{
  "_meta": {
    "title": "The Music Business Lexicon",
    "publisher": "RapCanon",
    "license": "CC-BY-4.0",
    "license_url": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
    "attribution": "Data by RapCanon. Free to reuse, including commercially, with attribution and a link back.",
    "as_of": "2026-08-12",
    "refresh_cadence": "continuous",
    "version": "2",
    "method": "Each entry defines a term used in the recorded-music and publishing industries, states the mechanism by which it moves money, gives a worked example, names what it is commonly confused with, and links a primary source. Entries are written to be extractable in isolation: the definition field stands alone without the rest of the record.",
    "scope_note": "Mechanisms, not rates. Statutory and negotiated rates are jurisdiction- and period-specific, so this dataset teaches how a term works rather than quoting a figure that would be stale within a year.",
    "schema": {
      "slug": "url-safe identifier, stable, never reused",
      "term": "the term as the industry writes it",
      "aka": "other names the same concept is filed under, for retrieval",
      "domain": "credits | economics | ownership | networks | lexicon",
      "definition": "one sentence, must stand alone if extracted",
      "mechanism": "what it actually does to the flow of money",
      "example": "a worked example, with arithmetic where arithmetic applies",
      "confused_with": "array of {slug|name, difference}",
      "matters_because": "why a working artist should care",
      "sources": "array of {name, url} primary or authoritative",
      "status": "live | draft",
      "sections": "optional array of {h2, body[]} for entries that warrant long-form depth. The dataset must carry EVERYTHING the page shows, or the page and the open dataset diverge.",
      "faq": "optional array of {q, a}",
      "pull": "optional pull-quote string"
    }
  },
  "entries": [
    {
      "slug": "recoupment",
      "term": "Recoupment",
      "aka": [
        "recouping",
        "unrecouped",
        "recoup"
      ],
      "domain": "economics",
      "definition": "Recoupment is the process by which a record label recovers money it advanced to an artist out of the artist's share of revenue only, rather than out of total revenue.",
      "mechanism": "An advance is charged to the artist's account on day one and repaid from the artist's royalty percentage. Because that percentage is a minority share, the advance clears far more slowly than its face value implies, and the label retains the majority share throughout.",
      "example": "A $200,000 advance at a 20% royalty rate requires roughly $1,000,000 of revenue before the artist's share reaches $200,000. At that moment the artist has received exactly the money they were already given and the label has collected $800,000.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "name": "Debt",
          "difference": "A standard advance is recoupable but not returnable: if the record never earns out, the artist does not owe the shortfall as cash and the label absorbs it."
        },
        {
          "slug": "360-deal",
          "difference": "Recoupment is how the label recovers what it advanced. A 360 deal governs which income streams the label participates in at all."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "It is the single most common reason a visibly successful artist reports no income from recordings, and almost every artist who signs one misjudges how much revenue is required to clear it.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live",
      "pull": "Recoupment is not the label lending the artist money. It is the artist funding their own career from a minority share, while the majority share is retained by the party that advanced it.",
      "sections": [
        {
          "h2": "What is recoupable, and this is where it gets worse",
          "body": [
            "Recoupable costs are rarely limited to the advance. Depending on the agreement, the artist's account can also be charged for recording costs, producer fees, mixing and mastering, music video production, marketing and promotion, independent radio promotion, and tour support. Each of those is spent by the label, and each is charged back to the artist's share.",
            "This produces the outcome that surprises people most: the more aggressively a label promotes a record, the deeper the artist's account goes before it can begin to recover. Promotional spend is not a gift, it is an addition to the balance."
          ]
        },
        {
          "h2": "Recoupable is not the same as returnable",
          "body": [
            "Recoupment is commonly confused with debt, and the distinction matters in the artist's favour. In a standard recording agreement the advance is recoupable but not returnable: if the record never earns enough for the artist's share to clear the balance, the artist does not owe the shortfall as a cash debt. The label absorbs it.",
            "That is a real protection and it is why advances are described as non-returnable. It is also why the balance follows the artist forward: an unrecouped account can be carried against future releases under the same agreement, so a first record that underperforms can suppress the earnings of a second one that does well."
          ]
        },
        {
          "h2": "How to check it in a real statement",
          "body": [
            "An artist royalty statement shows the account balance rather than the revenue. The number to find is the running unrecouped balance, then the itemised charges applied in the period. Charges are where the disagreement usually lives: whether a given marketing expense was recoupable at all, and whether it was charged at the rate the agreement specifies. This is what an audit clause exists for, and audit rights are one of the most commonly unexercised provisions in a recording agreement."
          ]
        }
      ],
      "faq": [
        {
          "q": "Does the artist owe the money back if the record flops?",
          "a": "Not as a cash debt under a standard recording agreement. The advance is recoupable but not returnable, so the label absorbs the shortfall. The unrecouped balance can still be carried against future releases under the same agreement."
        },
        {
          "q": "Why does a bigger marketing budget hurt the artist?",
          "a": "Because marketing spend is usually recoupable. The label spends it, then charges it to the artist's account, so the balance the artist's share must clear grows with the promotional push."
        },
        {
          "q": "Where do the actual rates come from?",
          "a": "Royalty rates are negotiated per agreement and vary widely. Statutory rates that apply to compositions are set by regulation and change over time, which is why this entry teaches the mechanism rather than quoting a rate that would be stale within a year."
