{"id":25216,"date":"2026-10-31T12:36:02","date_gmt":"2026-10-31T12:36:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/interspacemusic.com\/blog\/an-upload-is-not-a-complete-rights-record\/"},"modified":"2026-10-31T12:36:02","modified_gmt":"2026-10-31T12:36:02","slug":"an-upload-is-not-a-complete-rights-record","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/interspacemusic.com\/blog\/an-upload-is-not-a-complete-rights-record\/","title":{"rendered":"An Upload Is Not a Complete Rights Record"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Morocco, one recording upload does not complete the rights paperwork: BMDAV keeps separate records for the song, the performer and the recording producer.<\/a> A label preparing a release needs to know which of those claims it controls, who holds the others and whether each record can be matched to the music it delivers.<\/p>\n

Separate the identifier from the claim<\/h2>\n

An International Standard Recording Code (ISRC) identifies a recording.<\/a> That makes it useful in a delivery record, but its job is narrow. It does not, by itself, identify every person or entity entitled to money connected with the song or performance. Treating the code as a complete rights file leaves a practical gap: the recording can be identifiable while a claim that belongs alongside it still needs its own record.<\/p>\n

Morocco\u2019s BMDAV maintains distinct song, performer and recording producer records.<\/a> An independent label can turn that distinction into three checks before release. Who is claiming the song? Who is claiming the performance? Who is claiming the recording as producer? The same release may prompt all three questions, but an answer in one category should not be copied into another without checking who actually holds that claim.<\/p>\n

This is a catalogue management decision as much as a release task. Keep the recording identifier beside the relevant rights information, then give each claim its own named holder and supporting details. When a label revisits a track, it should be able to see which claim has been documented and which person needs to resolve an incomplete record. The Moroccan guidance calls for checking all three claims before release<\/a>, when the people who supplied the information are still available to correct it.<\/p>\n

Give each royalty share an owner<\/h2>\n

A complete recording record cannot rescue a missing songwriter share. In Malaysia, the collecting society holds an identified nonmember co-writer\u2019s share for up to three years.<\/a> The word \u201cidentified\u201d matters. It describes a share attached to a known co-writer, even though that person is not a member. The claim has an owner who can take action.<\/p>\n

Unidentified songs in Malaysia may return to the pool at the next distribution.<\/a> That is a different clock. A team that knows a co-writer\u2019s name but has not completed the claim faces a different task from a team that has not identified the song properly. Waiting to sort out both cases at the same time can obscure which deadline applies.<\/p>\n

Make the songwriter record usable before asking anyone to claim money. The practical steps in Malaysia are to register the work, verify the splits and claim the relevant share.<\/a> For a label working with several writers, that means recording the agreed allocation while the participants can still check it. For a writer, it means confirming that the work and their share appear in the record, then following through on the claim. A delivery receipt for the recording is not a substitute for either action.<\/p>\n

Use a release file that answers three questions<\/h2>\n

The useful unit of work is a file that another person can pick up without reconstructing the release from memory. It should answer three separate questions:<\/p>\n