When you secure licenses on behalf of clients, they're sometimes issued in your name, not the client's. If such a client switches to another licensing service provider, would they have to relicense those works?
We allow the licensee to hold the [licensing] agreements so they don't have to relicense it; [they] would have the ability to control the license whether they stay with us or not. We think it's creating a greater value to the ecosystem by building a transparent world with cost savings tied to diversification in licensing.
How good are you at tracing songs to publishers that aren't clients of the Harry Fox Agency?
We spend a significant amount of money to market ourselves and sponsored 29 events in the U.S. and globally last year so that publishers know about RightsFlow. We want them to know that we have money owed to them.
How do you handle public domain works, which don't command mechanical royalties?
There isn't a client that withholds public domain monies; they actually pay it out to the artists or the label. It is not money entitled to our clients.
Does RightsFlow deal with compulsory licensing?
With regards to Limelight, it is almost all compulsory or direct licensing with publishers who have signed on. So while we heavily rely on compulsory licensing for Limelight, we still prefer to do direct licensing [for the rest of our business]. Where we use the compulsory license, we pay royalties monthly [as required by law] and with direct deals, we pay quarterly.
How would efforts to build a global song database affect your business model?
We don't anticipate [a collaborative global database] being realized. We anticipate that a fair market solution alternative will be created, with companies such as RightsFlow sitting in the middle. We felt it was better to go for a market solution that would ultimately benefit the users and the songwriters and the publishers.