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "slug": "black-box-royalties",
      "term": "Black box royalties",
      "aka": [
        "unmatched royalties",
        "unallocated royalties",
        "undistributed royalties",
        "suspense account"
      ],
      "domain": "ownership",
      "definition": "Black box royalties are royalties that were successfully collected but could not be matched to the person or company entitled to them.",
      "mechanism": "A payment can only be routed when usage data and ownership data agree. Registration gaps, name mismatches, incomplete splits and title variations break that link. After a holding period, undistributed money is generally allocated by market share, which sends it to the largest rights holders rather than to whoever earned it.",
      "example": "A song registered by one co-writer but not the others produces a payment with no confirmed destination for the unregistered shares. If it is never claimed, that money is distributed in proportion to existing matched market share.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "name": "Unpaid royalties",
          "difference": "Unpaid royalties are owed by a counterparty that has not paid, which is a contractual dispute. Black box money has already been paid and is sitting with a collector that cannot identify the recipient."
        },
        {
          "slug": "recoupment",
          "difference": "Recoupment concerns earned money being applied against an advance. Black box concerns earned money never being attributed at all."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "Almost all exposure is a registration problem, which is the one part an artist controls without a lawyer, and the holding period is finite.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "The MLC",
          "url": "https://www.themlc.com/"
        },
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live",
      "pull": "The black box is not a vault of stolen money. It is a filing failure with a deadline, and the deadline has a default beneficiary that is not the artist.",
      "sections": [
        {
          "h2": "Why royalties go unmatched in the first place",
          "body": [
            "A single piece of music carries at least two separate rights, the recording and the underlying composition, and they are frequently owned by different parties, registered in different databases, and collected by different organisations. A payment can only be routed if the usage data and the ownership data agree.",
            "They routinely do not agree. A composition may be registered under a slightly different title, a writer's legal name may differ from the credited name, a split may be registered by one co-writer and not the others, a song may be unregistered entirely, or the usage report may carry a misspelling. Each mismatch produces a payment with no confirmed destination."
          ]
        },
        {
          "h2": "Market-share distribution, which is the part that matters",
          "body": [
            "When the holding period expires, the remaining undistributed money is generally allocated by market share. Each participating rights holder receives a portion proportional to the share of matched royalties they already receive.",
            "Follow that logic to its conclusion. The money in the pool is, by definition, money that could not be matched, and unmatched works are disproportionately independent, self-released, older, or administratively neglected. The money is then distributed in proportion to matched market share, which is dominated by the largest publishers and labels. The pool of money earned mostly by the unrepresented is paid mostly to the well-represented.",
            "This is why the black box is described as structural rather than fraudulent. No party has to behave badly for the outcome to occur. The rule produces it automatically."
          ]
        },
        {
          "h2": "What an artist can actually do",
          "body": [
            "Almost all black box exposure is a registration problem, and registration is the one part an artist controls without a lawyer. Register every composition with a performing rights organisation, including features, and confirm the split totals 100% across all writers. Register recordings and compositions consistently, since they are tracked separately. Keep credited names and legal names linked in every database, because a mismatch is the single most common cause of an unmatched payment. Confirm co-writers have registered their side. And claim historical works actively rather than waiting, because the holding period is finite and the default beneficiary is not you."
          ]
        }
      ],
      "faq": [
        {
          "q": "How large is the black box?",
          "a": "Published estimates vary by roughly an order of magnitude depending on what is counted, which territories are included, and whether recording and publishing royalties are combined. We are not going to repeat a single figure as fact, because the number is exactly the sort of claim this publication exists to check rather than to pass along."
        },
        {
          "q": "Can I claim old unmatched royalties?",
          "a": "Sometimes, within the holding period, by registering the work correctly and submitting a claim to the relevant collecting entity. Once the pool has been distributed by market share, that money is gone."
        },
        {
          "q": "Does this only affect independent artists?",
          "a": "No, but it affects them disproportionately, because the allocation rule rewards existing matched market share and independent catalogues are more likely to be incompletely registered."
        }
      ],
      "title": "Black box royalties: where unmatched music money goes"
    },
    {
      "slug": "360-deal",
      "term": "360 deal",
      "aka": [
        "multiple rights deal",
        "ancillary rights deal"
      ],
      "domain": "economics",
      "definition": "A 360 deal is a recording agreement in which the label takes a percentage of income streams beyond recorded music, such as touring, merchandise, endorsements and publishing.",
      "mechanism": "Traditional recording agreements participate only in recorded-music revenue. A 360 deal extends participation across the artist's other income, on the argument that label investment builds the whole career rather than only the records.",
      "example": "An artist whose records under-earn but whose touring is profitable can find the touring income participating in a recording deficit, where the agreement also permits cross-collateralisation.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "slug": "cross-collateralisation",
          "difference": "A 360 deal defines which income the label shares in. Cross-collateralisation defines whether a deficit in one area can be recovered from another."
