Answers/Splits and ownership/What Is a Master Use License (And Why You Always Need Two)

Splits and ownership

What Is a Master Use License (And Why You Always Need Two)

By Boboy Watson·Last verified September 4, 2026·Splits and ownership

The first time somebody asked to use one of my songs in a video, they asked for "the licence". Singular. I did not know enough at the time to tell them there is no such thing, and the reason there is no such thing is the single most useful fact in this entire corner of the business.

Music in video always takes two permissions, from two owners, for two different copyrights. The master use licence covers the recording. The synchronisation licence covers the song. Most explanations of "master use licence" describe the first one accurately and then stop, which leaves people believing they have cleared something they have not.

United States framing throughout, and I am an artist rather than a lawyer — this is how the mechanism works, not advice on your specific agreement.

What is a master use license?

A master use licence is written permission from the owner of a sound recording to use that specific recording inside another work. A film. A TV episode. An advertisement. A video game. A YouTube video. A podcast. A TikTok campaign.

The word doing the work is master. It means the actual audio — that take, that mix, those performances, that file. Not the song. If a licensee has your master use licence, they can use your record. They have been told nothing about whether they may use your song.

The legal basis is ordinary. Section 106 of the US Copyright Act gives the owner of a copyrighted work the exclusive rights, among others, "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords" and "to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work". Section 114 confirms that the sound recording owner's rights are limited to clauses (1), (2), (3) and (6) of section 106 — reproduction, derivative works, distribution, and digital audio transmission performance. Putting a recording into a film reproduces it and fixes it into a new audiovisual work. That needs the owner's permission. The master use licence is that permission.

Why do I need a sync licence as well?

Because a song is two copyrighted works, and section 106 grants those rights separately in each of them.

The composition — melody, harmony, lyric — is one work, authored by the songwriters. The sound recording is a second work, authored by whoever made the recording. Section 101 defines them as distinct categories, and section 201(a) vests copyright in each "initially in the author or authors of the work". Two works, two sets of authors, two sets of exclusive rights, two licences.

Here is the part that surprises people: there is no shortcut for audiovisual use, and that is deliberate. For records, downloads and streams, the US has a compulsory licence. Section 115 lets anyone make and distribute phonorecords of a previously released composition without negotiating, provided "the primary purpose in making phonorecords of the musical work is to distribute them to the public for private use". That is the mechanical licence system that The MLC administers.

Section 101 then defines phonorecords as "material objects in which sounds, other than those accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work, are fixed". The same exclusion appears in the definition of a sound recording. Sound married to picture is not a phonorecord. So section 115 does not reach audiovisual use at all, and no compulsory rate exists for it. Sync is a free-market negotiation because Congress left it as one.

That is why a licensee cannot pay a statutory rate and proceed. They have to find the composition owner and ask.

Who grants each licence?

The asymmetry in the "who signs" row is the practical reality. A master is usually held by one or two parties. A composition frequently has three, four or six writers, each with a publisher, each of whom must agree. Sync deals die on the composition side far more often than the master side, purely because there are more people to find.

If you want the deeper explanation of why every song is two copyrights before you get to licensing at all, that is master rights versus publishing.

What does "under exclusive license to" on a release mean?

You have seen the line in the small print on a release page or the back of a sleeve: ℗ 2026 Artist Name, under exclusive licence to Some Records. It is not decoration and it is not the same as ownership.

It means the label does not own the master. Somebody else does — usually the artist, the artist's production company, or a producer entity — and that owner has granted the label an exclusive right to exploit the recording, for a term, in a territory, across defined uses.

Under US law an exclusive licence is a serious instrument. Section 201(d)(2) says that "any of the exclusive rights comprised in a copyright, including any subdivision of any of the rights specified by section 106, may be transferred... and owned separately", and that "the owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner". An exclusive licensee is an owner within the scope of its grant. It can sue infringers. It can grant the master use licence.

