Deep diveMusic & Entertainment

Why music royalties go unmatched, and how to fix the metadata behind them

Most royalties that never reach a writer or artist are not stolen. They are stranded because two records that should describe the same song do not agree: a recording code with no work attached, a writer spelled three ways, or splits that add up to more than the whole. This page maps the identifiers and messages that carry royalty data, where matching breaks, and a method for auditing a catalogue.

Reviewed 8 min read

On this page
  1. Two copyrights in every track, and who collects for each
  2. The identifiers that have to agree before money can move
  3. How one stream is paid down two separate chains
  4. Five ways royalty matching breaks, and what each looks like
  5. A catalogue audit method in five passes
  6. Tracing a co-written single from release to payment
  7. What AI agents and a shared splits ledger can and cannot do
  8. Questions and answers
  9. Sources

Two copyrights in every track, and who collects for each

A streamed track is two pieces of property at once. The master is the sound recording, usually owned by a label or by an artist releasing through a distributor. The composition is the song itself, owned by its writers and the publishers they have assigned shares to. Money for each side travels separately.

On the recording side, the digital service pays the label or distributor, who accounts to the artist; broadcast and non-interactive uses of recordings are licensed through neighbouring-rights bodies such as SoundExchange in the US or PPL in the UK. On the composition side, performance income flows through performing rights organisations such as ASCAP, BMI or PRS for Music, and mechanical income through mechanical rights bodies. In the US, digital mechanicals for streaming and downloads are administered by The MLC under the blanket licence created by the Music Modernization Act12.

So a single listen can be paid correctly on the master and not at all on the composition. That gap is where most catalogue problems show up.

The identifiers that have to agree before money can move

Each code identifies a different thing. Problems start when people treat one as a substitute for another.

ISRC
International Standard Recording Code (ISO 3901). Identifies one specific sound recording or music video, not the song. A remix or re-recording gets its own ISRC. Codes are issued by registrants under prefixes allocated by national ISRC agencies3.
ISWC
International Standard Musical Work Code (ISO 15707). Identifies the composition. Every recording of the same song should point back to one ISWC, which is normally assigned when the work is registered with a society.
IPI number
Interested Party Information number, the successor to the older CAE number. Identifies a writer or publisher within the society network, so that shares are paid to the right party even when names are spelled differently.
ISNI
International Standard Name Identifier (ISO 27729). Identifies the public identity of a person or organisation, which helps separate two artists with the same name or link one artist's aliases.
UPC or EAN
The product barcode for a release. It identifies the product sold, not the recordings or works on it.
DDEX ERN
Electronic Release Notification, the message a label or distributor sends to digital services to describe a release: tracks, ISRCs, contributors, territories and deal terms4.
DDEX DSR
Digital Sales Reporting, the usage and revenue reports digital services send back to labels, distributors and societies. Each line identifies what was used, mostly by ISRC4.
CWR
Common Works Registration, the file format publishers use to register works, writers, shares and territories with societies. It is where ISWCs and IPI numbers are attached to a song.

How one stream is paid down two separate chains

The usage report names a recording. The composition side depends on someone having linked that recording to a registered work.

Master royalties + DSRArtist statementUsage report by ISRCMatched work sharesNo ISRC-ISWC matchPaid once claimed01Digital service02Label ordistributor03Recording artist04MLC, PRO orsociety05Publisher06Unmatched pool
  1. Digital service

    Reports usage per recording and pays both sides.

  2. Label or distributor

    Receives master income and accounts to the artist.

  3. Recording artist

    Paid under the recording or distribution contract.

  4. MLC, PRO or society

    Matches each reported recording to a registered work and its shares.

  5. Publisher

    Collects its share and pays its writers under their agreements.

  6. Unmatched pool

    Where money waits when no registered work or owner can be found.

  1. Digital service to Label or distributorMaster royalties + DSR
  2. Label or distributor to Recording artistArtist statement
  3. Digital service to MLC, PRO or societyUsage report by ISRC
  4. MLC, PRO or society to PublisherMatched work shares
  5. MLC, PRO or society to Unmatched poolNo ISRC-ISWC match
  6. Unmatched pool to PublisherPaid once claimed
Conceptual sequence of royalty reporting and payment for one stream. Real flows vary by territory, service and contract.

Five ways royalty matching breaks, and what each looks like

FailureWhat you see on statementsUsual causeFirst fix
Recording not linked to workMaster income arrives; the song earns nothing in some territoriesThe ISRC was never attached to the work registrationSupply ISRCs in the CWR registration and in society portals
Splits over or under the wholePayments held or reduced while a society queries the workCo-writers registered different shares from different split sheetsAgree one signed split sheet and re-register from it
Name variantsA writer is paid under one spelling and missing under anotherRegistrations without IPI numbers, or a stage name used inconsistentlyAttach IPI and ISNI identifiers to every contributor record
Unregistered workNo composition income at all for a released songNobody registered it, often a self-released or unpublished writerRegister with the relevant society and, in the US, with The MLC
Conflicting claimsA work flagged as disputed; income held until resolvedTwo publishers each claim the same share, or a sample owner is missingCompare agreements and chain of title, then withdraw or settle the claim

Organisation names differ by country; the failure patterns are similar everywhere. Income collected abroad but never passed on usually points to sub-publishing terms missing from local registrations.

