Getty Images buys music licensing start-up Pump Audio
Getty Images, which made a name for itself as a stock photography clearinghouse, announced Wednesday it has purchased Pump Audio, which licenses independent music to advertising and media clients. The price of the acquisition, according to a release from Getty, was $42 million.
This is the most recent in a series of moves on Getty's part to expand beyond photography and into the digital media sector. Last month, it launched a new division in the company to license video footage and other multimedia content, and over the past few months has chalked up a string of acquisitions, from amateur photography site Scoopt to smaller competitors like iStockphoto. The Pump Audio buy, however, marks Getty's first foray into music licensing.
For Pump Audio, which made a splash at last year's OnHollywood conference, the acquisition means that the start-up now has the keys to unlock a much broader sphere of influence. "The combination with Getty Images will give many more creative customers access to great original music," said Steve Ellis, the company's founder and CEO, "and at the same time will provide our contributing artists access to a huge, global marketplace."
Caroline McCarthy, a CNET News staff writer, is a downtown Manhattanite happily addicted to social-media tools and restaurant blogs. Her pre-CNET resume includes interning at an IT security firm and brewing cappuccinos. E-mail Caroline. 
- by sheexists1 May 9, 2009 10:05 PM PDT
- Please do not support this model of licensing music...their rates are VERY low and they are trying to implement a %35 to %65 split...it should never be ANY LOWER THAN 50/50 in music licensing...<br /><br />View this as a web page <br />Dear Pump Audio Artist, <br />We would like to thank you for your music and congratulate <br />you on being part of one of the fastest growing music <br />licensing companies in the world. Since the acquisition of <br />Pump Audio by Getty Images, we continue to hear praises <br />from a wide expansion of our clients on the depth and quality <br />of our catalog and that is a testament to you. <br />As we plan for the future growth of our offering to the global <br />music licensing client base, we have determined that to fully <br />support the 400+ person Getty Images sales staff and invest <br />in marketing and technology needs that we must make <br />adjustments to the current revenue split system. By making <br />these changes, we intend to accelerate the pace of our <br />growth and achieve our goal of becoming the largest music <br />licensor in the world. <br />The new model will be as following: <br />1) Licensing fees will now be 35% to the artist, 65% to Pump <br />Audio/Getty Images <br />2) This change will take place as of July 1, 2009. Any <br />royalties payable through June 30, 2009 will not be affected <br />by this change <br />3) Performance royalty splits will remain at 50% of the <br />publisher?s share <br />4) Those that don?t accept the new split will have their music <br />removed from the system no later than December 31, 2009. <br />5) The rights you granted to us in the original contract do not <br />change <br />If you have any questions, please email <br />artistrelations@pumpaudio.com. <br />Please sign the enclosed amendment and send back to: <br />Artist Relations <br />artistrelations@pumpaudio.com <br />Fax #: 845-757-5556 <br />Mailing Address: <br />Pump Audio <br />Artist Relations <br />PO Box 458 <br />Tivoli, NY 12583 <br />artistrelations@pumpaudio.com <br />Music License Amendment <br />If you no longer wish to receive email from your account executive, or would like to unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click here.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by sambo7345 May 13, 2009 1:59 PM PDT
- Here is some formation that might help any producers contemplating the Getty amendment with 35% to the artist or possibly other similar situations some of you may be facing?I am no expert but I came across some legal information that may be a clue as to why Getty needs us to sign and approve the contract proposals..I pulled this from a textbook ?Business Law and the Legal Environment? edition 5, concerning the Uniform Commercial Code:<br /><br />Parties make a contract attempting to control their futures. But one party?s certainty can be undercut by the ease with which the other party may obtain a modification. Section 2-209 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) acknowledges this tension by enabling the parties to limit changes. The parties may agree to ?and insist that all modifications be in writing and signed. Between merchants, such a clause is valid. But if either party is not a merchant, such a clause is valid only if the non-merchant separately signs it. I am guessing that musicians would not be classified as merchants since in the case of Pump, we are providing music to a publisher- (merchant) without compensation in order for them to sell these intangible goods on our behalf. Even if our contracts were reviewed under the common law, the amendment would be invalid and probably unenforceable. The law in regards to music is tricky to say the least but I hope this info may give some sense of optimism and allow more artists to stand up to companies like Getty and not jump to sign anything just because they say you need to.<br />Best-
- Like this
-
(3 Comments)