Neifion

Great, see, that's acceptable and I would agree that since the statement does state "all revenue generated by advertising presented in the context of submitted material", that would include YouTube (at least in my view). Although it should be worded to explicitly require agreement from the remixer that they are giving consent to have their song monetized through ads (right now it is only implicit with the whole "all revenue generated...".) I also agree that, from this point on, perhaps a specification to include YouTube and any other distributors of internet video content would be helpful. Moving forward, I do think that there should be an official announcement regarding this, reminding those who disagree with the monetization or the assocation of their submitted material with any ad revenue, that they should go through the proper procedure of having their mix removed. And I do agree that a personal apology would be appropriate, since even though ad revenue is addressed in the agreement, the push to do it on YouTube is (clearly) a very polarizing and not always clear issue and was nonetheless done without so much as a peep.

Will a staff member please justify going ahead with monetization without notifying remixers who may or may not have agreed to it? And repeating that "OCR has been monetizing with ads on the site from the beginning, the possibility of legal action is minimal, etc." is not sufficient. The remixers agreed to the submission policy regarding the ads on the site. They did not agree, nor did they have any knowledge of, their mixes being monetized on YouTube. It doesn't matter if it's "any worse". You did something with someone else's work that can potentially put them in a possible legal tangle, however likely or unlikely, without consent or even basic knowledge. Why did you do that and why didn't you post an announcement? Also, downplaying it's significance as something similar to or as minimally impacting as the already in-place ads, or reiterating that it is "even less infringing" is beside the point that you actively involved someone in something potentially illegal without their knowledge or consent. Note that I am not arguing whether monetizing is legal or illegal. Rather, I am simply baffled as to why OCR went ahead and did something with other people's work without their permission. And the fact that OCR might not think it's a big deal, or even a small deal, or even a completely insignificant deal, doesn't automatically mean that other people don't.

Great. That's your view. Maybe OCR won't get sued. Maybe they will. But is that the view of every single person who has had their remix unknowingly monetized? What if they don't share your optimism? What if they are concerned about getting tangled in legal action which, even if it is highly unlikely, is still possible? You didn't get permission before involving other people in, at most, potentially illegal and, at least, ambiguously legal activities. You could have made a simple announcement: "Hey, we're going to monetize videos. If you don't want your video monetized, inform us and we will take it down from YouTube." If it's 100% your material and you want to fly with it, great. But when other people are involved, get permission. At least notify them. Isn't that something that pretty much everyone knows to do? When you're going to do something with someone, don't you ask if they want to do it? Instead, you went under the radar. That's irresponsible.

I mainly focus on original compositions and I don't submit my arrangements to OCR. And I earn my revenue by taking commissions, projects, sales on my website/iTunes, etc. And when I do sell an arrangement, it's done legally through Loudr's licensing. But look, obviously I'm skeptical about this new approach and I don't agree with the direction, but once more, it's OCR management's decision. Keep all the revenue or not, ensure that the original publisher/rights holders are okay with this or not, it's your game. It will be interesting to see how this all goes down from here on out.

Well then there you go. Don't do it. It's not fair to the original creators and it's not logistically possible for you. It's possibly not even legal, as Neblix brings up a valid point that he (and I) are still waiting to hear an answer. But once again, it's your decision to go down this path and good luck with it. And once again, I stick by my recommendation that you get awareness and agreement with the remixer and the publisher/rights holders of the original composition that you are making money off of their song while they receive nothing. And that you immediately stop monetizing all the videos that you've already done so until you get the awareness and agreement with the remixer and the publisher/rights holders of each original composition that you are making money off of their song while they receive nothing. And that you clearly change the language of the submission guidelines to reflect this strategy and post an official announcement of the change instead of performing an experiment that violates usage without agreement and then addressing it months later when people "take notice".

That's all well and I agree with it. But: The key issue is that the artists had no idea that their work was being monetized because it was already done months ago without their even knowing. If there was a proper announcement and a change the submission terms stating: "from this point on, when you submit your work, you are also agreeing to have the YouTube version of your song monetized and all revenue will go to OCR." And before a song is put up on YouTube, the original publisher/rights holders of the original composition should also be notified and should have agreed to the terms. Then that is satisfactorily "of their own volition". You have to have an agreement in place to make money off of other people's work. So at this point, like I said in my last post, if you're going to do it, fine, do it. But get all the involved parties official, legal and signed consent first. Instead, OCR went ahead and starting monetizing without such consent or even a general notice that it was happening, and that is not right.

In the end, of course it's your decision what you want to do. I agree with Chimpazilla that if you're going to do it though, I would recommend ensuring that both the remixer and the publisher/rights holders of the original composition are both aware and agree with you making money off of their song while they receive nothing.

I meant the organization. The organization that is OCR. Not you personally. OCR. The organization. Got it? And great, I know OCR has done a lot to make remixes more visible. I do not deny that at all. I applaud OCR for it. It's why I came here and stuck around thus far. But that doesn't negate the fact that OCR is making money off of other people's work. Other people's work that, without it, would mean zero content on your site and zero revenue. If OCR is not making revenue, fine. Don't pay the artist. But OCR is. So pay the artists for their work, because without their work, OCR wouldn't have that video to monetize (or the quality content that brought you attention and visibility in the first place). Let me put it another way: why do you not want to share revenue with the artists? Why do you think the artists should receive zero revenue from the work they created, by which if they hadn't you would be receiving zero revenue yourself, and you should receive 100% of it?

