{"course":{"slug":"independent-creative","title":"Working for Yourself","url":"https://addaly.com/learn/independent-creative","level":"intermediate","track":"create"},"lesson":{"slug":"music-and-sound","title":"Two copyrights in every recording","url":"https://addaly.com/learn/independent-creative/music-and-sound","position":56,"of":84,"minutes":10,"answer":"Using a specific recording generally needs a synchronisation licence for the composition and a master use licence for the recording, from two different rights-holders, which is why re-recording a cover solves nothing.","keyIdea":"Using a specific recording generally needs a synchronisation licence for the composition and a master use licence for the recording, from two different rights-holders, which is why re-recording a cover solves nothing, and why a temp track the client falls in love with is a self-inflicted problem."},"body":{"format":"markdown","text":"## Why one track is two permissions\n\nThe commonest and most expensive misunderstanding in video work is that a piece of music is one thing to license. It is usually two.\n\n**The composition**, the song itself, the melody and lyrics, is owned by the writers and typically administered by a publisher.\n\n**The recording**, this particular performance, the master, is owned by whoever paid for the session, typically a label.\n\nTo use a specific recording in a video you generally need permission for both: a **synchronisation licence** for the composition and a **master use licence** for the recording. Two separate rights-holders, two separate negotiations, two fees.\n\nThis is why licensing a well-known track for a commercial client is expensive and slow, and it is why re-recording a cover version does not solve the problem: a cover still needs the synchronisation licence for the composition, even though you now own the recording.\n\n## What the streaming subscription does not buy\n\nA personal subscription to a streaming service licenses personal listening. It grants nothing for use in a client's video, on a showreel, on social media or in a shop.\n\nThis is not a technicality nobody enforces. Automated content-matching systems on the large video platforms identify commercial recordings within seconds of upload, and the usual outcomes are that the video is muted, blocked in some territories, or monetised for the rights-holder. For a client's launch video, discovering this at publication is a serious failure, and the client will reasonably regard it as yours.\n\n## Where legitimate music comes from\n\n**Production music libraries** are the standard commercial answer: a catalogue licensed for defined uses at a fixed fee, either per track or by subscription. Read the scope carefully: many subscription libraries license the *channel* rather than the track, meaning the licence lapses if you stop subscribing, and some restrict broadcast, paid advertising or client work under the basic tier.\n\n**Commissioning a composer** is often cheaper than people expect for a short piece and gives you a clean, exclusive result with one rights-holder and one agreement. For anything with real budget, this is usually the better answer.\n\n**Free and open sources**, which work:\n\n- The **YouTube Audio Library** offers tracks cleared for use on and off the platform, some requiring attribution.\n- The **Free Music Archive** hosts music under a range of Creative Commons licences: check each track, because the `NC` variants prohibit commercial use and a client video is commercial.\n- **ccMixter** carries remixable material under stated licences.\n- Several public-domain and open archives hold older recordings, though public domain status depends on the country and on both copyrights separately.\n\nWhatever you use, **save the evidence**: the track name, the source page, the licence text as it stood, the date, and the attribution string if one is required. A screenshot of the licence page is a reasonable minimum.\n\n## Attribution done properly\n\n`CC BY` licences require attribution in the manner the licensor specifies, and \"music from the internet\" is not attribution. The usual form names the track, the artist, the source and the licence, with a link where the medium allows. In a video this belongs in the credits and, where the platform supports it, the description.\n\nFailing to attribute is a breach of the licence, which means the use becomes unlicensed: the whole permission rests on the condition being met.\n\n## Sound effects and foley\n\nThe same structure applies and is more often ignored. Sound libraries have licences, and effects lifted from other people's videos are somebody's recording.\n\nFree sources worth knowing: **Freesound**, where each sound carries its own Creative Commons licence and must be checked individually, and the large public sound archives released by some broadcasters under their own terms. As with music, record what you used and under what licence.