        },
        {
          "slug": "recoupment",
          "difference": "One is scope of participation, the other is the mechanism of repayment."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "It changes what the label is entitled to from activity it may not have funded, and combined with cross-collateralisation it widens the pool a recording deficit can consume.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live"
    },
    {
      "slug": "cross-collateralisation",
      "term": "Cross-collateralisation",
      "aka": [
        "cross collateralization",
        "cross-collateralized"
      ],
      "domain": "economics",
      "definition": "Cross-collateralisation is a contractual term allowing a label to recover the unrecouped balance of one project out of the earnings of another.",
      "mechanism": "Without it, each project settles on its own account. With it, the accounts are pooled, so a deficit on one release is cleared from the proceeds of a later one before the artist participates.",
      "example": "An artist whose first two albums remain unrecouped can find a successful third album clearing those deficits before it pays them anything.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "slug": "recoupment",
          "difference": "Recoupment is repayment from the artist's share. Cross-collateralisation determines which projects' shares are available to repay from."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "It is the clause that most often explains why a hit record produces no payment, and it is negotiable more often than artists assume.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live"
    },
    {
      "slug": "controlled-composition-clause",
      "term": "Controlled composition clause",
      "aka": [
        "controlled comp",
        "controlled composition"
      ],
      "domain": "economics",
      "definition": "A controlled composition clause reduces the mechanical royalty a label pays a songwriter-artist on songs that artist wrote or controls, and typically caps how many songs per album are paid at all.",
      "mechanism": "Mechanical royalties are otherwise set by statute per composition. The clause contracts around that for compositions the artist controls, commonly at a reduced percentage of the statutory rate and with a cap on the number of tracks counted per album.",
      "example": "Under a clause capping payment at ten tracks, an artist who writes fourteen songs on their own album is paid mechanicals on ten of them, at the reduced rate.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "name": "Performance royalties",
          "difference": "Performance royalties are collected by PROs for public performance and are not affected by this clause, which concerns mechanicals."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "It applies specifically to artists who write their own material, so the more of your own album you wrote, the more it costs you.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live"
    },
    {
      "slug": "master-vs-composition",
      "term": "Master versus composition",
      "aka": [
        "two copyrights",
        "sound recording vs song",
        "master rights"
      ],
      "domain": "ownership",
      "definition": "Every piece of recorded music contains two separate copyrights: the composition, which is the underlying song, and the master, which is the specific recording of it.",
      "mechanism": "The two are owned, licensed, registered and paid separately, often by different parties. Labels typically hold masters; writers and publishers hold compositions. A licence for one does not licence the other.",
      "example": "A film wanting to use a track must clear both the master from whoever owns the recording and the composition from the publisher. Either can refuse independently.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "name": "Publishing",
          "difference": "Publishing is the business of administering the composition side. It is not a third copyright."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "Almost every ownership dispute, catalogue sale and re-recording is about which of the two is being discussed, and conflating them makes any deal unreadable.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live"
    },
    {
      "slug": "mechanical-royalty",
      "term": "Mechanical royalty",
      "aka": [
        "mechanicals",
        "mechanical licence"
      ],
      "domain": "economics",
      "definition": "A mechanical royalty is money owed to the owner of a composition when a recording of that composition is reproduced or streamed.",
      "mechanism": "It attaches to the composition rather than the recording, and for digital services in the United States it is administered collectively. Rates are set by regulation rather than negotiated per use.",
      "example": "When a song is streamed, the recording generates money for the master owner and the composition separately generates a mechanical for the writer and publisher.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "name": "Performance royalty",
          "difference": "Performance royalties are for public performance and are collected by PROs. Mechanicals are for reproduction."
        },
        {
          "slug": "master-vs-composition",
          "difference": "Mechanicals are one of the payments arising from the composition side of that split."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "It is the payment most often lost to registration failure, which is why it dominates the black box.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "The MLC",
          "url": "https://www.themlc.com/"
        },
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live"
    },
    {
      "slug": "split-sheet",
      "term": "Split sheet",
      "aka": [
        "writer splits",
        "songwriter split agreement"
      ],
      "domain": "credits",
      "definition": "A split sheet is a written record of what percentage of a composition each contributor owns, agreed at the time the song is made.",
      "mechanism": "Ownership shares must be registered consistently by every party. Where contributors disagree or fail to register, the payment cannot be matched and the shares fall into the unmatched pool.",
      "example": "Three writers agreeing 40/30/30 in the room, and all three registering those figures, produces a work that pays cleanly. One writer registering 50% while another registers 40% produces a conflict that suspends payment.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "name": "Credits",
          "difference": "A credit is who is named. A split is who is paid, and the two frequently differ."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "It takes minutes in the room and is nearly impossible to reconstruct years later, and its absence is the most common single cause of unmatched royalties.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "The MLC",
          "url": "https://www.themlc.com/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live",
      "title": "Split sheet: the one page that decides who gets paid"
    },
    {
      "slug": "pro",
      "term": "Performing rights organisation",
      "aka": [
        "PRO",
        "ASCAP",
        "BMI",
        "performance rights organization",
        "collecting society"
      ],
      "domain": "ownership",
      "definition": "A performing rights organisation licenses the public performance of compositions on behalf of writers and publishers, collects the resulting money, and distributes it to its members.",
      "mechanism": "Venues, broadcasters and services take blanket licences rather than clearing each song. The organisation tracks usage, matches it to registered works, and pays the registered owners.",
      "example": "A song played on radio generates performance income that reaches the writer only if that writer is a member and the work is registered with correct shares.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "name": "Publisher",
          "difference": "A publisher administers and exploits compositions commercially. A PRO only licenses and collects for public performance."