A catalogue audit method in five passes

Run the passes in order. Fixing conflicts before you know what is missing tends to create registrations that clash with old ones.

  1. Build one catalogue view

    Pull recordings, works, contributors and agreements into one table keyed by ISRC and ISWC, noting the source of each value: distributor exports, society portal exports and your contract register.

    Output
    A joined catalogue with provenance for every field

  2. Check completeness

    List every recording with no linked work, every work with no ISWC, every contributor with no IPI number and every release with unknown territories. Rank by income at risk, using recent statements.

    Output
    A gap list sorted by money affected

  3. Check consistency

    Compare the same fact across sources: titles, writer names, shares and ownership dates. Shares that do not total the whole, or that differ from a society's records, go on the conflict list.

    Output
    A discrepancy register with both values shown

  4. Resolve conflicts with evidence

    For each conflict, find the signed split sheet, assignment or administration agreement. Where paperwork is missing, contact the other party before changing a registration, because a unilateral change can trigger a dispute flag.

    Output
    Agreed corrections, each backed by a document

  5. Register, then monitor

    Submit corrections through CWR or society portals, then check the next statement cycles to confirm the money moved. Repeat the completeness pass for every new release before it ships.

    Output
    Confirmed fixes and a pre-release metadata check

Tracing a co-written single from release to payment

What AI agents and a shared splits ledger can and cannot do

Much of the audit is matching work that people do slowly: deciding whether two spellings are the same writer, whether a working title is the released song, or which spreadsheet holds the current shares. An AI agent can resolve those entities across exports, flag conflicts with the evidence for each, and draft corrected registrations. ColdAI builds agents for catalogue metadata and licensing work5, and we design to a simple boundary: the agent proposes, a person who owns the rights approves, and nothing reaches a society without that approval.

A shared ledger addresses a different problem: agreeing who owns what in the first place. If co-writers and publishers each sign the same split record, timestamped on a ledger such as the Hedera Consensus Service, later registrations can be checked against one agreed version instead of competing spreadsheets. A ledger does not replace society mandates, register works or settle disputes. Societies still pay from their own registrations, so the ledger record is evidence that feeds them.

Keep personal data such as legal names, contact details and bank information off the ledger and store a hash or reference instead, so the record stays verifiable without placing data on an immutable system that privacy law may require you to correct or erase.

Questions and answers

What happens to royalties that are never claimed?

It depends on the organisation and territory. In the US, The MLC must hold unmatched mechanical royalties for at least three years and then distribute them to copyright owners based on relative market share data, so money from unregistered songs can end up with the largest catalogues2. Other societies apply their own rules and claim windows. Everywhere, the lesson is the same: register works, attach ISRCs and IPI numbers, and check statements.

Does an independent artist need a publishing administrator?

Not always. A self-releasing artist who writes their own songs can join a performing rights organisation directly and, in the US, register with The MLC as a self-administered member. An administrator becomes worthwhile when you have co-writers with different publishers, income in many territories, or sync interest, because they register works with foreign societies and chase unmatched income. Compare their fee and term against what you could realistically collect yourself before signing.

What does The MLC do, and does it replace a PRO?

The MLC administers the blanket mechanical licence for streaming and download services in the United States: services report usage and pay mechanical royalties, and The MLC matches them to registered songs and pays songwriters, publishers and administrators who are members1. It does not collect performance royalties, so writers still need a performing rights organisation such as ASCAP or BMI for that income. Outside the US, mechanical and performance income are collected by national societies.

Sources

  1. The Music Modernization Act — U.S. Copyright Office · checked 10 October 2026
  2. 17 U.S. Code § 115: Scope of exclusive rights in nondramatic musical works: compulsory license for making and distributing phonorecords — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School · checked 10 October 2026
  3. International Standard Recording Code (ISRC) — International ISRC Agency (IFPI) · checked 10 October 2026
  4. DDEX standards — Digital Data Exchange (DDEX) · checked 10 October 2026
  5. Music & Entertainment: rights, royalties, catalogue agents and likeness protection — ColdAI

More in Music & Entertainment

Back to Music & Entertainment

Next step

Send us a catalogue export and your latest statements

Share a distributor export, a society registration export and one recent statement period. We will tell you where the largest unmatched or misallocated income is likely to sit and whether an agent-assisted audit is worth running.

Discuss a catalogue audit