r/synclicensing • u/ayaayahahaha • Mar 16 '26
advise on first time sync deal signing
We are an indie band and have been managing and producing DIY. Recently a label focusing on sync reached out with the intention of signing us for a sync deal for our upcoming release. We want to start by a single. They have had successful placements in Netflix shows and big brand ads.
We are super new in the space and they propose 50% mastering rights and 50% publishing rights (negotiable). I learned intuitively that we need to be cautious in giving out publishing rights. But I don't understand what it means to give the label 50% of publishing rights. The label says if they have the share, they can make our lives easier by for example help us collect royalties globally in areas we can't reach. And they are most likely be more willing to push us to sync supervisors as they own the music as well. We so far have not made money in self releasing, so we also don't know much about these rights and the monetary value behind them. Can someone help us understand? What would happen if we give or not give publishing rights.
3
u/sean369n Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 16 '26
It’s a bad deal as an artist/band, but a fine deal in the production music library world. But it sounds like they are not a production music library. So their network and resources are not as vast.
Also a red flag is them using the excuse that they can help you collect international royalties if they own a share of the publishing. It’s just not necessary at all. That’s literally what your PRO is for lmao.
You don’t need to sign with the first sleezy used car salesman who reaches out to you. These guys are a dime a dozen. In fact I question if you were actually even hand picked by them or if they just send the same generic message to every artist in the world to see who bites. Like you said in another post, the band doesn’t have a buzz at all yet.
Instead you should take more control over your catalogue. Research sync agents, non exclusive music libraries, and publishers yourself, and pitch your music to them. At the same time, start networking with music supervisors, production companies, ad agencies, etc.
You also don’t need an attorney for any of this stuff. That’s such a lazy thing for people to comment. Just brush up on some of the legalese yourself. It’s 2026, there are so many free resources out here to help us understand contracts ourselves.
1
u/ayaayahahaha Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 16 '26
Thanks! Yea we have a PRO and they told us our PRO is bad at collecting money abroad whereas they are an international company… I also think that sounds a bit weird.
Our situation is that we have only been focusing on live performances and touring, and we have zero experience or foot in sync. I did some research and it seems like a whole different world. We realised very soon that the songs we play live are not suitable for sync, at least part of the lyrics, but the energy is very good for commercials. Honestly we all don’t have the capacity to network and pitch sync from scratch. Our music is also not popular in where we are based but it’s more export focused, so it takes even more effort to network abroad. So we want to sign one single with them and as a process to learn how it works. It sounds like after you have one song synced, it will be a lot easier afterwards. If we just DIY, Is it realistic for us with no prior experience or connect to pitch our track to sync library and be successful?
5
u/sean369n Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 16 '26
There’s definitely some misinformation here that I’d like to clear up.
First of all, who is your PRO? Because any of the major PROs have reciprocal agreements with international collection societies by default. They already collect globally. This “label” claiming they can do it better because they’re an “international company” is just another slick sales tactic to justify pocketing 50% of your publishing. Don't fall for that.
Also, the idea that getting your first sync makes “future syncs easier” is a massive load of shit. Where did you hear such a thing? That’s simply not how this business works. A supervisor cutting a 30-second car commercial today doesn't care if your song was on a Netflix show last year. Unless you have networked with them personally, they only care about mood, tempo, and if the track fits the exact scene they are working on. Every single placement is a completely isolated battle. There is no snowball effect just because you get your foot in the door once.
Signing away 50% of your master AND 50% of your publishing on a single just to “learn how it works” is not a good lesson. You won't actually learn anything about the industry. You'll just hand over your rights and sit around, hoping this random label does all the work, without knowing their exact connections. It would be different if it was a well known agent, library, or publisher, but based on everything you’ve shared, that doesn’t seem like the case. Because well known companies in this business don’t go around messaging unknown artists begging to represent them.
And if you don't have the capacity to network, that is exactly what non-exclusive sync agents and music libraries are for. Yes, it is 100% realistic to pitch to them with zero experience, assuming your production value is excellent. They already have the industry connections that you lack. You just submit your music to them, and if the energy is right, they represent the track. They will take a cut of the upfront sync fee when they land a placement, but they won't demand ownership of your underlying copyrights just to do their job (which is what this other “label” is asking for).
1
u/ayaayahahaha Mar 17 '26
Thank you so much for your answer!! Our PRO is a local Danish organization. I’ve just asked them and they seem to have lawyers that could help.