\n\nRecording your own is also more practical than people assume: a phone in a quiet room produces usable foley for a surprising range of effects, and **Audacity** will clean, trim and level it at no cost.\n\n## Voice, and the people in the recording\n\nA voiceover artist owns rights in their performance and should be engaged with a written agreement specifying the usage: the same four dials as any licence: medium, territory, duration, exclusivity. A voice recorded for a corporate video and later used in a paid advertisement is a common and genuine dispute.\n\nSynthetic voices introduce a further question that is not settled everywhere: whose voice the model was trained on, what the provider's terms permit, and whether disclosure is required. Read the specific provider's commercial terms, and be careful of any service offering a recognisable person's voice.\n\n## What to tell the client\n\nRaise music at the kickoff, not the edit. Two sentences:\n\n> \"For the music, we can either use a library track, which costs around X and is cleared for this use, or commission something. A commercial song would need two separate licences and typically runs into a different order of cost, worth knowing before we plan around one.\"\n\nThis prevents the specific disaster where a client falls in love with a temporary track cut into the rough edit. Temp-track attachment is a well-documented problem in film and advertising: people become attached to what they have heard, and every replacement sounds wrong. The defence is to avoid cutting to a track you cannot license, even in a rough version.\n\n## The limitation\n\nMusic rights are among the most fragmented areas of the whole field. Ownership of older recordings is frequently unclear, catalogues change hands, territorial rights differ, and collecting societies operate differently in every country. Even well-resourced productions get this wrong.\n\nFor an independent creative the realistic position is: use library or open-licensed music by default, keep the licence evidence with the project, commission original work when the budget allows, and treat any request to use a commercial recording as a specialist matter requiring a proper clearance rather than something to solve in an afternoon."},"check":{"question":"A client wants a well-known song in their launch video. The budget will not stretch. Someone suggests hiring a session musician to record a very similar cover version instead. What does this solve?","options":[{"text":"Most of it: commissioning the recording gives the client a master they own, and only a small mechanical fee remains for the composition.","correct":false,"tempting":"Correct that the master is now theirs, then treats the composition as a minor formality. The synchronisation licence is the substantial one."},{"text":"Nothing legally, but it avoids automated content matching on video platforms, so the video will not be muted or blocked.","correct":false,"tempting":"A cover may well pass automated matching, which is a real practical difference, but that does not make the use licensed, and platforms are not the rights-holder."},{"text":"The master use side only: the composition still needs a synchronisation licence, which is usually the expensive half.","correct":true},{"text":"Nothing at all, because recording a substantially similar version of a protected song is itself an infringement regardless of what licences are obtained.","correct":false,"tempting":"Too absolute. Cover recordings are routinely made lawfully; what is missing here is the sync licence for use in a video, not the right to perform the song."}]},"prev":{"slug":"fonts-and-stock","title":"The licence categories nobody reads","url":"https://addaly.com/learn/independent-creative/fonts-and-stock"},"next":{"slug":"releases-and-permissions","title":"Owning the photograph is not enough","url":"https://addaly.com/learn/independent-creative/releases-and-permissions"},"authorship":"Founder and series editor: Dr Mustafa Mun. Written by AI models to a written standard. Exam keys checked blind by a second model: 3,665 of 3,666 agreed. Academic review invited.","review":{"status":"Draft, open for academic review"},"cite":"Addaly (2026) 'Two copyrights in every recording', in Working for Yourself. Edited by M. Mun. Addaly. Available at: https://addaly.com/learn/independent-creative/music-and-sound (Accessed: 13 October 2026).","licence":{"name":"CC BY-NC-SA 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/"},"reader":{"schema":1,"title":"Two copyrights in every recording","courseTitle":"Working for Yourself","module":{"index":6,"slug":"ownership-and-risk","title":"Ownership, rights and risk"},"answer":null,"keyIdea":"Using a specific recording generally needs a synchronisation licence for the composition and a master use licence for the recording, from two different rights-holders, which is why re-recording a cover solves nothing, and why a temp track the client falls in love with is a self-inflicted problem.","hero":{"kind":"plate","image":null,"alt":null,"caption":null},"blocks":[{"t":"h2","id":"why-one-track-is-two-permissions","runs":[{"text":"Why one track is two permissions"}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"The commonest and most expensive misunderstanding in video work is that a piece of music is one thing to license. It is usually two."