← All insights Music

Producer agreements and beat licences: what exclusivity buys

A beat was bought, a track was built on it, and the receipt says exclusive. That word is doing far less work than it appears to. It describes something the seller has agreed to stop doing, and says very little about what the buyer now owns.

Instrumentals are ordinarily sold through the producer's own store on the producer's own standard terms: the same document for every buyer, accepted by clicking rather than negotiated, and drafted by the party selling. Nobody reads it, because the sum involved at the moment of purchase is small. The sum involved later has nothing to do with the price paid.

Two separate things are being confused in almost every one of these transactions. There are the rights in the instrumental recording delivered as a file, and there are the rights in the song that comes into existence once somebody writes over it. A purchase deals, at most, with the first of those.

This page is about that market and only that market: instrumentals bought and sold between producers and artists. Recording agreements with labels and publishing agreements with publishers are separate arrangements answering separate questions, and a beat licence does not answer either of them, however comprehensive it looks.

What is being sold, and what is not

The file delivered is a sound recording. Ordinarily the producer made it and holds the rights in it, and what a buyer receives is permission to use it in a defined way. Paying for something does not by itself move the copyright in it. In the United Kingdom rights of this kind ordinarily transfer by written assignment, and a store's standard terms may or may not contain one. Many of them say plainly, in a document headed as a licence, that a licence is what is being granted, and that document is then described everywhere else on the site as a sale.

The underlying musical work is a separate matter again. An instrumental with a recognisable melodic and harmonic shape is itself capable of being a musical work, and when a topline and lyrics are written over it, the song that results ordinarily has more than one contributor. Buying an instrumental settles how the recording may be used. It does not decide authorship of what was written on top of it, and it does not by itself give the buyer the producer's position in the song.

That is where the most common misunderstanding sits, and both parties arrive at it honestly. The artist believes they bought the song, having bought the file the song was built from. The producer believes they hold a position in the song, having made the part of it that everybody recognises within a bar. Both are reasoning from the same transaction, and the transaction was never designed to answer the question.

What exclusivity removes

An exclusive purchase in this market is ordinarily a commitment by the seller to take the instrumental off sale and not to sell it to anybody else. It is a promise about the seller's future conduct. On its own it is not a transfer of ownership, and it says nothing whatever about the past.

The past is the part that surprises buyers. An instrumental sold on a non exclusive basis before the exclusive purchase has ordinarily already been licensed to other buyers, and those earlier grants are unaffected by anything the seller agrees afterwards. Releases already built on the same instrumental carry on. New ones can still appear, from buyers who bought before and have not released yet, and they arrive without warning at whatever point suits them.

A buyer who wanted exclusivity in the ordinary English sense of the word therefore needs the earlier grants dealt with, and needs the document to say what becomes of them. Standard terms rarely address it, because the party drafting them has no reason to raise it and every reason not to.

A lease is a set of limits that only bite if the track works

A non exclusive licence, commonly sold as a lease, permits defined uses. It is ordinarily limited by reference to the formats the track may appear in, the kinds of use allowed, the quantity of distribution permitted, and often the period for which the permission runs. Those limits are chosen by the seller, and they are the reason the price is what it is.

Nothing goes wrong while the release is unnoticed. Every cap is expressed by reference to distribution or use, so it is success, and only success, that carries a track past what was permitted. The moment a licence is exceeded is therefore the moment the track has begun to matter, which is also the moment the producer's position becomes worth asserting and the artist's need for permission is at its highest. The renegotiation happens on the worst terms available to the person who needs it.

Expiry does the same thing more quietly. Where a permission runs for a period, nothing removes the release at the end of it. The track carries on being distributed, played and licensed onwards by people who have no idea that a permission has lapsed, and a position that was sound becomes unsound without anybody taking a decision.

What sits inside the beat that the producer did not make

Instrumentals are frequently assembled from material the producer licensed rather than created: sample packs, loop libraries, drum kits, sounds bundled with software, and sometimes parts of commercial recordings. Nobody can grant more than they hold. A permission given to a producer under a sample library's terms reaches that producer, and whether it reaches the producer's customers and their customers' releases is a question about the library's terms rather than about the beat.

The consequence lands on the artist rather than on the producer. A complaint about material inside an instrumental is ordinarily directed at the release, because the release is what is visible and what is earning. The artist ends up answering for a decision taken by somebody else before they were involved, and answering it at the point where their own release is exposed.

A promise from the seller that everything is cleared is worth exactly what the seller is worth. Standard terms ordinarily contain a warranty of some kind, and what a warranty gives the buyer is a claim against whoever provided it, and nothing beyond that. Where that person sells instrumentals online from another country, the promise and the ability to make good on it are entirely different things, and only one of them appears in the document.

The producer who was never paid and never credited

The other side of this market runs on speculation. Work is done before terms are discussed, on a shared understanding that if the track happens the paperwork will happen. The track happens and the paperwork does not, and by then the reason for having it is the reason nobody wants to open it.

Where nothing was agreed, the producer's position is not nothing. They made a recording, and ordinarily they hold rights in what they made. What is difficult is establishing what was actually agreed between the parties by conduct alone, and that difficulty grows in exact proportion to how well the track has done, because every account of the arrangement is now given by somebody who knows what turns on it.

Credit deserves separating from money, and producers who have been in the market for any length of time separate them instinctively. A producer's business is built on demonstrable placements, and a credit is the only asset a producer accumulates independently of any single track. Contributor information delivered with a release is what the industry reads: it propagates to services and databases that reproduce it, and a correction made later reaches only some of the places the original went. A producer who is paid but left off the credits has lost the more durable of the two things, and it is the one nobody negotiates for.

There is also a set of personal rights belonging to a creator, including the right to be named as author and the right to object to treatment of a work that is derogatory. Those rights do not travel with the economic ones and are handled by provisions of their own, which in a document of this kind may be brief, buried or missing altogether. What a particular set of terms does with them is a separate question, and not one the headline of the document answers.

When to spend nothing

A release that goes out and finds no audience is not going to test any limit in the licence it was released under. Paying to convert that licence into something wider, or to have terms renegotiated for it, is paying to solve a problem that has not arrived and may never.

Reading standard terms line by line before every purchase is neither realistic nor necessary, and artists who try it stop buying beats rather than start reading them. What is worth knowing is what the limits are in the terms of the stores an artist actually buys from, because those terms are ordinarily one document applied to every sale, so understanding it once covers everything bought there afterwards. That is a contained piece of work with a long shelf life.

For a producer the useful exercise is not retrospective either. Chasing a placement that earned nothing costs more than it recovers and hardens a relationship that might otherwise have produced work. A producer's catalogue is created continuously, which means the terms of the next delivery can be settled at almost no cost, while the terms of a delivery made years ago can only be reconstructed through the argument itself. The money is better spent making the next one clean than making the last one arguable.

More on this: Deals and contracts, 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.