        },
        {
          "slug": "mechanical-royalty",
          "difference": "PROs handle performance. Mechanicals are administered separately."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "Unregistered works earn performance income that cannot be paid to anyone, and membership is the precondition for collecting it.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live"
    },
    {
      "slug": "advance",
      "term": "Advance",
      "aka": [
        "signing advance",
        "recording fund"
      ],
      "domain": "economics",
      "definition": "An advance is money paid to an artist up front against future earnings, charged to the artist's account and repaid out of their share of revenue.",
      "mechanism": "It is a prepayment rather than a fee. The artist receives it immediately and earns nothing further until their share of revenue has repaid it in full.",
      "example": "A $200,000 advance at a 20% rate is repaid once the artist's share reaches $200,000, which requires roughly $1,000,000 of revenue.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "name": "A fee",
          "difference": "A fee is kept. An advance is repaid from money the artist would otherwise have received."
        },
        {
          "slug": "recoupment",
          "difference": "The advance is the sum. Recoupment is the process of recovering it."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "The headline number in most deal announcements is an advance, which means it is a loan being reported as an income figure.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live"
    },
    {
      "slug": "per-stream-rate",
      "term": "Per-stream rate",
      "aka": [
        "payout per stream",
        "how much does spotify pay per stream",
        "streaming rate"
      ],
      "domain": "economics",
      "definition": "A per-stream rate is not a fixed price paid per play; it is an average derived after the fact by dividing a service's payable revenue pool among rights holders by share of total streams.",
      "mechanism": "Most services distribute a percentage of revenue rather than paying a set amount per play. Each rights holder receives a share proportional to their share of total streams in the period, so the effective rate moves with subscriber revenue, listener territory, subscription tier and total platform volume.",
      "example": "The same track can produce materially different effective rates in two months with identical stream counts, because the pool and the denominator both changed.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "name": "A price per play",
          "difference": "There is no fixed unit price to be paid. Any quoted figure is an average that has already happened."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "Every published figure differs, and the reason is structural rather than dishonest. Planning revenue on a quoted rate assumes a price that does not exist.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live",
      "title": "Per-stream rate: why every published figure is different"
    },
    {
      "slug": "points",
      "term": "Points",
      "aka": [
        "royalty points",
        "producer points"
      ],
      "domain": "economics",
      "definition": "A point is one percentage point of the artist royalty on a recording, most often used to describe a producer's participation.",
      "mechanism": "Producer points are usually carved out of the artist's royalty rather than added on top, so each point a producer receives reduces the artist's share by the same amount.",
      "example": "An artist on 20 points who gives a producer 3 points retains 17. The label's share is unchanged.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "name": "Publishing splits",
          "difference": "Points concern the master royalty. Publishing splits concern ownership of the composition, and the two are separate negotiations."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "Producer points are commonly agreed casually and paid for the life of the recording, and they come out of the artist rather than the label.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live"
    },
    {
      "slug": "reversion",
      "term": "Reversion",
      "aka": [
        "rights reversion",
        "termination right",
        "getting your masters back"
      ],
      "domain": "ownership",
      "definition": "Reversion is the return of rights to their original owner, either because a contract term provided for it or because a statutory right allows a transfer to be terminated after a defined period.",
      "mechanism": "Contractual reversion happens on conditions written into the agreement. Statutory termination is a separate right created by copyright law, exercisable within specific windows and requiring notice in a prescribed form and timeframe.",
      "example": "An artist whose recordings were assigned decades ago may become able to terminate that assignment, but only by serving notice inside the statutory window.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "name": "Buying your masters back",
          "difference": "A purchase is a negotiation at whatever price the owner sets. Reversion is a right that does not require the owner's agreement."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "The windows are strict and the notice requirements are formal, so the right is routinely lost by inaction rather than refused.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live"
    },
    {
      "slug": "audit-clause",
      "term": "Audit clause",
      "aka": [
        "right to audit",
        "royalty audit"
      ],
      "domain": "economics",
      "definition": "An audit clause is the contractual right for an artist to examine a label's or distributor's books to verify that royalties were calculated and paid correctly.",
      "mechanism": "It defines who may audit, how often, over what period, at whose cost, and within what window after a statement is issued. Statements typically become final and unchallengeable once that window closes.",
      "example": "A clause allowing audit within two years of a statement means errors in a statement three years old are generally no longer recoverable, regardless of size.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "name": "A dispute",
          "difference": "An audit is an inspection right exercised under the contract, not litigation, and is frequently resolved without any."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "It is one of the most commonly unexercised provisions in a recording agreement, and the right expires on a clock most artists never track.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live",
      "title": "Audit clause: your only mechanism for checking the statement"
    },
    {
      "slug": "publishing",
      "term": "Publishing",
      "aka": [
        "music publishing",
        "publishing deal",
        "publisher",
        "admin deal"
      ],
      "domain": "ownership",
      "definition": "Publishing is the business of owning, administering and exploiting the composition, which is the song itself, as distinct from any particular recording of it.",
      "mechanism": "A publisher registers compositions, licenses them, collects the income they generate and takes a share. Deals range from full publishing, where the publisher takes ownership of copyright shares, to administration deals, where the writer keeps ownership and pays a smaller percentage for the collection work.",
      "example": "A writer on a full publishing deal may assign a share of the copyright in exchange for an advance. A writer on an admin deal keeps the copyright and pays a percentage, typically much smaller, purely for registration and collection.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "slug": "master-vs-composition",
          "difference": "Publishing concerns the composition side of that split. It is not a third copyright, it is the business built around one of the two."
