With a legitimate distributor, you own everything: the master recording, the composition, and every right attached to them. The distributor is a service provider that delivers your files to platforms and collects money on your behalf, not a rights holder. Where artists get into trouble is not ownership but control. A distribution agreement can leave your ownership completely intact while restricting what you can practically do: exclusivity, long terms with auto-renewal, takedown fees, distributor-issued codes, or a subscription that removes your catalogue when payment stops. Before signing anywhere, separate two questions: what do I own, and what am I free to do with it?
At The Black Turn we have spent 6+ years working with 200K+ Indian artists, and the ownership question comes up again and again, usually in one of three forms: “Will you own my song if I upload through you?”, “My old distributor says I can’t move my song, is that true?” and “I signed something years ago, do I still own this track?” This guide answers those in plain language and shows which clauses decide the answer, because “you keep 100% of your rights” is true almost everywhere and tells you very little on its own.
This is general information, not legal advice. For anything substantial, especially an assignment, a buyout or a label deal, have a music lawyer read the actual agreement.
Master vs Composition: The Two Things You Actually Own
Most confusion comes from treating “my song” as one object. Legally it is at least two, each with an income side:
| Right | What It Covers | Who Usually Holds It |
| Master recording | The specific recorded audio | You, if you paid for or made the recording |
| Composition | The melody and lyrics underneath it | The writers (composer and lyricist) |
| Recording income | Money from the recording being streamed, downloaded or used | You, via your distributor’s collection |
| Publishing income | Money from the composition being used | The writers, via a publisher or collecting society |
A simple way to picture it: imagine you write a Haryanvi song with a friend who writes the lyrics, and you record it in a Rohtak studio you paid for. The tune and words (the composition) belong to the two of you as writers. The recorded file (the master) belongs to whoever paid for and made that recording, which here is you. If another singer covers the song later, they make a new master, but the composition is still yours and your friend’s. That split is the whole basis of every ownership dispute in music.
A distributor deals almost entirely with the master and the recording income. It delivers your master to platforms and collects the recording-side money. It does not, and should not, take ownership of either the master or the composition. How the money flows through these categories is covered in music royalties explained.
Publishing is a separate arrangement entirely, and some distributors offer publishing administration as an optional add-on. That is a different service with its own percentage, and it should be a conscious choice rather than something bundled in silently.
A Real Example: Why the Master vs Composition Split Matters
The most widely reported master-rights dispute of recent years is Taylor Swift’s. The master recordings of her first six albums were held by her former label, Big Machine. In 2019, Scooter Braun’s Ithaca Holdings acquired Big Machine, and with it those masters; Swift publicly objected to the sale. In 2020 the masters were sold again, to the investment firm Shamrock Capital, for a price reported at around $300 million (Music Business Worldwide).
What she did next is the lesson. Because she still held the copyright in her music and lyrics, the composition side, she could record the songs again. She re-recorded four of those albums as “Taylor’s Version”, starting with Fearless in 2021, and on 30 May 2025 she announced she had bought the original masters back from Shamrock (NPR, Fortune). The masters had changed hands twice without her; the compositions gave her a way to respond.
Licence vs Assignment vs Buyout: The Words That Decide Ownership
Ownership is decided by a few verbs in the “rights granted” clause. Three types of deal show up in Indian music agreements:
- Licence. You keep ownership and give permission to use the recording for a purpose, such as delivering it to stores. When the licence ends, the permission ends. This is what a normal distribution agreement should be.
- Assignment. You transfer ownership, fully or partly, to someone else, sometimes for a fixed period and territory, sometimes for the full term of copyright. Words to look for: “assign”, “transfer”, “convey”, “vest”.
- Buyout. An assignment where you receive a one-time payment instead of ongoing royalties. Common with film music and some label deals. Once signed, future income from that recording generally belongs to the buyer.
None of these is illegal or automatically bad. A buyout can be a fair price for a song you are paid well to make. The problem is signing an assignment or buyout while believing you signed a licence, which is why “you keep 100% of your rights” on a website matters less than the verb in the contract.
