Back to Blog

Music Copyright: Composition vs Sound Recording Rights

April 26, 2026 Aruna 10 min read
music copyright composition vs sound recording — intellectual property law and protection

Almost every licensing mistake in music traces back to one fact: a recorded song is two separate copyrights, not one. Keeping composition vs sound recording straight is what tells you who to pay, which royalty applies, and whether you need one clearance or two.

Music copyright is more complex than most people realize because every song typically has not one but two separate copyrights: one in the musical composition and one in the sound recording. These two rights are owned by different parties, licensed through different organizations, and subject to different rules. Understanding the distinction between music copyright in the composition and in the sound recording is essential for musicians, producers, music supervisors, podcasters, and anyone who uses music commercially. PerspireIP helps music industry clients navigate the complex web of music copyright ownership and licensing.

When a song is written and recorded, two distinct copyrightable works are created. The first is the musical composition, which encompasses the melody and lyrics of the song as written. This is the abstract musical work that exists independently of any particular recording of it. The second is the sound recording, which is the specific recorded performance of the composition captured in a particular recording session. A single composition can be the basis for countless different sound recordings (think of all the different artists who have covered a famous song), and each recording generates its own sound recording copyright distinct from the composition copyright.

The composition copyright is typically owned by the songwriter or songwriters who created the melody and lyrics. In the traditional music industry, songwriters often sign publishing deals that transfer all or part of their composition copyrights to a music publisher in exchange for an advance and a share of future royalties. Major music publishers such as Universal Music Publishing Group, Sony Music Publishing, and Warner Chappell Music control vast catalogues of composition copyrights. Independent songwriters who retain their publishing rights are said to own their own publishing. The composition copyright generates income through mechanical royalties (for recordings and digital downloads), performance royalties (for public performances and broadcasting), synchronization fees (for use in film, TV, and advertising), and print music royalties.

The sound recording copyright is typically owned by the record label that funded the recording session or, for independent artists, by the artist themselves. Major labels like Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group own enormous catalogues of sound recording copyrights. Sound recording copyright generates income through master use licenses (for use in films, TV, advertising, and sampling), digital performance royalties (for streaming and digital radio), and synchronization fees. In the US, sound recordings were not granted federal copyright protection until the Sound Recording Act of 1971, so recordings made before that date may have different protection depending on state law and the date of the recording.

Licensing Music: Getting the Right Permissions

To use a commercial song in most contexts, you need licenses for both the composition and the sound recording, from their respective owners. This dual licensing requirement is one of the most common sources of music copyright confusion and liability. Obtaining a synchronization license from the music publisher only gives you permission to use the composition in your video; you still need a master use license from the record label to use that specific recording. This is why many film and TV productions opt to commission original music or use music from libraries where they can obtain both rights from a single source.

Performance Rights Organizations (PROs)

Composition copyrights are administered for public performance purposes by performing rights organizations (PROs). In the US, the three major PROs are ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. These organizations collect performance royalties from businesses that publicly perform music, including radio stations, TV broadcasters, streaming services, restaurants, bars, retail stores, and concert venues, and distribute those royalties to songwriters and publishers. Businesses that publicly perform music need blanket licenses from the relevant PROs. For sound recording digital performance royalties, SoundExchange administers collection and distribution to artists and labels.

Mechanical Royalties and Mechanical Licensing

Mechanical royalties are payments owed to composition copyright owners whenever their compositions are reproduced in recordings and distributed to the public. The term mechanical comes from the mechanical piano rolls of the early 20th century. Today, mechanical royalties are owed for CD manufacturing, digital downloads, and on-demand streaming. In the US, mechanical royalty rates for physical and download uses are set by the Copyright Royalty Board. The Music Modernization Act of 2018 significantly reformed the mechanical licensing system, creating a single digital mechanical licensing collective (the Mechanical Licensing Collective, or MLC) to administer mechanical licenses for digital streaming services.

Sampling, the practice of incorporating portions of existing recordings into new music, raises significant music copyright issues involving both composition and sound recording rights. Using a sample without clearance can constitute infringement of both the composition and the sound recording. The landmark case Grand Upright Music v. Warner (1991) held that unauthorized sampling is copyright infringement, and subsequent cases have confirmed that even tiny samples can infringe. Proper sample clearance requires licenses from both the publisher (for the composition) and the label (for the master recording). Sample clearance fees can be substantial, especially for samples from popular songs, and some rights holders refuse to license at any price.

Cover Songs

Recording a cover version of someone else’s song requires a mechanical license for the composition copyright, but you do not need permission from the original recording artist or label because the sound recording you create is entirely your own. In the US, mechanical licenses for cover recordings are compulsory, meaning that once a composition has been commercially released in the US, anyone can record a cover version by obtaining a compulsory license and paying the statutory mechanical rate. Services like DistroKid, TuneCore, and Songtrust can help independent artists obtain mechanical licenses for cover songs through the MLC or their licensing partners.

