Writer's share

Composition income is conventionally described as two halves. The writer's share belongs to the author of the song; the publisher's share is what a publisher takes in exchange for capital and work. The split is a convention of practice rather than a rule of copyright law, but it is close to universal, and it shapes how the money physically moves.

The important mechanic is direct payment. Performing rights societies pay the writer's share of performance income straight to the writer, on the writer's own account, and pay the publisher's share to the publisher. Even under a full publishing agreement, that half normally does not pass through the publisher's books. For most songwriters it is the first money that arrives and the money least affected by whatever else the deal says.

This is why the shorthand around deal structures makes sense. A co-publishing deal in which the writer keeps the writer's share and half of the publisher's share leaves the writer with about three quarters of total income. A full publishing deal assigns the whole publisher's share and leaves the writer's half intact. An administration deal assigns neither and charges a fee against collections.

Two cautions are worth stating plainly. First, the writer's-share convention is strongest for performance income; mechanical and synchronisation income does not always flow through the same two-account structure, and in many arrangements the publisher receives and accounts for all of it. Second, while the convention is that the writer's share stays with the writer, contracts can and sometimes do provide otherwise, particularly in older agreements. The rule is to read the specific document rather than to rely on the convention.

US law separately gives authors a statutory right to terminate a grant after a defined period, regardless of what the contract says.