Who Owns Pre-1972 Sound Recordings Under the MMA?

Ownership of pre-1972 sound recordings under the Music Modernization Act (MMA) generally follows the person who held the exclusive state-law reproduction right on October 10, 2018, or someone who later acquired that right. The Act didn’t automatically transfer ownership to artists, record labels, or the federal government.

For artists, labels, and catalog buyers, the answer depends on the recording’s chain of title. Performing on a record, possessing the master tape, or receiving royalties doesn’t necessarily establish ownership.

The starting point is the MMA’s ownership definition, followed by the agreements and transfers affecting each recording.

Key Takeaways

• The MMA’s ownership test looks to the state-law reproduction right held on October 10, 2018, and subsequent acquisitions of that right.
• Master recordings and musical compositions are separate assets, with potentially different owners and licensing requirements.
• Copyright Office schedules and royalty registrations don’t settle ownership disputes.
• Protection periods depend on first publication, while licensing authority also depends on contracts, existing grants, and applicable exceptions.

How Ownership of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings Is Determined

Section 1401 covers recordings fixed before February 15, 1972. “Fixed” refers to capturing sounds in a sufficiently permanent medium, rather than the date a record reached stores.

The statutory ownership test

Under 17 U.S.C. Section 1401, the relevant rights owner is the person who held the exclusive right under state law to reproduce the recording on October 10, 2018, or a subsequent acquirer of that right.

That definition preserves the importance of historical ownership. A label may qualify because an artist assigned the relevant rights decades earlier. An artist, estate, or successor company may qualify if the documents and applicable law support that claim.

The artist’s name on the release doesn’t answer the legal question. Neither does a company’s role as distributor.

Why the chain of title matters

A chain of title connects the original ownership interest to the party claiming rights today. Relevant events can include recording agreements, assignments, label acquisitions, mergers, estate distributions, and contractual reversions.

Each transfer must cover the interest being claimed. A distribution agreement may authorize commercial exploitation without conveying ownership. Likewise, an administrator may collect income without acquiring the underlying rights.

Historical state law also matters when determining original ownership. Modern federal work-made-for-hire rules shouldn’t simply be imposed on every recording made before 1972.

Keep the Master Separate From the Song

A catalog can contain overlapping rights without having one universal owner. Our explanation of the two copyrights in recorded music addresses this distinction.

Master rights concern the recorded performance

The master is the particular recorded performance. The composition is the underlying music and lyrics.

A label can own a recording while a songwriter or publisher controls the song. Therefore, acquiring a master catalog doesn’t automatically acquire publishing rights.

This distinction affects transactions and licensing. Using an existing recording in a film or advertisement generally requires clearance of both the master and the composition. Authority over one side doesn’t establish authority over the other.

Royalty recipients aren’t necessarily owners

Royalty statements show payment activity, but they don’t replace ownership documents. A producer may receive contractual points, while an administrator receives money on an owner’s behalf.

Similarly, SoundExchange pays distinct categories of eligible recipients. A featured artist’s entitlement to performer income doesn’t, by itself, establish master ownership.

For catalog diligence, separate the right to receive money from the authority to license, assign, or enforce the recording.

What the MMA Changed for Older Recordings

Enacted on October 11, 2018, the MMA changed the federal treatment of older recordings. However, it didn’t eliminate the need to establish ownership.

Federal remedies without a new ownership award

As the U.S. Copyright Office explains, the Music Modernization Act’s Title II brought pre-1972 recordings partially into the federal copyright system.

Section 1401 provides federal remedies for specified unauthorized uses, subject to protection periods, exceptions, and limitations. It also places covered recordings within a federal framework for eligible digital-performance licensing.

That framework doesn’t make every use compensable. Fair use and other applicable limitations remain relevant. Nor does the law create a general U.S. sound-recording performance royalty for traditional AM/FM broadcasts.

Court decisions explain the earlier performance-right disputes

In Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., the New York Court of Appeals held in 2016 that New York common law didn’t recognize a public-performance right in pre-1972 recordings.

The decision concerned a particular right under New York law. It didn’t establish that older recordings lacked ownership protection altogether.

The Ninth Circuit’s 2021 Flo & Eddie decision likewise rejected the claimed California public-performance right. These cases illustrate why ownership and the scope of enforceable rights require separate analysis.

How Long Does Protection Last?

The recording date determines whether Section 1401 applies. However, first publication determines several important protection periods.

The statute uses the following categories for covered recordings.

First-publication category	Section 1401 protection period
Before 1923	Ended December 31, 2021
1923 through 1946	Through December 31 of the year 100 years after first publication
1947 through 1956	Through December 31 of the year 110 years after first publication
All other covered recordings	Ends February 15, 2067

For the middle categories, the statute combines a 95-year period with an additional transition period of five or 15 years.

