← All insights Music

Music income that was earned and never reached anybody

Money that should have arrived has not, and the natural conclusion is that somebody is holding on to it. Occasionally that is the position. Far more often nobody holds it in the sense the reader imagines, because nothing in the record connects the income to a person at all.

In the United Kingdom, separate societies administer different rights in music, and a single use of a single track can generate income in more than one direction at once, each handled by a different organisation under its own arrangements. Those arrangements are not something that can usefully be summarised on a page like this, and they are the first thing a person in this position needs explained properly rather than approximately.

What can be said plainly is where the fragility sits. Income is routed by data. A work has a title, contributors and identifiers; a recording of it has an identity of its own; a release has another again. Payment depends on those records existing, being consistent, and agreeing with each other across every organisation holding a copy. None of it is created by the person who wrote or performed the music. It is created by whoever submitted a registration and whoever delivered a release, quickly, on a form, for a track nobody yet believed would earn anything.

This is why the conclusion most people reach first is the wrong one, and why reaching it is expensive. Treating a clerical failure as dishonesty produces correspondence, cost and hostility, and none of those corrects a record. The remedy for this problem is different in kind from the one the situation seems to call for.

Earned, unattributed and withheld are three different things

Income arises because a work or a recording has been used. Whether it reaches a particular person is a wholly separate question, answered by records held somewhere else entirely by organisations that have never met the person concerned.

Where the records do not identify who is entitled, income does not vanish and is not ordinarily handed to somebody else at random. It sits unattributed. How long it sits, what eventually becomes of it, and what can be done about it are governed by rules that differ between organisations and between territories and that change over time. That is precisely the area where assumptions are held most confidently and are most often wrong, and it needs establishing for the particular case rather than reasoning about in general.

The distinction that matters practically is this. Where money is unattributed there is nobody refusing to pay, because nobody has taken a decision at all. An outcome that nobody chose is harder to reverse than one somebody did, since there is no counterparty with an interest in resolving it and no point at which it becomes anybody's problem to solve. Nothing happens until somebody makes it happen, and that somebody is the person who was not paid.

The data is the entitlement

A song exists as a work. A recording of that song is a separate thing. A release containing that recording is a third. Each is described by its own record, and income routes through the connections between them. Where a connection is broken, income relating to one may be paid while income relating to another is not, which is why the symptom people usually describe is not silence but partial payment that makes no sense.

The breaks recur in the same places. A contributor credited under one name and registered under another. A work registered by one writer with the position of the others left blank. A release delivered with contributor fields incomplete, because they were optional on the form and it was release day. A track redelivered through a different distributor and acquiring a second recording identity while the first carries on. The same work registered separately by two parties who each believed they were the first to do it. A variant title, a feature credit, a remix suffix, a live version that was never distinguished from the studio one.

None of that is exotic. It is what happens when the administrative record of a career is assembled release by release, over years, by different people, none of whom could see what the others had entered and none of whom were being paid to care.

Why an accusing letter makes it slower

Where money is missing the instinct is to write to somebody in strong terms, on the assumption that pressure produces payment. Applied to a clerical failure this misfires, and it misfires in a specific way rather than merely achieving nothing.

The organisations holding unattributed income are administrative bodies applying rules to records. Correspondence framed as an accusation does not enter a faster queue. It changes who handles it and what they are permitted to say, and it ordinarily produces a careful reply rather than a correction. The work that actually moves money is unglamorous: establishing what the entitlement is, evidencing it, and putting the record right in each of the places it is wrong.

There is a situation where the aggressive instinct is the correct one, and separating the two is the point of taking advice at the beginning rather than at the end. Where a person has been accounted to by a counterparty under an agreement, and the statements do not reflect what that agreement provides, the question is contractual and is answered in a different way against a party who has an obligation to them. Working out which of those two positions somebody is actually in is the first useful piece of work on this subject, and it is frequently the whole of it.

Proving that the entitlement is yours

Nothing is paid on assertion. Before a record is altered, whoever holds the money has to be satisfied that the person asking is entitled to it, and entitlement is proved from documents that were almost all created for other reasons: agreements, delivery correspondence, session material, and statements from other sources showing that the work is being used at all.

The practical obstacle is custody. This material sits with a former manager, in a distributor account nobody has the login for, with a label that has since been sold, or with a co writer who is not replying. Every one of them adds delay. Whether and how far a correction can reach backwards is governed by rules that differ between organisations and arrangements, and it is not something to assume in either direction, which is the strongest available reason not to leave the question sitting.

There is a further complication wherever other people are involved in the same work. Correcting a registration alters what everybody else registered against that work receives, so a correction is rarely a private act. Anyone whose position moves has a reason to take an interest, and something that began as housekeeping turns into a negotiation with contributors who had been perfectly content with the arrangement as it stood.

When to spend nothing

This exercise has a cost, and the amount recoverable is unknown when the cost is incurred. That is an uncomfortable combination, and it is the reason candour matters more on this subject than on most.

A writer or artist with a short release history, no record of significant use and no international activity ordinarily has very little sitting anywhere, and paying to have the position searched may cost more than it returns. The question worth answering first is whether there is a plausible reason for income to exist that has not been received: a use in a territory the artist has never dealt with, a placement, a period of activity administered by somebody who has since gone, a catalogue acquired from somebody else. Without one of those, the honest answer is often that nothing is missing.

The opposite proposition deserves the same scepticism. The idea that unclaimed money is waiting for everybody is a marketed one, and arrangements offered to recover income on somebody's behalf are frequently priced against income that would have arrived anyway. Understanding what is realistically likely to be there, before agreeing to anything that attaches itself to future income, is the part of this that repays itself whichever way the answer comes out.

More on this: Royalties, part of music.

This guide is general information about how these matters usually run. It is not advice, and nothing becomes advice until terms are agreed in writing. Brandleys Legal Ltd delivers reserved legal activities alongside regulated partners.