Three consequences worth carrying:

1. It has an end. A licence has a term. Ownership does not. "Under exclusive licence to" tells you the arrangement is time-limited and that rights revert when it expires — which is precisely why artists and their lawyers prefer that structure to an outright assignment.
2. It must be in writing. Section 204(a): a transfer of copyright ownership other than by operation of law "is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed". Since an exclusive licence is a transfer, a handshake exclusive is not an exclusive.
3. It can be terminated. Section 203 lets an author terminate an exclusive or non-exclusive grant executed on or after 1 January 1978 during a five-year window beginning 35 years after execution, on written notice served two to ten years ahead and recorded with the Copyright Office. It does not apply to works made for hire. This is a real and frequently exercised right, and it is the reason the phrase "under exclusive licence" appears in so much modern paperwork.

By contrast, a release that carries only ℗ 2026 Some Records with no licence line is signalling that the label holds the recording copyright itself. And a self-released track that says ℗ 2026 Your Name is telling anyone reading it that they should be talking to you.

Related: section 205 lets any transfer be recorded with the Copyright Office, and recordation gives constructive notice — which matters if two conflicting grants ever collide. Most independent artists never file one. It is worth knowing the option exists.

What does a master use licence actually contain?

Whether you are granting one or reading one, the same variables decide what it is worth and how far it goes:

• The recording, identified precisely. Title, artist, ISRC, duration, mix version. This is why knowing where your ISRC lives is not administrative trivia — an ambiguous identification in a licence is a dispute waiting to happen.
• The production, identified precisely. Which film, which episode, which campaign, which cut.
• Media. Theatrical, broadcast, streaming, online, in-game, out-of-home, retail. Each is separately grantable.
• Territory. United States, North America, world.
• Term. One year, five years, perpetuity, life of the production.
• Use type and duration. Background instrumental, featured vocal, main title, trailer. Ten seconds or two minutes.
• Exclusivity. Usually non-exclusive. An advertiser occasionally wants category exclusivity, which is worth more.
• Options. The right to extend media, term or territory later at a pre-agreed price.
• Warranties and indemnity. You are promising you actually control what you are granting. Sign this only if it is true.
• Fee and payment terms. Most commonly a flat fee, since there is no statutory rate to anchor to.

Most disputes I have seen described come from the middle of that list, not the money. A licence granted for "online use" and then run as a national television campaign is a breach, and the person who wrote the vague term is the one holding the problem.

Do I need any of this if I own everything?

If you wrote the song alone, recorded it yourself, paid for the session and signed nothing away, you own both copyrights. When a production licenses your track, you sign both documents — often combined into one agreement covering master and sync together. That is the "one-stop" position, and it is the single most valuable thing an independent artist has to offer, because it removes every reason a music supervisor has to move on to the next track.

Where it stops being true:

• A producer with an unclear agreement. If a beat lease, a work-for-hire form or nothing at all sits behind your track, you may not be able to warrant that you control the master. See who owns the song when you buy a beat.
• A feature or co-writer. Every writer with a share has to agree to the sync side. Settle it at the session with a split sheet, not by email three years later.
• Uncleared samples. A sample you never cleared makes the whole track unlicensable, because you cannot grant rights in someone else's recording.
• Splice and royalty-free loops. These are licensed to you non-exclusively and royalty-free, which generally supports commercial use of your finished work — but read your own licence terms rather than assuming, and keep your download history. See is Splice royalty free.
• A distribution or label agreement you skimmed. Check what it says about sync before you promise anyone a clean grant.

The practical version of all of this is short. Know which copyrights you hold. Get the paperwork done at the session while everyone is still friendly. And when somebody asks for "the licence", ask them which one they mean — because the answer is always both.

I am an artist describing how these licences work from running my own catalogue, not a lawyer, and nothing here is legal advice. The statutory citations are to US law as published by the Copyright Office and retrieved 4 September 2026; agreements are individual, and a real licence for real money is worth a real lawyer's hour.