Term and Territory: What Indian Law Says If the Contract Is Silent
Every licence or assignment should say how long it lasts (term) and where it applies (territory). For distribution, worldwide is normal; a term that continues after you have left the service is not.
For assignments in India, the Copyright Act, 1957 (India Code) sets defaults. Under Section 19(5), if the period of an assignment is not stated, it is deemed to be five years from the date of assignment. Under Section 19(6), if the territorial extent is not specified, it is presumed to extend within India. Courts have applied these defaults differently depending on the facts and the type of agreement, so treat them as a reason to get the term and territory written in, not as a guarantee that an old contract has expired. The official Act and rules are also available from the Copyright Office, India.
The long-running dispute between composer Ilaiyaraaja and Echo Recording shows how complicated this becomes when decades-old agreements are involved. In June 2019 a single judge of the Madras High Court decreed Ilaiyaraaja’s suit over his compositions (The News Minute). Echo, which says it acquired the rights from the films’ producers, appealed. In April 2024 the division bench hearing the appeal observed that he could not claim sole ownership of a song because lyrics and other contributions also matter, and said commercial dealings in around 4,500 songs would be subject to the outcome of the appeal (South First, LawBeat). We found no report of a final judgment in that appeal. If the people who made some of India’s best-known film music are still in court over who owns what, a clear one-page agreement for your own release is worth the effort.
Exclusive vs Non-Exclusive Distribution
Exclusivity is a control question, not an ownership one. You can own 100% of a song and still be contractually barred from releasing it anywhere else.
- Non-exclusive: the distributor may deliver your music, but you are free to use the recording in other ways, and to move it once you take it down. Standard self-serve distribution works like this in practice.
- Exclusive: only that company may distribute or exploit the recording for the term, often across all digital platforms and sometimes caller tunes and sync too. Label-services and advance-based deals often include this.
One practical point: even under a non-exclusive deal, don’t deliver the same recording to the same store through two distributors at once. Stores see duplicate releases and Content ID systems see conflicting claims, which can freeze earnings on both. Non-exclusive means you can move, not that you should run two copies side by side. The difference between a self-serve aggregator and a label-style distributor is explained in music distribution vs music aggregator.
What “You Keep 100% of Your Rights” Actually Means
It means the distributor is not claiming ownership. That is genuinely important and genuinely standard among reputable services.
What it does not tell you:
- Whether you can take the release down whenever you want, free of charge
- Whether you can deliver the same recording elsewhere immediately afterwards
- Whether the identifiers tying your streams to your recording travel with you
- Whether the release stays online if you stop paying
- Whether accrued royalties are paid after you leave
Ownership without those five is a deed to a house you cannot enter. This is the practical distinction explored in can you leave your music distributor.
The Clauses Worth Reading Carefully
- Rights granted. Look for the specific verbs. “Licence to distribute” is normal. “Assign”, “transfer” or “convey” applied to your masters is not, in a plain distribution agreement.
- Exclusivity. Search the agreement for “exclusive” and read every instance. Label-services deals sometimes include genuine exclusivity for a term, which is a different product from distribution.
- Term and auto-renewal. Fixed terms with automatic renewal and narrow cancellation windows are how short commitments become long ones.
- Territory and duration of the licence. Worldwide is normal; a licence lasting beyond your relationship with the service is not.
- Takedown clause. How you request a takedown, whether there is a fee, and how long stores take to remove the release. Look for wording that lets the company refuse or delay a takedown while it “recovers costs”.
- Exit and post-term royalties. What happens to royalties already earned but not yet reported when you leave. Stores report with a delay, so a fair agreement pays out the trailing months after you exit.
- Identifiers. If the distributor issues your ISRC and UPC, confirm you may keep using them elsewhere. This determines whether your stream history follows you, explained in ISRC and UPC codes.
- Sub-licensing and third-party deals. Whether the distributor can license your music onward, for example into compilations, sync libraries or partner services, and whether your consent is required.
- Recoupment. If you accepted an advance, marketing spend or free service credit, check what leaving triggers.
- Modification of terms. Whether the company can change terms unilaterally, and what notice you get.
The warning signs inside these clauses are listed one by one in distribution agreement red flags.