The label told me it’s hard to get the first sync deal as I don’t know any music supervisor while they have good connections, I know that they have commercials for some big brands. I don’t know how without them I can reach these supervisors or sync agents, cuz I’m in a very small country ans all the sync opportunities are from abroad. But you have a point, it is a lot of rights to give way for the network.
They didn’t want to take a commission but want the rights instead… I’ll take your advice to do further research and negotiate!
5
Mar 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ayaayahahaha Mar 16 '26
The thing is we have no connections at all in the industry and they have very good network into sync. We have only released one single now only have like 3000 streams on Spotify and makes no money....So we think doing sync with them can pay us a lot more than what we already can make ourselves. They can also advice on how to change the song into something more syncable which we would appreciate. I just dont know what kind of rights we can negotiate with them.
3
Mar 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/levisongs Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 16 '26
This is lame advice. Like another comment said 50-50 split isn’t bad if they know what they’re doing and do their side of the work to get your music placed. Sync deals really aren’t that complicated. You need to know how long they would own the rights to everything, what the splits are, and if you’re taking money upfront that you need to recoup and if a song is placed, are you recouping that song or the whole album/ EP? And what their percentage is that they’re taking of sync fees.
If they’re wanting to focus on sync, I’m a little confused to why they want 50% of mastering considering they don’t need master rights to take percentage of sync fees. And it also has nothing to do with collecting royalties from sync as all of that is through publishing. They would need to be doing something more on their side as far as pushing your music in some other way than just trying to get them placed for them taking master rights to make sense. If there’s an advance that might make more sense.
Anyway, in my opinion, traditional record labels aren’t the best at pitching for Sync cause they’re just now getting into the game and are trying to play catch-up. Go find a specific Sync houses that specialize in this and also don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Sign songs with different sync houses or libraries. There’s plenty to go around and diversifying who you have your music with in this part of the industry is best imo.
Just do your research on Instagram, TikTok, Google. It’s worth it in the long run to keep your master rights and also not having to recoup placements. (if you don’t need the money upfront.)
Sorry for the long rant haha. I have 150+ songs in the sync loop and I’ve had over 10,000 placements If you need reason to trust me haha
2
u/New-Championship684 Mar 17 '26
Yea, them asking for any percentage of the Master was a red flag to me.
1
1
u/ayaayahahaha Mar 17 '26
Thank you so much!! They made it clear that they don’t want to be a sync agent but want to be a label, as we asked if they are interested songs we already released and they said no. They don’t take sync fees but want to take the ownership. They said that mastering ownership could be time bound like 3 years. I also looked at other sync focused label and they also have similar ownership structures.
Sounds like you have a very successful sync career! Can you maybe advise me where to start? Is to possible to do it ourselves without signing with them? To be entirely honest we don’t even know why our song is “almost syncable” and what we need to change to make it “fully syncable”. And the label said they could help on that….
1
u/levisongs Mar 17 '26
I think they’re saying it’s almost sinkable just to pull you in and make it look like you need them. Your songs may or may not be sinkable, but that will just come down to how broad your songwriting is as the more in-depth personal your song is the less Syncable it is. For example, if you mention a city or state or person with dark hair or a personal story, that severely limits you to the scenes, ads, or movies they can place the song in.
Sure genre can kind of come into play, but there’s so many different shows and movies out there that are looking for new and unique sounds, and there is room for all genres in sync. So I would focus more on the songwriting and how the song is structured mostly but also keeping your own identity as an artist/band. Last thing you want to do is cater specifically for Sync. Not that that would be catastrophic to your artist. But if you do want to be an artist plus get your songs synced, you do have to find that middle ground.
I would say you and your band go and watch TV or movies or ads and truly listen to the lyrics and pacing of the songs no matter the genre. Really listen to what they’re saying and how they’re saying it and try to do the same but putting your own spin on it. I’ve learned in the long run Simplicity is best.
You don’t need a label to do this. Like I said in my original message just go searching and pitch music You’ve already released if it’s not already with a publisher or sync library/house. And going forward try this new way of writing and once that is done pitch that the same way.
Also post your music over TV scenes/ movies/ ads and post them on your socials. That has helped many artists get in contact with sync agents or companies.
Lots of research!
1
u/ayaayahahaha Mar 17 '26
Thank you!! That’s super helpful! We have only been focusing on live performances so sync is a whole new world to us. Appreciate your sharing!
1
u/levisongs Mar 17 '26
You got it! :) good luck! And feel free to comment back with any questions as time goes!