Because you're not sharing the money with the people who made it. Neither the remixer or the original composer. Sure, you had a hand in getting the exposure and curating the OCR experience that helped get the remix to fruition. But you wouldn't have the song to monetize without the remixer and the original composer. So if you're getting money, so should the people who made it. Show some respect and class and give back to the people who are helping make it happen too. And please don't fire back with "show some class and respect the existence of the site is coming out djpretzel's pockets/free time". I acknowledge that and that's why I'm saying share the revenue. Yes the site deserves money, but so do the artists.

It's not a criticism. It's simply this: you're generating revenue based on other people's work (not just the remixer, but also the original composer) and not sharing it. My opinion is that it's unfair. But that doesn't matter. If the original copyright holder of the song thinks it's unfair, you got a copyright claim and a possible legal issue.

It's only legal until the publisher decides to take action. If they are not okay with you making money off of their song which you do not hold the rights to, they can force it to be taken down and pursue legal action. If they're nice, they can choose to share revenue with you (YouTube added that feature not too long ago).

That's not my point. You guys were saying that being a non-profit or charity justifies you monetizing and not sharing the money. I'm saying that doesn't matter outside of your opinion that it's for a "good cause".

I never said they weren't.

Why were you waiting to see when and whether people would notice? Why not just make an announcement? I agree that if OCR is going through with this, it should share the revenue with the artist. Or at least, it should give the artist the option to share revenues or "donate" their share to OCR. Also, even non-profits have paid employees/contractors. My former boss is the head of an NGO that makes millions of dollars a year and he himself makes $400K a year. You're making money off of material that is not 100% your own creation and you do not own the rights to. Be prepared for copyright claims.

Key word: pretend. Just like I go on Pirates of the Caribbean to be in a town taken over by drunk pirates. I don't really want to be in a town taken over by drunk pirates.

Surprised no one's mentioned Dead or Alive Xtreme yet.

Just a little WIP for a kind of wistful introverted track. Planning on getting the violin replaced by a real player.

Sounds pretty good to me! Definitely gives the intended haunted town vibe. I think the 4-chord motif gets a bit repetitive; you added a little variation as it went on, but I think a bit more variety could be good.

Two years after we started working on the soundtrack to Tom Vs. The Armies of Hell, the game has finally gone from Early Access to full release! The game is now available to purchase on Steam for PC and Mac for $12.99. It's a story-driven comedy action-adventure game somewhere between Office Space and Army of Darkness with frantic top-down isometric shooter gameplay. Official Game Website: http://www.darkmire.com Steam: http://store.steampowered.com/app/262630/ Also, the original soundtrack is up on our YouTube page and is also available for purchase from our website! YouTube: Website: http://kekomusic.net/album/245878/tom-vs-the-armies-of-hell I've also been seeing if I can get it onto OverClocked Records, but I haven't been able to get a hold of the staff in a while. Probably been bugging them a little too much. Anywho, if you happen to pick it up, we'd love to hear your thoughts on the game as well as the soundtrack. Happy demon slaying!

I don't know what it is about summer, but I always get this "Lion King" feeling around this time. Maybe it's because of fond memories of seeing it in theaters in the summer of '94 when it came out, or successive summers watching it over and over on VHS. In any case, I just got done downloading Spitfire Chamber Strings and decided to do a quick test run on a cue from none other than The Lion King! I had the full Sable before but I'm liking the new organization and it was a good chance to re-familiarize myself with the detail and beauty that these samples have to offer. Hakuna Matata!

Well, sometimes you get a one man or few-man dev team who says they did everything themselves. Maybe it's their first game. In those cases, you can't really look at their company or estimate their costs if they claim to have done it on their own with nothing besides time and passion. Am I going to know the truth? Maybe not. Maybe they did have a budget, but they blew it all by the time music came around. Maybe they did do it all for free and have money to burn, but don't want to pay me. In any case, does it really matter? I'm not getting paid, so that's that. I guess the distinction originally came into play when you brought up the profit sharing, but we both apparently agree it's a no-shot.

If getting paid is a concern, I'd steer away from profit sharing. Unless it's a true masterpiece that is guaranteed to get a solid return, the project is unlikely to see any meaningful profit. And what is guaranteed nowadays? Unless your client is a well-known name in the industry, whose name alone is enough to get people to line up, don't expect anything. Just consider profit sharing the same as pro bono, and that you're doing it for fun. Also, if the client is someone you don't know, there is no way to tell whether they have a budget/won't pay you or don't have a budget/can't pay you. How many clients are going to tell you "well, I have a budget but I don't want to pay you"? They're going to tell you they can't pay you. So my advice is to be careful about separating your approach that way. And no matter how you're getting paid, I would always keep full rights to the music and full soundtrack profits as well. Unless you're working for a AAA publisher/studio and able to charge a very handsome fee.

This: Also, Zen is an amazing sniper, at least for me. I've found it easier to put down Tracer at range with Zen than with Widow or anyone else. And he can absolutely murder at medium range. Basically, if you know how to play Zen, he can be just as powerful as Ana, and vice versa, on all counts. It just comes down to play style, comp, situation, etc.

I don't know about her being more powerful than Zen, especially after he gets buffed (anybody have the specifics on this, btw?) I can do a lot more damage and healing on Zen than Ana (with discord he's a freaking tank-wrecker, and he can pick off squishies like crazy), but then again, I've played Zen a lot more and I naturally suck at sniping. Edit: Nevermind, saw the Zen buffs. I liked him even before the buff, so yeah, definitely going to be using him more.

In a pre-made of six with all communicating, her stun could be extremely effective. However, in a team of randoms, I can see it being really frustrating. Without coordination, her stuns will be interrupted by her fellow players not knowing she's going to use it. Of course, similar stuff can be said about any ability not seeing it's full potential used when playing with randoms, but since this stun is so dependent on other players knowing exactly what the Ana intends, it's effectiveness gap seems especially wide.