        },
        {
          "slug": "pro",
          "difference": "A PRO only licenses and collects for public performance. A publisher administers the composition across every use, including sync and mechanicals."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "Most artists sign a recording deal understanding it and a publishing deal not understanding it, and publishing is the side that keeps paying long after the recording stops.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live"
    },
    {
      "slug": "distribution-fee",
      "term": "Distribution fee",
      "aka": [
        "distro fee",
        "distribution cut"
      ],
      "domain": "economics",
      "definition": "A distribution fee is the percentage a distributor takes for delivering recordings to streaming services and stores and collecting the resulting revenue.",
      "mechanism": "It is deducted before the artist's share is calculated, which places it ahead of almost everything else in the chain. Models vary between a flat annual fee with no percentage, a percentage of revenue, and a percentage plus recoupable services.",
      "example": "On a 15% distribution fee, $10,000 of streaming revenue becomes $8,500 before any label split, recoupment or publishing is applied. The same $10,000 through a flat-fee distributor leaves the full amount less the subscription.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "name": "A label deal",
          "difference": "A distributor delivers and collects. A label typically also funds, markets and takes a far larger share, and usually takes rights."
        },
        {
          "slug": "recoupment",
          "difference": "A distribution fee is taken off the top continuously. Recoupment is repayment of a specific advance from the artist's share."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "It comes off the top, so it compounds against every other percentage downstream, and it is the single easiest term to compare between competing offers.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live"
    },
    {
      "slug": "escalator",
      "term": "Escalator",
      "aka": [
        "royalty escalator",
        "rate escalation"
      ],
      "domain": "economics",
      "definition": "An escalator is a contract term that increases an artist's royalty rate once defined sales or streaming thresholds are reached.",
      "mechanism": "The rate steps up at agreed milestones, and the increase usually applies only to units sold above the threshold rather than retroactively to everything sold before it.",
      "example": "A deal at 18% escalating to 20% at 500,000 units typically pays 18% on the first 500,000 and 20% only on units after that, so the headline improved rate applies to a smaller base than it appears to.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "slug": "points",
          "difference": "Points describe the size of the royalty. An escalator describes the conditions under which that size changes."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "Escalators are presented as upside in negotiation while the thresholds are frequently set where most releases will never reach them, so the improved rate is real but rarely paid.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live"
    },
    {
      "slug": "playlist-placement",
      "term": "Playlist placement",
      "aka": [
        "playlisting",
        "editorial playlist",
        "playlist pitch"
      ],
      "domain": "economics",
      "definition": "Playlist placement is the inclusion of a track on a streaming service's editorial or algorithmic playlist, which raises stream volume and therefore payout.",
      "mechanism": "Editorial placements are chosen by service staff and pitched through official channels. Algorithmic placements are generated from listener behaviour signals such as save rate, completion rate and skip rate. Both increase the numerator in the pool-share calculation that determines payout.",
      "example": "A track added to a large editorial playlist can multiply monthly streams, but because payout is a share of a revenue pool rather than a fixed price per play, the resulting income depends on the pool and the total streams across the platform in that period.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "name": "Paid playlist promotion",
          "difference": "Official editorial pitching is free and internal. Third-party paid placement on unofficial playlists is a different market and can trigger artificial-streaming enforcement."
        },
        {
          "slug": "per-stream-rate",
          "difference": "Placement changes how many streams you get. The per-stream rate is determined separately by the pool-share model."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "It is the single largest short-term lever on streaming income, and the difference between official pitching and bought placement is the difference between growth and a takedown.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live"
    },
    {
      "slug": "neighbouring-rights",
      "term": "Neighbouring rights",
      "aka": [
        "related rights",
        "sound recording performance royalties",
        "neighboring rights"
      ],
      "domain": "ownership",
      "definition": "Neighbouring rights are performance royalties paid for the use of a sound RECORDING, as distinct from the performance royalties paid for the underlying composition.",
      "mechanism": "Two separate copyrights exist in most songs: the composition and the recording of it. Performing rights organisations collect for the composition. Neighbouring rights collect for the recording, and are split between the featured artist, the non-featured performers and the rights holder. They are administered by different bodies in different territories, which is why they are the most commonly unclaimed income in music.",
      "example": "A record played on digital radio generates a composition royalty routed through a PRO to the writers, and a separate recording royalty routed through a neighbouring-rights body to the performers and the label.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "slug": "pro",
          "difference": "A PRO collects for the composition and pays writers and publishers. Neighbouring rights collect for the recording and pay performers and the recording's owner. Registering with one does not register you for the other."