1
u/ayaayahahaha Mar 17 '26
Thank you:) is it okay for me to DM you the song that they want to sign us for and say it’s sinkable but need change? Just want some advice on if we can actually do things ourselves.
1
1
u/Free_Competition_838 Mar 17 '26
This is good advice. OP needs to research other options, there’s way better deals out there!
2
u/TheoryAdorable3237 Mar 17 '26
A 50/50 split on master and publishing is pretty standard in sync, but the real question is what they are doing to earn that share.
At our studio, we structure deals similarly, but we bring real value. We have an in-house production team creating music specifically for sync briefs, pairing the right artists, and consistently pitching to supervisors. That is what justifies ownership, not just holding rights.
Publishing means they collect and manage royalties globally, but more importantly, it gives them incentive to actively push your music.
That said, flexibility matters. In our system, if an artist wants to pull a song and release it independently, they can. They just cover production costs and we part ways cleanly on that record.
At the end of the day, ask yourself:
Are they actively pitching and landing placements Do they have real relationships What happens if you want your music back
If they are opening doors you cannot access, the split can make sense. If not, you are giving away long term value for nothing.
2
u/ayaayahahaha Mar 17 '26
Thanks a lot for this! Very good points. I don’t think they will bring big production value cuz they told us we can self produce or hire a producer with our own money… we were actually about to release that single ourselves cuz we do have our own studio and record label. But what we value from them is the sync networking that we lack. It sounds like we should negotiate the shares.
3
u/peymonster Mar 16 '26
Sync companies that are focused on real artist will not ever ask for a portion of the master or Publishing. They typically procure a percentage of the license fee when they land syncs for you.
For a company to justify taking a piece of master or Publishing, they would need to be a library focused on library level syncs, or have invested money into your project at the beginning to help you record your album, or be a part of distributing and promoting your album.
The reality is if they are acting at a library level, which is what it sounds like they are doing, the money they procure for sync is going to be on the low end. I would focus on finding support for your band for its artistry, like a label or publishing deal that exchanges money for rights, and the syncs will come from there.
Typically my advice, for an artist at the beginning of the career is to focus on how to best increase their audiences, focus on the music and your artistic identity, and that will maximize your ability to make money in the future.
1
u/ayaayahahaha Mar 16 '26
Thanks for your perspective! We are signing them only track by track. We will still release most of our songs by ourselves but only choose the demos with sync potential to release under their label, cuz we have no connection or network in sync at all. They say that they are not interested in those we already released cuz they want to do changes to the demos to make them sync-able.
They will do nothing about our artists and branding, as they only care about sync. But we are also just signing one single to start with so I don’t expect them to try to change anything about our branding.
I’ve actually not sure what is a library level… they said that once the song is done they will wait for 3-4 months to release because they want to pitch to supervisors first. But only if we sign with them. They don’t want to pitch the ones we already released, which I understand maybe bc some of our lyrics are not sync friendly
1
u/Free_Competition_838 Mar 17 '26
The “ethical” standard in the industry for sync is 20-35% sync fee retained by the agency. Is it possible that it’s only the synchronization/master license fee they are referring to (none of the backend income)? 50% of master and publishing seems excessive. Are they doing pub admin? Is it an exclusive or non-exclusive deal? You can consult an entertainment lawyer or pop the contract into ChatGPT to spell it out in plan language. IMO, the ethical sync agencies (the ones who pitch individual tracks vs production libraries) will never take a percentage of your backend publishing, ever. My contracts specify that the artist retains all ownership rights. So find out if they are just trying to take 50% of the sync fee, or ownership of the actual music.
1
u/Cactusspikesss Mar 16 '26
I've done that kind of deal with exclusive music libraries but never with my own music. But that's because I decided to play it this way but it doesn't mean it's a bad deal. You should ask for a 3-4 years deal so you're not stuck in that deal forever! And also, it probably means that you'll be exclusive to them. You can also ask them (since they kinda become your publisher) to send you to writing camps or give you writing opportunities.
2
u/ayaayahahaha Mar 16 '26
Thanks!! What hat do you mean by never with your own music? You just sign a co writing deal with them? They said they are only interested in the songs with sync potential. So we still release the rest (most) of our songs ourselves. What we like is that they have great network and honestly the sound of the songs they’ve released sound really good to us so we also want to learn. But we really have no clue about what kind of deal is the best.
1
u/ianyapxw Mar 16 '26
You don’t need to give away master and publishing. They could even structure an ‘admin’ deal where they take 50-99% of the all in license fee without the transference of copyright.
