A Fractured Reality

When thinking about rights ownership data in music, the music publishing world is incredibly complex.  There are a number of reasons for this, so let's take a look at the lifecycle of music publishing data and how it gets fragmented.

Based on the Blokur 2021 Songwriters Review:

Data from the top 100 songs across all streaming services shows that an average of 4.4 songwriters are involved in creating a song in 2021, down from the previous year's five. 

That is a significant number of stakeholders to account for - including songwriters, publishers, rights organizations, sample owners, etc.  It's also a number that has steadily increased over the decades.

Many Cooks in the Kitchen

Let's break down a basic scenario that one might see in the US.

"Hit Song" composed by Alice, Bradley, and Charlie, who have agreed that they will all claim a 1/3 share of the composition. Alice and Bradley have publishing deals. While Charlie doesn't, he has registered with ASCAP.

In this very common and basic example, there are potentially 7 different data owners - each of the 3 songwriters, 2 publishers, and 2 Performance Rights Organizations (PROs).

Now, let's say Alice and Bradley each give the song information to their publishers, who enter it into their respective systems. It may end up looking like this (discrepancies are highlighted in red).

Even something as seemingly simple as a 1/3 percentage split can lead to errors because only one owner can claim 33.34% - a conflict that appears insignificant but can still cause delays with licensing and paying royalties on the song.

Let's say that Bradley switches publishers after a few years. Any incorrect data that Publisher B still has in their system will be sent along to Publisher C - which they will hopefully ingest into their system without creating even more discrepancies.

To add a PRO view, I looked up a very well known Beatles song, written by John Lennon and Paul McCartney, using the ASCAP and BMI repertories. I found differences in the ISWC identifier captured, noted PRO affiliations, and the presentation of the participating publishers. If data presentation is conflicting on a well known song, imagine how far down the rabbit hole we may fall. 

Without a centralized database, each of those parties will manage the data relating to their own portion of the rights.  Additionally, the responsible parties may differ from one region to another as rights owners operate within their respective jurisdictions.

How Did We Get Here?

There are a number of contributing factors to the mess that we find ourselves in: 

• Lack of data standards

• Historical practices for data management

• Transfers of ownership leading to poor data integration

• Incomplete and inaccurate records

• Territorial differences

• Slow technology and data management adoption

While there is widespread acknowledgement that the problem exists, and various entities are working from different angles to address the issue, is the industry at large ready to work on it together? For as long as each interested party works on it separately, the fragmentation will still exist.

Compare and Contrast

I might be starting to sound like a broken record when I say that getting the data right as early as possible is essential. The effort to do so should be front-loaded to reduce the potential cost of wasted man hours, unpaid royalties, and lost market share. The issue of scale is a hard one to address, because data owners needs to look backwards and fix what exists while also implementing better practices going forward. In the meantime, millions of lines of new, potentially conflicting, data continues to be created in a silo.

While there may not be a centralized database to reply upon, the rights owners for an asset can:

• Agree to compare and contrast to ensure that they are representing all known data in a consistent format.

• Actively take the time to update and correct data records should they be out of sync

• Review key industry databases (such as the Mechanical License Collective, ASCAP/BMI combined database Songview, and ICE), making it a priority to resolve data differences

• Ensure data owners are trained to adhere to any defined standards and understand the importance of high quality data capture

• Leverage technology to assist with identifying data issues at scale, and share those results with other rights owners

Credit: BMI Songview

The value of data sharing could be huge, but must be implemented carefully in order to yield value as opposed to causing chaos - a topic I spoke about alongside Verifi Media at Music Biz Conference in 2022, where the general consensus was that the benefits could be realized. In reality, there's still a long way to go when it comes to companies opening up their data to others, as the fear of backlash for existing poor data quality, leading to audits and infringement claims, is real. As part of the data sharing exercise, it would be beneficial if data owners could acknowledge that issues may arise and agree to a constructive review with the aim of making improvements.

Future Outlook

In an industry as complex and dynamic as music publishing, the need for accurate and unified data is more crucial than ever. The challenges are evident, but so are the opportunities for change and improvement. As a music data translator with a deep understanding of these issues, I'm here to help bridge the gaps, resolve disparities, and ensure that data serves its purpose as a powerful asset.

I believe that through collaborative efforts, we can transform the current landscape and pave the way for a more efficient, transparent, and equitable music industry. Let's work together to ensure that music data no longer remains fragmented, but harmonized for the benefit of all stakeholders.