        },
        {
          "slug": "master-vs-composition",
          "difference": "Master versus composition is the ownership distinction. Neighbouring rights are one specific income stream that flows from the recording side of that split."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "In the United States, terrestrial AM/FM radio pays the composition side but pays the recording side nothing at all. A record can be in heavy rotation on American radio and generate zero neighbouring-rights income domestically, while the same play in most other countries would pay the performers.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live",
      "pull": "A song on US terrestrial radio pays the writer and pays the performer nothing.",
      "title": "Neighbouring rights: the royalty US radio does not pay performers"
    },
    {
      "slug": "sync-licence",
      "term": "Sync licence",
      "aka": [
        "synchronisation licence",
        "sync",
        "sync placement"
      ],
      "domain": "economics",
      "definition": "A sync licence is permission to synchronise a piece of music with visual media such as a film, television programme, advertisement or game.",
      "mechanism": "Sync requires clearance on BOTH copyrights: the composition, cleared with the publisher and writers, and the recording, cleared with whoever owns the master. There is no statutory rate, so every fee is negotiated on the project's budget, the placement's prominence, the term, and the territory. If either side refuses, there is no placement.",
      "example": "A supervisor wants an independent record for a streaming series. The master is owned by the artist, but the beat was bought on an exclusive licence under which the producer retained the publishing, so the producer must also sign before the placement can clear.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "slug": "mechanical-royalty",
          "difference": "A mechanical is a statutory rate paid for reproducing a composition. Sync has no statutory rate at all and is freely negotiated, which is why comparable placements can differ by a factor of fifty."
        },
        {
          "name": "Master use licence",
          "difference": "The master use licence is the recording half of a sync clearance. People often say 'sync' to mean the whole clearance, but it is two agreements and either can block the deal."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "It is one of the few income lines in music where a single decision pays more than years of streaming, and it dies most often not on price but on an unclearable split nobody checked before the deadline.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live",
      "pull": "Two copyrights, two signatures. Either one can kill the placement.",
      "title": "Sync licence: the two clearances every placement needs"
    },
    {
      "slug": "the-mlc",
      "term": "The MLC",
      "aka": [
        "Mechanical Licensing Collective",
        "MLC"
      ],
      "domain": "ownership",
      "definition": "The Mechanical Licensing Collective is the body created by the Music Modernization Act to administer the blanket mechanical licence for digital services in the United States and to pay the resulting royalties to rights holders.",
      "mechanism": "Digital services pay mechanical royalties into a blanket licence rather than negotiating song by song. The MLC matches usage to registered works and distributes accordingly. Because the statute requires it, the MLC also maintains a public musical-works database that anyone may search or obtain in bulk, which makes ownership data for millions of works a public resource rather than a private asset.",
      "example": "A writer whose work is unregistered still generates mechanicals when the song is streamed, but the MLC has nothing to match the usage against, so the money sits unmatched until it is claimed or allocated away.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "slug": "pro",
          "difference": "A PRO collects PERFORMANCE royalties for the composition. The MLC collects MECHANICAL royalties for the composition. They are different income streams and registering with one does not register you with the other."
        },
        {
          "slug": "black-box-royalties",
          "difference": "Black box is the outcome. The MLC is one of the institutions where that outcome happens, and also the place you go to prevent it."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "Registering is free and is the single highest-yield administrative act available to an unsigned writer, because unmatched money is eventually allocated by market share to the largest rights holders rather than held indefinitely for you.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "The MLC",
          "url": "https://www.themlc.com/"
        },
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live",
      "pull": "The database is public because the law says it must be.",
      "title": "The MLC: what it collects, and why registering is free money"
    },
    {
      "slug": "isrc",
      "term": "ISRC",
      "aka": [
        "International Standard Recording Code"
      ],
      "domain": "credits",
      "definition": "An ISRC is a unique identifier for a specific sound RECORDING, used to track that recording across platforms and reporting systems.",
      "mechanism": "Each distinct recording gets its own code, permanently. A remix, a live version, a radio edit and a re-record are separate recordings and each needs its own ISRC. The code travels with the audio through distribution and reporting, which is what allows plays to be attributed to the right master.",
      "example": "A song released as a single and later included on an album keeps the same ISRC, because it is the same recording. A sped-up version issued afterwards is a different recording and requires a new one.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "slug": "iswc",
          "difference": "ISRC identifies the RECORDING. ISWC identifies the underlying WORK. One song can have one ISWC and twenty ISRCs, and confusing them is a common cause of misrouted royalties."
        },
        {
          "name": "UPC",
          "difference": "A UPC identifies a release or product, such as an album or single package. An ISRC identifies a single recording inside it."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "Reissuing the same recording with a fresh ISRC splits its stream history across two identities, which fragments both the reporting and any chart or playlist momentum attached to it.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live",
      "pull": "One work, many recordings. The codes are not interchangeable.",
      "title": "ISRC: what it is, and when a track needs a new one"
    },
    {
      "slug": "iswc",
      "term": "ISWC",
      "aka": [
        "International Standard Musical Work Code"
      ],
      "domain": "credits",
      "definition": "An ISWC is a unique identifier for a musical WORK, meaning the underlying composition rather than any particular recording of it.",
      "mechanism": "The work is registered once and receives one code that persists across every recording, cover, remix and live performance of it. Collection societies use the ISWC to gather income from all of those uses and route it to the writers and publishers according to the registered splits.",
      "example": "A song covered by four artists has four recordings with four ISRCs, all of which report back to a single ISWC so the original writers are paid for every version.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "slug": "isrc",
          "difference": "ISWC is the composition. ISRC is the recording. Writers are paid through the ISWC; performers and masters are paid through the ISRC."