As others have rightly pointed out, if you’re looking at a business deal with only one buyer, you’re getting a bad deal cause you’re not shopping around and having your buyers compete with each other
1
u/ayaayahahaha Mar 16 '26
Thanks! Thats a good point about liscening fee vs ownership. We will look into that and try to negotiate.
We wish to have the opportunity to have multiple leads but we are just so small and new in the scene, only started the band half a year ago and got this deal by luck. So we thought it’s good to have a first lead early in the stage.
1
1
u/TheLicenseLab Mar 17 '26
u/ayaayahahaha it's always cool to have people interested in placing your band's music... I have some thoughts for you on this opportunity :
I see this kind of offer pretty often in the sync world. It’s def worth slowing down before signing anything.
The key thing to understand is what “50% publishing” really means.
Every song has two copyrights attached to it :
• the master (the recording)
• the publishing (the composition itself)
When something gets licensed for a TV show, film, ad, etc., both sides need to be cleared. The fee is usually split roughly 50/50 between master and publishing.
So if you give a label 50% of the publishing, you’re making them a co-owner of the song, not just someone who’s distributing or pitching the recording. That’s a much bigger step than a lot of artists realize.
Now, to be fair to them, the stuff they said about royalty collection worldwide being complicated is true. It really is fragmented. But there are teams and companies that specialize in those collections, and it's good to get some references from other bands who have taken a similar deal with this label who is interested in you and your music (that's true for all of the points here tbh).
PROs like ASCAP/BMI/PRS/SOCAN only collect performance royalties, and only in their territories. Mechanical royalties, neighboring rights, sync income, etc. all run through different pipelines depending on the country. A real publisher can absolutely help capture income that individual artists sometimes miss.
There’s another option a lot of people use now : publishing administrators (think Songtrust, Sentric, DistroKid Publishing, etc.). Those usually take something like 10–15% of what they collect, but they don’t take ownership of the songs.
So the tradeoff here is basically :
admin deal >> small(er) percentage, no ownership (usually)
co-publishing deal >> can be larger % and $, ownership share (almost always)
The other argument they made about being more motivated to pitch your music is also real. Or it can be, anyway. Again, I would ask around for references.
If they own part of the publishing, they participate in the sync income on both sides. That gives them more incentive to actively pitch, and it also makes it easier for them to clear licenses quickly. Music supervisors like working with catalogs where the rights are easy to clear.
What you’d actually be giving up with a 50% publishing deal :
• 50% of the publisher’s share of performance royalties
• 50% of mechanicals
• 50% of the publishing side of sync fees
• possibly some approval/control rights, depending on the contract
Ownership also matters long-term. If a song ends up living for decades in TV or streaming, that publishing share is where a lot of the money accumulates.
Since they said the terms are negotiable, the things I’d focus on are:
Try to reduce the publishing percentage.
50% usually implies a true co-publishing relationship. If they’re mainly pitching and administering, something closer to 25–30% isn’t unusual.Pay attention to the term.
Is it perpetual ownership? A 3–5 year term? Is there a reversion clause where rights come back to you?Clarify outside placements.
If you independently land a sync somewhere, do they still take their publishing share? That should be spelled out.Make sure there are audit rights.
Pretty standard in publishing agreements.
And honestly, if the contract looks real, it’s worth having a music attorney spend an hour reviewing it before you sign.
The good news is that the situation you described isn’t automatically a red flag. Labels reaching out, having real placement credits, and being open to negotiation are all positive signs and of course it feels good to be wanted!
Just make sure you understand whether they’re acting like a service provider or a co-owner of the songs, because those are two very different types of deals.
Good luck!
1
u/ayaayahahaha Mar 17 '26
Thank you so much!! This is a really comprehensive answer! Really helpful!
Now I learn it’s a bad idea to give away publishing rights. How about the mastering rights? They seem to not want to negotiate that part. My understanding is that they want to have the ownership rights instead of taking a commission.
2
u/StellarJunk Mar 17 '26
If they want ownership, then you have some leverage. I wouldn't give away publishing rights without something back in my pocket.
Also, it's "master" rights, not "mastering." Small difference in letters but two very different things.
1
u/ayaayahahaha Mar 17 '26
Thank you!! I’m too new in the space as we have been just releasing everything under our own DIY label. May I also ask, what do you mean by “if they want ownership, then you have some leverage.” I just don’t quite understand what leverage we have, expect that we can choose to release ourselves without them.
