Master recording

Every commercially released track carries two copyrights. The composition is the song as written; the master is the particular recorded performance of it. US law treats a sound recording as its own category of protected work under section 102, distinct from the underlying musical work, and the two can be — and very often are — owned by completely different people.

Ownership of the master usually follows the money. Whoever funded the recording session generally ends up owning it: a label under a recording agreement, a company under a work-for-hire arrangement, or the artist themselves on a self-funded release. That default is a matter of contract rather than of law, and it can be varied. Distribution and licence deals in particular leave ownership with the artist while granting the distributor exclusive rights for a term and a territory.

The practical consequence shows up whenever the track is reused. Putting a record into a film, an advertisement or a game requires clearance from both sides: a synchronisation licence from the publisher for the composition, and a master use licence from the owner of the recording. Either side can refuse. A rights holder that controls both — a one-stop — is materially easier to licence from, and music supervisors treat that as a real advantage when picking between options.

Masters are identified by an ISRC, assigned once per distinct recording. A new mix, an edit or a live version is a different recording and takes its own code. Because master ownership drives sale value, catalogue transactions turn heavily on chain of title: the documented line from the session through every transfer to the current owner. A gap in that line is the most common reason a deal stalls.