        },
        {
          "slug": "split-sheet",
          "difference": "A split sheet is the private agreement about who wrote what. The ISWC is the public registration that agreement should be filed under."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "If a work is registered more than once with conflicting splits, income can be frozen while the duplicate registrations are reconciled, and reconciliation is slow.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live",
      "pull": "The work is the thing that persists. The recording is one instance of it.",
      "title": "ISWC vs ISRC: which code identifies the song and which the recording"
    },
    {
      "slug": "work-for-hire",
      "term": "Work for hire",
      "aka": [
        "work made for hire",
        "buyout"
      ],
      "domain": "ownership",
      "definition": "A work for hire is a work whose legal author, from the moment of creation, is the party who commissioned or employed the creator rather than the creator themselves.",
      "mechanism": "Ordinarily the person who creates a work owns the copyright and can later recover it. Under a valid work-for-hire arrangement, authorship vests in the commissioning party at the outset, which means there is nothing to revert. This is why the clause is one of the most consequential single sentences in a music agreement.",
      "example": "A producer paid a flat fee under a work-for-hire agreement has sold the copyright itself, not licensed it, and retains no writer's share unless the agreement separately grants one.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "name": "Exclusive licence",
          "difference": "An exclusive licence transfers USE, often for a term, and the creator still owns the copyright. Work for hire transfers AUTHORSHIP from the start, and there is nothing to get back."
        },
        {
          "slug": "reversion",
          "difference": "Reversion is a right attached to ownership. A genuine work for hire has no reversion because the creator was never the owner."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "It is the difference between selling a copy of your work and selling your authorship of it, and the two are frequently presented in the same paragraph at the same price.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live",
      "pull": "There is nothing to revert if you were never the author.",
      "title": "Work for hire: why there is nothing to get back"
    },
    {
      "slug": "breakage",
      "term": "Breakage",
      "aka": [
        "unattributed income",
        "digital breakage"
      ],
      "domain": "economics",
      "definition": "Breakage is money a label receives from a digital service that is not attributable to any specific artist's usage, such as advances, minimum guarantees and equity.",
      "mechanism": "Platform deals often include payments that do not correspond to plays: an upfront advance against future royalties, a guaranteed minimum whether or not usage justifies it, or shares in the service itself. Because these are not tied to any particular recording, there is no automatic mechanism that routes a portion to the artists whose catalogue made the deal worth doing.",
      "example": "A service pays a large minimum guarantee for catalogue access. Usage in the period falls short of that minimum. The surplus arrives at the label with no per-track attribution attached to it.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "slug": "black-box-royalties",
          "difference": "Black box money is attributable in principle but unmatched in practice. Breakage is structurally unattributable, because it was never generated by identifiable usage."
        },
        {
          "name": "Physical breakage",
          "difference": "The term originally covered a deduction for records broken in shipping. That deduction survived into contracts long after the physical justification disappeared, which is why the word carries two meanings."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "Whether an artist sees any of it depends entirely on a contract clause, and most agreements are silent, which resolves in favour of the party holding the money.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live",
      "pull": "Money the platform paid for your catalogue that your catalogue cannot claim.",
      "title": "Breakage: the platform money your catalogue cannot claim"
    },
    {
      "slug": "pro-rata-vs-user-centric",
      "term": "Pro-rata versus user-centric",
      "aka": [
        "royalty pool model",
        "market-centric",
        "user-centric licensing"
      ],
      "domain": "economics",
      "definition": "Pro-rata and user-centric are two ways of dividing a streaming service's subscription revenue among rights holders.",
      "mechanism": "Under pro-rata, all subscription money for a period goes into one pool and is divided by each rights holder's share of TOTAL streams on the service. Under user-centric, each individual subscriber's fee is divided among only the artists that subscriber actually played. The same listening produces different payouts under the two models, because pro-rata rewards share of total volume while user-centric rewards share of a listener's attention.",
      "example": "A subscriber plays one niche artist exclusively for a month. Under user-centric, that artist receives a share of that person's subscription. Under pro-rata, the artist receives a share proportional to their fraction of every stream on the platform, which for a niche act is far smaller.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "slug": "per-stream-rate",
          "difference": "The per-stream rate is an OUTPUT of whichever model is in use, not an input. This is why no fixed per-stream rate exists and why every published figure differs."
        },
        {
          "name": "Payout threshold",
          "difference": "Thresholds decide whether a track is eligible to be paid at all. The pool model decides how the money is divided among eligible tracks."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "Most published per-stream figures are quoted with no mention of the pool model that produced them, which makes them incomparable across services and across time.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live",
      "pull": "There is no per-stream rate. There is a pool and a formula.",
      "title": "Pro-rata vs user-centric: why there is no per-stream rate"
    },
    {
      "slug": "co-publishing-deal",
      "term": "Co-publishing deal",
      "aka": [
        "co-pub",
        "co-publishing agreement"
      ],
      "domain": "ownership",
      "definition": "A co-publishing deal is an agreement in which a writer keeps their writer's share and gives up part of the publisher's share in exchange for an advance and publishing services.",
      "mechanism": "Publishing income is conventionally described as two halves: the writer's share and the publisher's share. In a co-publishing deal the writer retains the writer's half and splits the publisher's half with the publisher, which is usually described as a 75/25 split in the writer's favour overall. The publisher takes a copyright interest, not merely a fee.",
      "example": "A writer signs a co-publishing deal for an advance. Income arrives and, after the advance recoups, the writer receives roughly three quarters of the publishing income while the publisher keeps the remainder and continues to own its share of the copyright.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "slug": "administration-deal",
          "difference": "An administration deal takes a percentage FEE and no ownership. A co-publishing deal takes OWNERSHIP of part of the copyright, usually permanently or for a long term."