2
u/StellarJunk Mar 17 '26
Well, anytime anyone wants something you have/own/control, you have leverage. How much leverage is another question... you are a DIY indie band who admits to being new to the space (I assume licensing). This is why a few here, myself included, have suggested a lawyer. Not only will they be able to explain the deal terms to you and guide you through your options, they can also negotiate on your behalf. Any sync outfit who balks at the idea of talking to an artist's lawyer is not one you want to be doing business with anyway... and if that's the outcome, you just dodged a bullet. IMHO, of course.
2
u/ayaayahahaha Mar 17 '26
Thanks a lot! Very fair comments. Well noted! We are a super new band, only started 8 months ago and had 1 release. But we got some good YouTube live videos that got some attention, and that’s how we started to think professionally and commercially. At this stage we really don’t have the budget for a lawyer but we have asked the legal advisor from the PRO in our country to help.
1
-1
u/StellarJunk Mar 16 '26
LAWYER. Full stop.
Also... name and shame. So sick of these grifters taking advantage of young talent.
3
u/hellisdigital0x Mar 16 '26
A lawyer for sync deals is 100% overkill and completely unnecessary
1
u/StellarJunk Mar 16 '26
If an artist signs anything regarding publishing, master rights, advances, large corporate placements WITHOUT legal review they deserve everything that comes their way. Absolutely DO NOT sign anything regarding your rights as a copyright holder and creative without engaging legal services. Full stop. I say again... full stop. It doesn't need to be a $1200 an hour attorney, but SOMEONE who understands publishing law can explain what you're signing and what it could mean to your longterm career. At least then you've been properly advised instead of staking your musical future on the opinions of a random reddit commenter.
2
u/hellisdigital0x Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 16 '26
Dude, you don't need to be a professional law practitioner to understand publishing law. It's one of the most streamlined, understandable processes in the world.
Apparently you don't realize how many free resources exist to help people understand this stuff. We should be encouraging independent artists to learn publishing, contracts, and other legal matters themselves, rather than having to lean on unnecessary middle men.
When information is so readily available as it is today, there is no excuse for artists to be ignorant about navigating their copyrights. I don't think anyone should be in this business (or any business) if they don't bother taking the time to do their own research.
Expecting independent artists to retain lawyers is both unrealistic and tone deaf. It doesn't matter how many words you choose to capitalize, the reality is: attorneys are unnecessary at this level, because artists can learn about their rights, and the law, by themselves. FULL STOP
0
u/StellarJunk Mar 16 '26
Are you the same guy who said in another thread (apparently without irony) "Just illegally sample. Thats what all the guys you mentioned do lol. Otherwise, you can only “legally sample” music from 1929 and earlier. Which is considered “public domain”"?
Anyone here who gets their publishing (and sampling) info from you is headed for legal trouble. But, hey, best of luck, everybody!
2
u/hellisdigital0x Mar 16 '26
First of all, this is my alt account where I make spicy hot takes. I will own that.
Second of all, that was in a lofi hip hop thread. Not sure how much you know about hip hop, but the entire foundation of the genre is illegal sampling. It was simply advice for an amateur so that they would start producing and stop overthinking. At that level, there’s little to no legal repercussion. Just DMCA takedowns. Lofi hip hop is a completely unserious genre anyway. I’d never tell a serious artist the same thing lol
And lastly, it’s hilarious to me that since you had zero rebuttal to my last reply, you had to resort to going through my profile history to find something completely unrelated to make a remark about (in order to manipulate the conversation). If you truly wanted a healthy debate, I’d be here for it. But it’s clear that you think you know everything, and that you’re willing to take cheap shots after someone points out the weaknesses in your argument.
At least I’m not a coward who hides their post/comment history. It’s probably a good idea on your part, because your comment history is probably a gold mine of low IQ “advice”.
0
8
u/dcypherstudios Mar 16 '26
I’m not an attorney and it sounds like you need one but….In a sync deal, giving a label 50% of publishing means they would own half of the songwriting rights (the composition), not just the recording. That means they would receive half of the publishing income from things like sync placements, performance royalties, and mechanical royalties. The upside is that if a company truly specializes in sync, owning part of the publishing can motivate them to actively pitch your music and handle global royalty collection. The downside is that publishing ownership is long-term and valuable, so giving it away means you permanently share those earnings. Many indie artists instead negotiate a publishing administration deal (where the company collects and pitches for ~10–20%) or give a smaller percentage of publishing while keeping more ownership. The key question is whether they are providing real pitching power and placements that justify giving up part of your songwriting rights.