Skip to main content

Music Copyright: Publishing vs Master

[Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this post should not be considered a substitute for legal advice.]

In the music industry, what is the difference between publishing and masters?

They are each related to a different copyright.

In U.S. copyright law, there is a musical work copyright that protects lyrics and melodies and a sound recording copyright that protects sound recordings.

Each copyright grants its owner a set of rights.

Musical work copyright owners are granted 5 rights:

  1. the right to reproduce the work
  2. the right to publicly distribute the work
  3. the right to publicly display the work
  4. the right to publicly perform the work
  5. the right to create derivative works based on that work

Sound recording copyright owners are granted 4 rights:

  1. the right to reproduce the work
  2. the right to publicly distribute the work
  3. the right to publicly perform the work via certain types of digital audio transmissions
  4. the right to create derivative works based on that work

Except for certain cases, such as fair use, only the copyright owner is allowed to exercise these rights. The copyright owner may also grant others permission to exercise some or all of these rights; such permissions are known as licenses. The copyright owner may also transfer some or all of their ownership in some or all of these rights to another party; such transfers are known as assignments.

If Jack composes original lyrics and/or melodies and places them in a tangible medium such as by writing them on a sheet of paper, then he'd own the musical work copyright to them. If he creates a sound recording of himself performing that musical work, he'd own the sound recording copyright to that sound recording. If Jill obtains a mechanical license for Jack's musical work (a license that grants her the right to create a mechanical reproduction of Jack's musical work and publicly distribute it), then she could create her own sound recording of Jack's musical work. Jack would still own the musical work copyright and the sound recording copyright to his sound recording, but Jill would own the sound recording copyright to her sound recording. (So a single musical work would have a single musical work copyright and each sound recording of it made by the musical work copyright owner or a mechanical licensee would each have its own sound recording copyright.)

(A sound recording is considered a tangible medium. So if Jack created a sound recording of his original lyrics and/or melodies but never wrote them down on paper, then his musical work copyright for those lyrics/melodies would exist from the moment he created that sound recording.)

Most commercial uses of music (including sales, streams, and sync licensing) trace back to at least one of the aforementioned rights. Therefore, the exercising of those rights might generate royalties. The musical work copyright and its related rights and royalties are often referred to with the term publishing. The sound recording copyright and its related rights and royalties are often referred to with the term master.

A party's percentage of copyright ownership and their percentage of that copyright's related royalties are often the same, but they don't have to be. An agreement such as a split sheet, publishing contract, or recording contract could could make those two percentages different. (A party could even own 0% of a copyright and still receive a percentage of that copyright's related royalties.)

Going back to our example, the way it typically works is Jack would receive all of the publishing royalties and master royalties generated by sales and streams of his sound recording and he would receive all of the publishing royalties generated by sales and streams of Jill's sound recording. However, Jill would receive all of the master royalties generated by sales and streams of her sound recording.

Music publishers typically sign songwriters and music producers (parties that create musical works), and try to acquire licensing or ownership of musical work copyrights, and they collect publishing royalties. Record labels typically sign artists (parties that create sound recordings), and try to acquire licensing or ownership of sound recording copyrights, and they collect master royalties. A songwriter that is also an artist might be signed to both.

Taylor Swift signed a record deal in which she lost ownership of the sound recording copyrights of many of her early albums. But because she owned a portion of the musical work copyrights, she had the right to create new sound recordings of those musical works which she would own the sound recording copyrights of.


To learn how the publishing royalties and master royalties for music streaming are calculated, check out my ebook, How Interactive Streaming Royalties Are Calculated & Paid (2nd Edition).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How Do Record Deal Advances & Recoupment Work?

If a recording artist signs a record deal and receives an advance, how much of that advance would the artist get to keep and how much money would their music have to generate in order to fully recoup that advance? Here is a scenario: a new artist signs a record deal with a major record label and receives an all-in master royalty of 18% and a $100,000 advance. An advance is a prepayment of the musician's share of the royalties. Typically, the record label will pocket the artist's share of the master royalties until that share fully recoups the $100,000 that was advanced. The way lawyers get paid can vary, but some of them may take 5% of the advance, so that would leave the artist with $95,000. Artist managers typically take 10 to 15 percent. If this artist has a manager that takes 15% of that $95,000, then the artist would be left with $80,750. Advances are not loans. They are considered taxable income. So if state income taxes, federal income taxes, and FICA taxes take a combin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Record Deal: Royalty Splits vs Expense Splits

Are major label record deals designed so that most artists won't earn any master royalties from them unless they receive an advance? Record labels have normalized taking the vast majority of the master royalties. Major label artists often get less than 20%. The discrepancy is exacerbated because labels have also normalized recouping a disproportionately high amount of the expenses from the artist's share. Here is a simplified example to illustrate the effect of this. An artist wants to record an album but needs a record label to help to market it. A record label wants to market an album but needs an artist to record it. The cost to record an album is $50,000 and the cost to market it is $50,000, so $100,000 total. Scenario 1: The record label puts up $80,000 and the artist puts up $20,000 to cover $50,000 in recording expenses and $50,000 in marketing expenses. The label and artist split the master royalties 80/20. Both parties would break even when the album generates $100,000...
Post a Comment
Read more