        },
        {
          "slug": "advance",
          "difference": "The advance is the money. The co-publishing structure is what you gave up to receive it, and it outlasts the advance."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "The headline number is the advance, but the durable term is the copyright interest, which frequently survives long after the advance has recouped and been forgotten.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live",
      "pull": "The advance ends. The copyright interest does not.",
      "title": "Co-publishing deal: what the advance actually costs you"
    },
    {
      "slug": "administration-deal",
      "term": "Administration deal",
      "aka": [
        "admin deal",
        "publishing administration"
      ],
      "domain": "ownership",
      "definition": "An administration deal is an agreement in which a publisher registers, collects and licenses a writer's catalogue for a percentage fee, without taking ownership of the copyrights.",
      "mechanism": "The administrator handles registration with collection societies worldwide, chases income, issues licences and accounts to the writer, keeping an agreed commission on what it collects. The writer retains the copyright throughout, and at the end of the term the catalogue leaves with them.",
      "example": "A writer signs an administration deal at a commission rate. Income is collected globally and remitted less that percentage. When the term expires, the writer's copyrights are unaffected and can move elsewhere.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "slug": "co-publishing-deal",
          "difference": "A co-publishing deal takes a share of the copyright. An administration deal takes only a fee, which is why admin rates look higher per dollar while costing far less over the life of the work."
        },
        {
          "slug": "distribution-fee",
          "difference": "Distribution fees relate to recordings. Administration relates to compositions. The structures rhyme but the assets are different."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "It is the cheapest structure available for a writer who mainly needs global registration and collection rather than capital, and it is the one most often skipped because it comes with no advance to say yes to.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live",
      "pull": "A fee is temporary. A copyright share is not.",
      "title": "Administration deal vs co-publishing: fee or copyright"
    },
    {
      "slug": "interpolation",
      "term": "Interpolation",
      "aka": [
        "replay",
        "re-play",
        "interpolated"
      ],
      "domain": "credits",
      "definition": "An interpolation is the re-recording of a melody, lyric or other element of an existing composition, rather than the use of the original recording itself.",
      "mechanism": "Because no part of the original master is used, an interpolation requires clearance only on the composition side. That removes one of the two counterparties needed for a sample, and it removes the label from the negotiation entirely. The trade is that the publishers still hold a veto and typically take a share of the new work's publishing.",
      "example": "A producer replays a recognisable melody with session musicians instead of lifting the original recording. The master owner has no claim, but the original writers are credited on the new composition and share in its publishing.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "name": "Sampling",
          "difference": "A sample uses the original RECORDING and therefore needs clearance from both the master owner and the publishers. An interpolation re-records the part and needs only the publishers."
        },
        {
          "name": "Cover version",
          "difference": "A cover reproduces an existing song as a whole and is generally available under a compulsory mechanical licence. An interpolation places part of one work inside a new one and is not compulsory: it can be refused."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "It is the standard route around an unclearable or unaffordable master, and it is also the most common reason a modern credits list contains writers who were not in the room.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live",
      "pull": "Replay it and the label disappears from the negotiation. The publishers do not.",
      "title": "Interpolation vs sampling: what you actually have to clear"
    },
    {
      "slug": "streaming-fraud",
      "term": "Streaming fraud",
      "aka": [
        "artificial streams",
        "stream farming",
        "bot streams"
      ],
      "domain": "economics",
      "definition": "Streaming fraud is the generation of plays that do not correspond to genuine listening, whether bought by the artist, arranged by a third party, or run against a catalogue without its owner's knowledge.",
      "mechanism": "Because payouts are divided from a shared pool, artificial streams take money from every other rights holder on the service rather than creating new money. Detection is therefore a platform priority, and enforcement now commonly includes withheld royalties, removal of the affected release, per-track penalties charged by distributors, and account termination.",
      "example": "A promotion service promises a guaranteed number of plays. The plays arrive from patterns the platform flags, the release is withdrawn, the royalties are withheld, and the distributor charges a penalty for the affected tracks.",
      "confused_with": [
        {
          "slug": "playlist-placement",
          "difference": "Editorial pitching and legitimate playlist promotion are ordinary marketing. Purchased placement on playlists that deliver artificial plays is the same activity as buying streams, and is treated as fraud regardless of how it is sold."
        }
      ],
      "matters_because": "The artist is held responsible for streams they may not have knowingly bought, and 'a promoter did it' is not usually a defence that restores the withheld income.",
      "sources": [
        {
          "name": "US Copyright Office",
          "url": "https://www.copyright.gov/"
        }
      ],
      "status": "live",
      "pull": "Fake streams do not add money to the pool. They move it away from everyone else.",
      "title": "Streaming fraud: what counts as fake streams, and what it costs you"
    }
  ]
}