As of November 2026, recordings first published in 1925 have completed their Section 1401 protection. Recordings first published in 1926 complete that protection on December 31, 2026.

Expiration of the recording’s protection doesn’t necessarily clear the underlying composition. A researcher or producer must distinguish the recording’s status from rights in the song.

Ownership of a physical record or tape can also continue after exclusive reproduction protection expires. Possession and legal control over copying remain different questions.

What a Copyright Office Schedule Does and Doesn’t Prove

A rights owner can file a schedule identifying recordings with the U.S. Copyright Office. These schedules support the statutory enforcement system, but they aren’t ownership judgments.

For statutory damages and attorneys’ fees, Section 1401 generally requires a filed schedule and a 90-day period after the recording’s information becomes publicly indexed. The availability of those remedies also depends on the statute’s other conditions.

The Copyright Office doesn’t decide legal ownership or review these schedules for legal sufficiency. A listed claimant therefore still needs a valid basis for the claimed rights.

A searchable schedule can identify a claimant, but it can’t supply a missing assignment or resolve competing chains of title.

An existing schedule can remain effective for a successor in interest without a new filing. That continuity doesn’t itself prove that ownership changed.

Consequently, catalog buyers should treat schedules as useful rights information alongside the underlying agreements. A claim supported only by a database entry remains different from a documented ownership interest.

Match Licensing Authority to the Revenue Stream

Even an established owner must distinguish among uses. A master-use license, an eligible digital-performance royalty, and composition income follow different legal routes.

SoundExchange administers U.S. statutory sound-recording performance royalties for eligible non-interactive digital services. Examples include qualifying webcasts, SiriusXM transmissions, and Pandora’s radio-style programming.

It doesn’t collect composition mechanical royalties or replace on-demand streaming income. ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and GMR administer separate composition-performance interests under their respective systems.

Our discussion of the Pandora litigation over older recordings provides historical context for the disputes preceding the MMA.

For a proposed license, the practical question is whether the licensor controls that particular use, territory, and period. Existing exclusive licenses can restrict a new transaction even when the seller retains ownership.

Similarly, permission for an earlier release doesn’t necessarily authorize a new remix, sample, or advertising use. The scope of the actual grant controls.

What to Review Before Licensing or Selling a Catalog

A defensible ownership conclusion should identify both the asset and the legal basis for controlling it. Album-level assumptions can overlook track-specific agreements.

Trace the documents and contractual limits

Start with the original recording agreement and follow every relevant assignment, amendment, acquisition, and reversion. Producer and featured-artist agreements may also affect ownership, compensation, or approvals.

For a catalog transaction, the document review should cover:

• The original ownership basis and each subsequent transfer affecting the claimed rights.
• Existing licenses, administration arrangements, security interests, and territorial restrictions.
• Reversion provisions, competing claims, and obligations that survive a sale.

Royalty statements can help identify discrepancies, but payment history doesn’t cure a missing grant. Likewise, delivery of audio files doesn’t establish that every necessary right accompanied them.

Separate contractual reversion from statutory termination

A contractual reversion returns rights according to the agreement’s triggers. Federal copyright termination follows a different system.

Sections 203 and 304 govern qualifying federal copyright grants. They don’t create a blanket 35-year reversion rule for recordings protected under Section 1401. A song’s publishing grant may also face termination while the master remains under different ownership.

At Chase Lawyers, we help artists, labels, and catalog businesses address ownership and licensing questions through our music-industry and intellectual-property practice. We can assess the agreements, identify competing interests, and structure transactions around the rights the parties actually control.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the original performer automatically own the recording?

No. Performance credit alone doesn’t establish ownership. The applicable historical law, recording relationship, agreements, and later transfers determine who holds the relevant reproduction right. A performer can also receive royalties without owning the master.

Does remastering restart protection for the original recording?

A remaster’s release date doesn’t replace the original recording’s first-publication date. Any protection claimed for new material requires separate analysis. Reissuing an older recording doesn’t automatically restart its Section 1401 protection period.

Can an artist’s heirs own pre-1972 recordings?

Yes, if the relevant rights passed to them through a valid inheritance or transfer. However, inheriting royalties, physical tapes, or an artist’s personal property doesn’t necessarily convey master ownership. Estate documents and the earlier chain of title remain important.

Clear Ownership Starts With the Chain of Title

The MMA gives pre-1972 sound recordings a federal protection framework while preserving ownership’s dependence on historical rights and later transfers. A documented chain of title remains the strongest basis for determining who can license or enforce a recording.

Before a sale, license, or ownership claim, separate the master from the composition and identify the rights each agreement conveys. Chase Lawyers can help turn that analysis into a clear position for negotiations and enforcement.