Distribution vs Label vs Publishing, Clearly Separated
Artists conflate these constantly, and the differences decide who owns what:
| You Pay | They Take | You Own | |
| Distributor | A fee (one-time, annual or commission) | A service fee or percentage of revenue | Masters and composition, entirely |
| Label | Nothing upfront, usually | A share of revenue and often rights, for a term | Depends on the deal, often not the masters |
| Publisher | Nothing upfront | A percentage of publishing income | The composition, with administration delegated |
A distributor charging you money and also taking your masters would be taking payment twice. That is the clearest red line in the whole category, and it is worth checking rather than assuming. The label comparison is in releasing without a label.
Special Cases Worth Knowing
Collaborations. If two people wrote and three performed, ownership is often shared unless agreed otherwise. Put splits in writing before release, not after the first royalty statement.
Producer-made tracks. If a producer supplied the beat, the arrangement should specify whether it was sold outright, leased, or shared. Leased beats often carry usage limits that affect distribution.
Covers. You may own your recording of a cover, but not the composition. Distributing a cover needs the right licence, explained in the cover song legal guide.
Commissioned or paid recordings. If someone paid you to record or compose something for them, such as a film, an ad or a label project, the agreement may give them the master or more. Read what you signed, and ask a lawyer if it is unclear.
The Practical Checklist
Before signing any distribution agreement:
- Does the agreement use “licence” rather than “assign” or “transfer” for my masters?
- Is it non-exclusive?
- Are the term and territory written down, and is there auto-renewal?
- Can I take music down at any time, free?
- Do issued ISRCs travel with me?
- Do releases stay live if I stop paying?
- Are accrued royalties paid after I leave?
- Can the company sub-license my music without my consent?
Eight questions, one email, and the answers are worth keeping permanently. The wider evaluation framework is the 12-point distributor checklist.
FAQ: Music Ownership and Distributors
Does my distributor own my music?
With a legitimate service, no. You own the master and the composition; the distributor holds a licence to deliver your music to platforms and collect royalties on your behalf.
What is the difference between master rights and composition rights?
The master is the specific recording. The composition is the melody and lyrics. They can be owned by different people, which is why an artist can lose control of old recordings but still re-record the songs if they own the composition.
What is the difference between owning and controlling my music?
Ownership is the legal right; control is whether you can practically take it down, move it, or keep it online. A service can leave ownership intact while limiting control through exclusivity, fees or subscription dependency.
Is exclusive or non-exclusive distribution better?
For most independent artists, non-exclusive, because you stay free to move. Exclusive deals can make sense when a company is investing real money in your release, but read the term and exit clause first.
What happens in India if my agreement doesn’t say how long it lasts?
For an assignment, Section 19(5) of the Copyright Act, 1957 deems the period to be five years from the date of assignment if it is not stated, and Section 19(6) presumes the territory is India if it is not specified. How this applies to your contract depends on its wording, so ask a lawyer.
Does a distributor handle my publishing?
Not by default. Publishing administration is a separate service with its own percentage, and should be an explicit choice.
Who owns a song made with collaborators?
Ownership is often shared unless agreed otherwise, which is why written splits before release matter.
What is the clearest red flag in a distribution agreement?
Any language assigning or transferring ownership of your masters, or exclusivity in a plain distribution deal. See best music distribution companies 2026 for how the major options structure their terms.
Conclusion
Taylor Swift spent six years watching recordings she made change owners twice. What let her answer was the one thing she had kept: her compositions. In May 2025 she finally bought the masters back. Most artists won’t have that kind of leverage, or that kind of money, to fix a bad deal later.
So the takeaway is simple: know which of the two rights you are signing, check whether the verb is “licence” or “assign”, and read the takedown and exit clauses before the price. Almost every distributor will tell you that you keep your rights; the eight questions above tell you whether you can actually use them.
If you are comparing options for music distribution in India, The Black Turn keeps it simple: you keep 100% ownership of your music, and you get a 95% lifetime royalty, with earnings continuing even without renewal.
Jyoti Singh – Independent artist (32) who has worked at several music distribution companies and has released music through distributors – so these guides come from both sides of a release.
