Unfortunately, the title throws people off and royalty-free music actually relates to the licence attached to the piece of content and not the content itself. It sounds like a really broad and open term, but the exact usage and application of ‘royalty-free’ differs across the music industry from one music library to the next.
This is why there’s a huge confusion over what is direct licence music and what is royalty-free music.
Royalty-free music licensing as a concept originally blossomed because of TV and radio. Producers wanted to quickly and easily be able to add tracks to their productions without going through collecting societies and negotiating licensing deals – especially when background tracks might not be the most important element of the show they produce.
Producers didn’t really have to worry about payment and licensing anyway, as their broadcasting company is the one liable for public performance fees and most broadcasters possess blanket licences with Performance Royalty Organisations (PROs).
Running through every style, sound and genre of the industry, royalty-free music is widely available. It’s music that is created by independent artists and composers who by making original music instantly own all their own copyrights. Those copyrights are generally split into several rights categories:
Synchronisation: the right to include in another medium or alongside something else
Mechanical: the right to make duplications of new content featuring copyrighted content
Performance: the right to publicly perform
Many stock music sites sell licenses for music enabling its use immediately in other productions or content, like a YouTube video, for a flat fee without any further royalties having to be paid.
However, the first issue is that royalties from this very rarely go to the small independent singer-songwriter or amateur composer. The second issue is that by using this method (remember, it’s the licence, not the music) it grants synchronisation and mechanical rights but quite often does not cover public performance rights.
In fact, in recent years most of the bigger stock music sites have adjusted their mechanical rights licences, limiting the amount of reproductions or duplications produced featuring content that they offer.
With the advent of the internet and technology moving at such a fast rate, there’s never been more choice with royalty-free music sites offering tracks for wider use.
But by having thousands of competing vendors, it can diminish the quality across the board as competing companies try to get the upper hand by offering value and quantity at the expense of quality.
Some artists and composers are uploading original work to these vendors without being aware of the implications or the quality provided – it’s commonly-given advice to always use a reputable provider for production music.
If you’re keen on protecting yourself, you could read the fine print of each and every stock music site who offers royalty-free music but you will realise that vendors vary wildly across the board and there’s no real strong structure.
Remember this: No matter what music is used in a production or piece of content, there is always a licence fee paid (directly or indirectly) for its use, reproduction and performance.
Feeling confused yet? It’s no wonder that from composers to content creators it’s a constant headache and a grey area in the industry, but there is a solution and here’s where direct licence comes into play.
Direct Licence provides one large blanket-cover of licensed music to creators for an up-front fee so that they can rest assured they are covered to use an entire and extensive library of high-quality music in their productions.
For composers, there’s payment up-front and piece of mind. For creators, there’s ample choice and value. For everyone involved, there’s less risk and more standardisation.