New Licensing Model? Will it work?

Images today are generally licensed for a flat fee, exclusively or non-exclusively. GumGum founders Ophir Tanz and Ari Mir think a better way is to charge for impressions, or on an advertising-supported basis.
GumGum allows any publisher to search for images (there are thousands available now via a number of photography agencies) - here´s an example search for "Britney" [these images are from the X17 photo agency]. Images can be licensed on a CPM basis (generally $0.20 or so, but determined by content owner), or for free with an advertisement.
Any photographer can now upload images and sell them. And any publisher can create an account to license images. Down the road, GumGum says, they´ll be adding video, audio and text content for licensing as well.


This is interesting. I think I understand it conceptually, but not practically.

Getty Images pushes further into Digital Licensing with Music Tracks

Pump Audio relaunched today as the newly re-branded, Soundtrack, following Getty's $42 million purchase of the music licensing business last June. Getty will now take Pump Audio’s catalog of music from 20,000 independent artists and allow users to license music for the Web, TV, and/or radio.

As many of you know, Getty has been on a tear buying up companies to spur new growth, see Scoopt, iStockphoto and now Pump Audio. This acquisition is one of the first we have seen that is really outside of the traditional photography licensing business, which they still dominate. Does anyone know another one? I like the acquisition of a music company but there are a whole new set of rules, when dealing with licensing music online. Getty should be well equipped to handle this change.

Anyone who has tried to license music in the past knows that one of the biggest headaches to music licensing was the search costs. You had to listen to tons of CDs, track down the music label, and hammer out a deal. That could take a ton of time and money.

Reducing this cost and creating an easy to understand licensing agreement will be key. Pump Audio and Getty are hoping that since it is now easier to find and license these tracks off the web in their marketplace, legal music licensing could expand greatly. With the explosion of more and more serious Web video shows, vlogs and podcasts getting produced, they are going to need some good, thumping beats in the background, which have been legally licensed, to keep people watching ;-)

How it will work:

After you search and find a song, you are able to listen to a stream online. If it is right for your needs, you can license the track for a variety of purposes. For example if you are using a track in a Web video, it may cost $25 plus five percent of any associated ad revenues. Not bad. Or if you were using it for a cable TV show, it could cost you $450. (A license for a regional TV ad runs as high as $2,100). When you compare this to licensing tracks from a major-label artist, it can be wayyyyy more expensive.



So what is the deal for an artist? A submitter of music to Pump Audio doesn't have to pay any submission fees, they receive 50% of the royalty payments (includes performance royalties), the deal is non-exclusive so you can sell on multiple platforms and lastly you always retain complete ownership of the songs. The only thing I think that can be improved upon from a artist/submitters point of view is the minimum one-year commitment. I don't think however that it will deter too many aspiring musicians from signing up and using this distribution and licensing service and helping out Getty's bottom line.