artist) to pop up in the top five when someone Google’s you.

Some examples:

#1) Cadillac 2010 SRX Ad – Song: Phoenix, 1901. The spot was posted on the Cadillac Channel – well done. Take a look at the tagging in the right column (click on MORE INFO to see the TAGS). Nothing about the artist. Now click on the link to the song I provided just above, it is the video on the Record Label’s site. Cadillac isn’t tagged here either.

By simply adding 11 free keystrokes on both sides and they would have had 60,000 + views cross pollinating from Cadillac to Phoenix and who knows how many from Phoenix to Cadillac. One video post for the song has over a Million hits.

#3) PALM PIXI Ad Song: Passion Pit “Sleepyhead”. Now this is a band that is HOT, no doubt they are looking to sell records, as they have not seen the pop radio success of Phoenix yet. Over 2MM hits on the French Kiss Record Label You Tube Channel for this song. Clearly it’s a hot song. Palm, NO You Tube Channel! Over 60,000 views from multiple postings of this spot – and in every one – the song is mentioned in the comment section. Big opportunity missed for Palm on this one. I did notice one posting where the fan created a link to the commercial, and then posted the commercial with a link to the spot. That’s a new feature. But again – that’s relying on a fan.

By working with the brand to create more connection, you can drive users to buying the record. Go to iTunes and look up the record. Do you see Palm Pixi mentioned? NOT ONCE. Free connections. You Tube Tagging could have changed this situation in less than 3 minutes.

#4) JC PENNEY Ad Song: Rosi Golan and Human “Follow the Arrow.” The brand posted the track on their channel, but not mention of Rosi Golan or Human in the tags. Then you find Rosi Golan’s Channel, and she has posted the same ad on her channel and gotten 5 TIMES more hits! JC Penney – you missed out on that one.

JC Penney’s Post

Rosi Golan’s Post

Now lets talk about someone that did it right.

#3) DAYS INN Ad Song: Jess Penner “Here Comes the Sunshine”. If you Google DAYS INN COMMERICAL, this post is right at the top. Days Inn has a You Tube Channel and they have tagged the Artist Jess Penner (might I add they even gave Production credits – kudos on that one). They made her track available on the website for free and she is for sale on iTunes. Total connectivity.

Now Jess Penner didn’t have the groundswell to begin with that Phoenix and Passion Pit did, but it shows you how easy it is to connect the dots.

As Artists, ASK the brands if they are posting the spot on You Tube when they license your spot. You have the right. As Brands, why not ride the wave of connection if you are choosing to license music?

I look forward to the results.

Boards Summit 09 – Music Licensing and Negotiations MASTER CLASS

admin — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:21:15 +0000

On Tuesday, Oct. 27^th I will join the ranks of Advertising Industry experts and colleagues at the Boards Summit in New York City.

I will be giving one of several MASTER CLASS talks relating to each person’s expertise; mine, naturally, is Music Licensing and Negotiations.

In my 15 years in advertising I have been to countless conferences, but I can say that already, this one feels different. The state of Advertising as we know it is in a period of great renaissance. People’s roles are changing, new skills are becoming required, and most importantly accountability to the brands we represent is not only asked for, but demanded.

My Master Class is meant to educate those working in the Advertising Production community about a world that can be very convoluted: Synchronization Music Licensing.

Agency Producers are the Grand Masters of the Circus. They balance 100 balls while running 200 miles an hour. It’s extraordinary to watch when it’s done well, and dizzying to be on the sidelines when it’s not done well. So Producers young and old, this class is for you. More information in a time where more is required of us all.

Thanks to everyone who came out to the CMJ Panel on Tuesdayion

admin — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:17:36 +0000

Josh Rabinowitz, our panelist put together a great group for the panel. A big thanks to my fellow panelists, Peter Nashel, Visili Gavre, and Chris Langrill.

The room was packed and we had a very engaged audience. Now more then ever it is clear that Sync Music Licensing is one of the most important sources of revenue and marketing a music company or Artist can have.

How music is chosen for an ad, is an unanswerable question, but how to get your music to the community, and professionals in the Film, TV and Ad community is not information that is easy to find.

Many of you asked me where you could get more information. For those of you who do not live in LA , or cannot make it to my class at UCLA Extension, standby. I have decided to take my “How to Get Your Music Licensed” book and create it into an online series that will be packed with the information you all seek. “How do I find Music Supervisors and how do I get my Music to them!”

Stop by this blog every now and again, or visit my YouTube channel: sarahgavigan for bi-weekly tips.

Thanks again to you all for coming out to CMJ and to the panel!

The New Rockstar Philosophy grabs some info on Music Licensing

admin — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:46:03 +0000

One of my new favorite blog is The New Rockstar Philosophy written by Hoover and Voyno. They cover a myriad of topics related to the state of the music business. Each post has a perfect mix of snark and information, Just the way I like them.

A few days ago Hoover contacted me and asked if I would like to do a “blog interview” on being a Music Supervisor and how to counsel anyone who wants to license music to Film/TV or Ads. Naturally I was thrilled.

Comments are rolling in. Can’t see enough of these! Stay tuned all…..more info to come with the book HOW TO GET YOUR MUSIC LICENSED in the Winter of 2010

Check it out, and add TNRP to your blogroll!

Thanks guys!

Best,
Sarah