Conclusion

Music copyright is layered and complex, with composition rights and sound recording rights operating as distinct legal assets owned and licensed by different parties through different systems. Whether you are a musician, producer, music supervisor, content creator, or business owner using music, understanding both layers of music copyright is essential for compliance and for protecting your own creative rights. PerspireIP provides comprehensive music copyright counseling, licensing strategy, and enforcement services to help music industry clients navigate this complex landscape.

Composition vs Sound Recording: The Digital Performance Gap

The sharpest practical difference between the two copyrights is the public performance right, and it is asymmetric in a way that surprises people.

Musical works — compositions — carry a full public performance right under 17 U.S.C. § 106(4). Sound recordings do not. Their performance right, in § 106(6), is limited to performance “by means of a digital audio transmission.”

Follow that through and US terrestrial radio looks strange compared with most of the world. When an AM/FM station plays a record, it pays the songwriter and publisher through a performing rights organisation, and it pays the recording artist and label nothing at all. The recording is being performed, but not digitally, so § 106(6) never engages.

  • Terrestrial radio. Composition royalties only, collected by ASCAP, BMI, SESAC or GMR.
  • Non-interactive digital services such as internet radio and satellite radio. Both copyrights are paid; the sound-recording side runs through the statutory licence in 17 U.S.C. § 114 and is collected by SoundExchange.
  • Interactive, on-demand streaming. Sound-recording rights are negotiated directly with the label, while the composition side is licensed separately.
  • Sync into video. No statutory licence exists on either side. You negotiate a synch licence for the composition and a master use licence for the recording, and either owner can simply say no.

The one-line test for any new use: ask whether you need the song, the record, or both. Cover it yourself and you clear only the composition. Use the original track and you clear both.

Termination Rights and the Music Modernization Act

Two later developments change who holds these rights over time.

The first is termination. Under 17 U.S.C. § 203, an author who granted rights on or after 1 January 1978 may terminate that grant during a five-year window beginning 35 years after it was made, on advance written notice served between two and ten years before the effective date. Older grants run under § 304. The right cannot be signed away in advance, which is precisely the point.

There is a catch that maps directly onto the two-copyright structure. Termination is unavailable for works made for hire, and recording agreements have long characterised the master as a work for hire. Composition terminations are therefore comparatively routine, while attempts to recapture sound recordings tend to be contested. A songwriter who is also the recording artist can find they get the song back but not the record of it.

The second is the Music Modernization Act of 2018, which replaced the old song-by-song mechanical licensing process for digital services with a blanket licence administered by the Mechanical Licensing Collective, available from 1 January 2021. It fixed a real problem — unmatched royalties piling up because services could not identify the composition behind a recording — but it puts the burden on publishers and self-administered writers to register their works so the money can be matched to them.

If you write and release your own music, that means two registrations, not one: your recordings with your distributor, and your compositions with the MLC and your PRO.

Co-Writes, Splits and the One-Stop Problem

Ownership rarely sits in one pair of hands. A song with four co-writers is a joint work under 17 U.S.C. § 201(a), and each co-owner holds an undivided interest in the whole — not a fenced-off quarter.

The consequence surprises people on both sides of a negotiation. Any single co-owner can grant a non-exclusive licence to the entire composition without asking the others, subject to a duty to account to them for their share of the proceeds. An exclusive licence, by contrast, needs everyone. So a licensee who wants certainty has to collect signatures from every writer and every publisher on the split sheet.

This is where composition vs sound recording clearance diverges sharply in difficulty. A master is usually controlled by one label, so a master use licence is a single conversation. The underlying song may have five writers across four publishers in three countries, any one of whom can hold up an exclusive deal. Sync deals collapse over the composition side far more often than the recording side.

  • Agree splits in writing before release, not after the song earns anything.
  • Record each writer’s PRO affiliation and publisher alongside the percentage.
  • Remember that controlled-composition clauses in recording agreements can reduce what the writer is actually paid on mechanicals.
  • For a sync, budget time for the composition clearance and treat the master as the easy half.

Registering Both Copyrights, and Why Timing Matters

Two copyrights means two registrations to think about. The Copyright Office registers musical works in the performing arts class and sound recordings in the sound recording class. Where the same claimant owns both — a self-released artist who wrote the song — a single application can cover the recording and the underlying work together, which is the usual route for independent releases.

Timing is the part worth planning. Under Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 586 U.S. 296 (2019), you cannot file an infringement suit until the Copyright Office has actually acted on the application, not merely received it. Waiting until you find an infringement means waiting again for the Office.

More consequential still is 17 U.S.C. § 412. Statutory damages and attorney’s fees are unavailable for infringement that began before registration, unless the work was registered within three months of first publication. Without them a plaintiff is left proving actual damages, which for a single song is frequently less than the cost of the lawsuit. Registering promptly is what makes the right practically enforceable rather than merely real.