Full Buyout vs. Revenue Split: Which Deal Structure Is Right for Your Music?
When monetizing your music catalog, two fundamental deal structures emerge: full buyouts and revenue splits. A full buyout means selling your rights for a one-time lump sum — you receive immediate capital but give up all future income from those rights. A revenue split keeps you as a stakeholder, earning an ongoing percentage of the income your music generates. Both structures are common in the music industry, and the right choice depends on your financial situation, your confidence in the catalog's future performance, and your personal goals. For ambient and meditation music creators, this decision carries particular weight because these genres tend to generate stable, long-tail revenue that can compound over years. Selling outright means potentially leaving significant future value on the table, while a revenue split means waiting for gradual income over time. This comparison breaks down the key differences to help you make an informed decision.
Full Buyout
A full buyout is a one-time transaction where you sell 100% of your music rights (masters, publishing, or both) for a lump sum payment. After the sale, all future revenue from those rights goes to the buyer.
Pros
- +Immediate access to a significant lump sum of capital
- +Eliminates all future risk — no worry about declining streams or market changes
- +Clean break with no ongoing administrative or reporting obligations
- +Capital can be reinvested in new projects, real estate, or other investments
- +Simpler tax planning with a single capital gains event
- +No ongoing relationship management with the buyer required
Cons
- −You permanently lose all future revenue from the sold rights
- −If the catalog grows in value, you don't benefit from the upside
- −Emotional difficulty of giving up ownership of your creative work
- −Buyout prices may undervalue catalogs with strong growth trajectories
- −Tax burden is concentrated in a single year (though capital gains rates apply)
- −No ongoing passive income stream from the catalog
Best for: Creators who need immediate capital for a major life event (home purchase, retirement, new business venture), those with catalogs that have plateaued or are declining in revenue, and artists who want a clean financial break to focus on new creative projects without looking backward.
Revenue Split
A revenue split arrangement means partnering with an investor, label, or platform that provides upfront capital or services in exchange for an ongoing percentage of the catalog's revenue. You retain partial ownership and continue earning from your music.
Pros
- +Retain ongoing income from your music — often for life
- +Benefit from future growth if streaming revenue or sync placements increase
- +Maintain a degree of creative control and input on licensing decisions
- +Lower financial risk if the catalog's revenue grows significantly
- +Can provide both upfront capital (via an advance) and ongoing income
- +Preserves emotional connection to your creative work
Cons
- −Smaller upfront payment compared to a full buyout
- −Ongoing administrative relationship with the revenue partner
- −Revenue sharing reduces your per-stream or per-license income
- −You bear the risk if revenue declines (you earn less)
- −More complex accounting, reporting, and tax implications over time
- −May include restrictive terms on future licensing or sale decisions
Best for: Creators with catalogs showing strong growth trajectories (especially ambient/meditation music in the expanding wellness market), those who want to maintain long-term passive income, artists who need some upfront capital but don't want to fully divest, and creators who value ongoing involvement in their catalog's commercial life.
Feature comparison
| Feature | Full Buyout | Revenue Split |
|---|---|---|
| Upfront Payment | Large lump sum (8-15x annual revenue) | Smaller advance (2-5x annual revenue) or none |
| Ongoing Income | None — all future revenue goes to the buyer | Retained percentage of all future revenue |
| Ownership | Fully transferred to the buyer | Shared or retained by the creator |
| Risk Exposure | Zero — all risk transfers to the buyer | Shared — you earn less if revenue drops |
| Upside Potential | None — you don't benefit if the catalog grows | Full — your share grows with revenue |
| Administrative Burden | None after the sale closes | Ongoing reporting, accounting, and relationship management |
| Creative Control | Typically none after sale | Often retained to some degree |
| Tax Treatment | Single capital gains event | Ongoing ordinary income (royalties) |
Verdict
For ambient and meditation music creators, the decision often favors revenue splits when the catalog is young and growing, and full buyouts when the catalog has matured and the creator is ready to move on. The wellness music market is expanding rapidly, which means catalogs in this space often have significant unrealized future value — a buyout today might undervalue what the catalog could earn over the next 10-20 years. However, a buyout provides certainty and immediate capital that can be life-changing. Consider a hybrid approach: sell a portion of your catalog outright while retaining a revenue split on the remainder.
FAQ
Related content
Comparisons
Want to monetize your catalog?
SPACE buys music catalogs in ambient, lo-fi, and meditation genres.
Apply Now