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"The composition","b":true},{"text":", the song itself, the melody and lyrics, is owned by the writers and typically administered by a publisher."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"The recording","b":true},{"text":", this particular performance, the master, is owned by whoever paid for the session, typically a label."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"To use a specific recording in a video you generally need permission for both: a "},{"text":"synchronisation licence","b":true},{"text":" for the composition and a "},{"text":"master use licence","b":true},{"text":" for the recording. Two separate rights-holders, two separate negotiations, two fees."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"This is why licensing a well-known track for a commercial client is expensive and slow, and it is why re-recording a cover version does not solve the problem: a cover still needs the synchronisation licence for the composition, even though you now own the recording."}]},{"t":"h2","id":"what-the-streaming-subscription-does-not-buy","runs":[{"text":"What the streaming subscription does not buy"}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"A personal subscription to a streaming service licenses personal listening. It grants nothing for use in a client’s video, on a showreel, on social media or in a shop."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"This is not a technicality nobody enforces. Automated content-matching systems on the large video platforms identify commercial recordings within seconds of upload, and the usual outcomes are that the video is muted, blocked in some territories, or monetised for the rights-holder. For a client’s launch video, discovering this at publication is a serious failure, and the client will reasonably regard it as yours."}]},{"t":"h2","id":"where-legitimate-music-comes-from","runs":[{"text":"Where legitimate music comes from"}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Production music libraries","b":true},{"text":" are the standard commercial answer: a catalogue licensed for defined uses at a fixed fee, either per track or by subscription. Read the scope carefully: many subscription libraries license the "},{"text":"channel","i":true},{"text":" rather than the track, meaning the licence lapses if you stop subscribing, and some restrict broadcast, paid advertising or client work under the basic tier."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Commissioning a composer","b":true},{"text":" is often cheaper than people expect for a short piece and gives you a clean, exclusive result with one rights-holder and one agreement. For anything with real budget, this is usually the better answer."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Free and open sources","b":true},{"text":", which work:"}]},{"t":"ul","items":[[{"text":"The "},{"text":"YouTube Audio Library","b":true},{"text":" offers tracks cleared for use on and off the platform, some requiring attribution."}],[{"text":"The "},{"text":"Free Music Archive","b":true},{"text":" hosts music under a range of Creative Commons licences: check each track, because the "},{"text":"NC","code":true},{"text":" variants prohibit commercial use and a client video is commercial."}],[{"text":"ccMixter","b":true},{"text":" carries remixable material under stated licences."}],[{"text":"Several public-domain and open archives hold older recordings, though public domain status depends on the country and on both copyrights separately."}]]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Whatever you use, "},{"text":"save the evidence","b":true},{"text":": the track name, the source page, the licence text as it stood, the date, and the attribution string if one is required. A screenshot of the licence page is a reasonable minimum."}]},{"t":"h2","id":"attribution-done-properly","runs":[{"text":"Attribution done properly"}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"CC BY","code":true},{"text":" licences require attribution in the manner the licensor specifies, and “music from the internet” is not attribution. The usual form names the track, the artist, the source and the licence, with a link where the medium allows. In a video this belongs in the credits and, where the platform supports it, the description."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Failing to attribute is a breach of the licence, which means the use becomes unlicensed: the whole permission rests on the condition being met."}]},{"t":"h2","id":"sound-effects-and-foley","runs":[{"text":"Sound effects and foley"}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"The same structure applies and is more often ignored. Sound libraries have licences, and effects lifted from other people’s videos are somebody’s recording."