Selling Masters vs. Selling Publishing: Understanding Your Two Assets
Every piece of recorded music creates two separate intellectual property assets: the master recording (the actual audio) and the publishing rights (the underlying composition). These are independent assets that can be owned, licensed, and sold separately. When considering a sale, understanding the differences between these two asset classes is critical to making the right decision. Masters and publishing generate revenue through different channels, have different risk profiles, and hold different strategic value. This comparison helps ambient, lo-fi, and meditation music creators understand what they're selling in each case and which asset may be more advantageous to hold or sell based on their specific situation.
Selling Master Rights
Selling your master rights transfers ownership of the specific sound recordings you've created. The buyer gains control over how those recordings are distributed, licensed, and monetized across streaming platforms, sync placements, and other commercial uses.
Pros
- +Masters often represent the larger share of streaming revenue (52-55% of the royalty pool)
- +Clean transfer — streaming revenue automatically redirects to the new owner through the distributor
- +No ongoing collection complexity across multiple organizations
- +Content ID and streaming monetization transfer seamlessly
- +Masters are often valued slightly higher due to direct streaming revenue
- +Simplifies your rights management by reducing assets you administer
Cons
- −You lose control over how your recordings are used and licensed
- −Cannot use your own recordings for promotional purposes without permission
- −Buyer could license your recordings for uses you disagree with
- −Masters have a finite lifespan tied to the relevance of that specific recording
- −New recordings of the same composition would not benefit the buyer (those are new masters)
- −Emotional loss of "the version" listeners know and connect with
Best for: Creators who want to retain their compositions for future re-recording, cover versions, and publishing income. Also suitable for artists who have extensive catalogs of recordings and want to monetize the recording asset while continuing to earn as composers.
Selling Publishing Rights
Selling your publishing rights transfers ownership of the underlying musical compositions — the melodies, harmonies, lyrics, and arrangements. The buyer earns from all future uses of the composition, including any new recordings, covers, or adaptations.
Pros
- +Publishing rights are truly evergreen — they earn from any recording of the composition
- +Performance royalties from public performance are a stable, growing revenue stream
- +Publishing generates revenue from covers, interpolations, and derivative works
- +Sync licensing opportunities often start with the composition
- +Publishing rights typically have longer effective commercial lifespans than specific recordings
- +Multiple revenue streams (mechanical, performance, sync, print) provide diversification
Cons
- −Publishing revenue per stream is smaller than master recording revenue
- −Collection is more complex — involves PROs, MLC, sub-publishers across territories
- −Writer's share of performance royalties may not be transferable (varies by PRO)
- −Revenue realization can be slower due to collection society processing times
- −Less immediate impact on day-to-day streaming income
- −Buyer may make sync licensing decisions you disagree with
Best for: Creators who want to retain control of their recordings for Content ID, streaming, and direct licensing. Good for ambient producers who plan to create new recordings or remixes of their compositions and want to keep earning from the masters.
Feature comparison
| Feature | Selling Master Rights | Selling Publishing Rights |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue per Stream | ~$0.003-0.004 (master share) | ~$0.001-0.002 (publishing share) |
| Revenue Sources | Streaming, downloads, physical sales, master use licensing | Mechanicals, performance royalties, sync fees, print |
| Evergreen Potential | Tied to the specific recording's relevance | Any recording of the composition earns |
| Collection Complexity | Relatively simple — through distributor | Complex — PROs, MLC, sub-publishers globally |
| Sync Licensing | Master use license required | Sync license required — often initiates the deal |
| Content ID Revenue | Yes — YouTube monetization | Indirect — through composition claims |
| Transferability | Fully transferable | Publisher's share transferable; writer's share may not be |
Verdict
For most ambient and meditation music creators, selling masters while retaining publishing is often the more strategic choice. Your compositions are the truly evergreen asset — a meditation melody could be re-recorded, covered, or adapted for decades. However, if you have a large catalog of recordings generating significant Content ID and streaming revenue, masters may be more immediately valuable. Consider your long-term creative plans: if you intend to continue creating new recordings, keep your masters and sell publishing. If you're stepping away from active creation, selling masters might make more sense since you won't be creating new recordings of those compositions.
FAQ
Related content
Comparisons
Want to monetize your catalog?
SPACE buys music catalogs in ambient, lo-fi, and meditation genres.
Apply Now