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Free sources worth knowing: "},{"text":"Freesound","b":true},{"text":", where each sound carries its own Creative Commons licence and must be checked individually, and the large public sound archives released by some broadcasters under their own terms. As with music, record what you used and under what licence."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Recording your own is also more practical than people assume: a phone in a quiet room produces usable foley for a surprising range of effects, and "},{"text":"Audacity","b":true},{"text":" will clean, trim and level it at no cost."}]},{"t":"h2","id":"voice-and-the-people-in-the-recording","runs":[{"text":"Voice, and the people in the recording"}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"A voiceover artist owns rights in their performance and should be engaged with a written agreement specifying the usage: the same four dials as any licence: medium, territory, duration, exclusivity. A voice recorded for a corporate video and later used in a paid advertisement is a common and genuine dispute."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Synthetic voices introduce a further question that is not settled everywhere: whose voice the model was trained on, what the provider’s terms permit, and whether disclosure is required. Read the specific provider’s commercial terms, and be careful of any service offering a recognisable person’s voice."}]},{"t":"h2","id":"what-to-tell-the-client","runs":[{"text":"What to tell the client"}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Raise music at the kickoff, not the edit. Two sentences:"}]},{"t":"quote","runs":[{"text":"“For the music, we can either use a library track, which costs around X and is cleared for this use, or commission something. A commercial song would need two separate licences and typically runs into a different order of cost, worth knowing before we plan around one.”"}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"This prevents the specific disaster where a client falls in love with a temporary track cut into the rough edit. Temp-track attachment is a well-documented problem in film and advertising: people become attached to what they have heard, and every replacement sounds wrong. The defence is to avoid cutting to a track you cannot license, even in a rough version."}]},{"t":"h2","id":"the-limitation","runs":[{"text":"The limitation"}],"role":"limit"},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"Music rights are among the most fragmented areas of the whole field. Ownership of older recordings is frequently unclear, catalogues change hands, territorial rights differ, and collecting societies operate differently in every country. Even well-resourced productions get this wrong."}]},{"t":"p","runs":[{"text":"For an independent creative the realistic position is: use library or open-licensed music by default, keep the licence evidence with the project, commission original work when the budget allows, and treat any request to use a commercial recording as a specialist matter requiring a proper clearance rather than something to solve in an afternoon."}]}],"check":{"question":[{"text":"A client wants a well-known song in their launch video. The budget will not stretch. Someone suggests hiring a session musician to record a very similar cover version instead. What does this solve?"}],"options":[{"text":[{"text":"Most of it: commissioning the recording gives the client a master they own, and only a small mechanical fee remains for the composition."}],"correct":false,"tempting":[{"text":"Correct that the master is now theirs, then treats the composition as a minor formality. The synchronisation licence is the substantial one."}]},{"text":[{"text":"Nothing legally, but it avoids automated content matching on video platforms, so the video will not be muted or blocked."}],"correct":false,"tempting":[{"text":"A cover may well pass automated matching, which is a real practical difference, but that does not make the use licensed, and platforms are not the rights-holder."}]},{"text":[{"text":"The master use side only: the composition still needs a synchronisation licence, which is usually the expensive half."}],"correct":true,"tempting":null},{"text":[{"text":"Nothing at all, because recording a substantially similar version of a protected song is itself an infringement regardless of what licences are obtained."}],"correct":false,"tempting":[{"text":"Too absolute. Cover recordings are routinely made lawfully; what is missing here is the sync licence for use in a video, not the right to perform the song."}]}],"order":[0,1,2,3],"why":null},"prev":{"slug":"fonts-and-stock","title":"The licence categories nobody reads","minutes":10},"next":{"slug":"releases-and-permissions","title":"Owning the photograph is not enough","minutes":9}}}