What Is a Sync License and How Does the Sync Process Work for Indie Artists

What is a sync license?

A sync license is the legal permission to pair a piece of music with moving images: a film, a TV episode, an ad, a video game, or online content. The word "synchronization" just means the music is synced to picture. That's it. According to ASCAP, the term covers any use of copyrighted music against moving visual media.

Here's the part that trips people up. One placement needs two licenses, not one. And the way those two licenses get cleared is the whole reason an independent artist who owns their work can move faster than a label-signed act stuck in a clearance chain.

I'll walk through both licenses, why ASCAP and BMI can't hand you a sync deal, and what changes when you own all of it yourself.

Why does one placement need two licenses?

Every sync use requires two separate licenses because music carries two distinct copyrights, and they're often owned by different people. You clear both or you don't have a deal.

The first is the sync license itself. It covers the underlying composition: the melody, the lyrics, the chords. The songwriter or their publisher grants it.

The second is the master use license. It covers the specific sound recording being used, the actual file that plays. Whoever owns that recording grants it, which could be a label, the artist, or the producer.

These are genuinely separate. Per Songtrust, if even one rights holder out of several can't be identified or refuses, the placement can't be cleared. A music supervisor on a deadline isn't going to chase three publishers and two labels for one cue when an easier song is sitting right there.

There's also no fallback rate to lean on. In the United States, there's no compulsory license for audiovisual synchronization (University of Oregon, Pay for Play). That means no statutory fee schedule, no automatic permission. Both sides have to agree, in writing, on a number. Canada works the same way: there's no expressly recognized baseline sync rate (Canadian League of Composers). Every sync deal is negotiated from scratch.

Why won't ASCAP or BMI issue a sync license?

ASCAP and BMI do not issue sync licenses, full stop. ASCAP's own FAQ says it's authorized to offer public performance licenses only, and that sync rights have to come directly from the publisher or rights holder. The same is true for BMI, SESAC, and SOCAN.

This catches a lot of artists off guard, because PROs feel like the place music rights live. But a performing rights organization does one job: it collects performance royalties when your music is publicly performed or broadcast. It doesn't grant the right to put your song in a movie.

That said, PROs do show up later in the process, and it's worth knowing how. Once a synced placement is broadcast or streamed, it generates performance royalties on top of the upfront sync fee. ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and SOCAN collect those. So the PRO isn't the gatekeeper for the placement, but it is the pipe for a second, ongoing revenue stream after the placement airs.

For Canadian artists, there's an extra layer here, and it's a real one. SOCAN administers both performing rights and reproduction rights, which include sync, after it absorbed SODRAC on July 31, 2018 (SOCAN Magazine). SOCAN can even issue a sync license on your behalf, but only after getting your prior approval. That's a non-exclusive service, not an automatic handoff, and its sync administration fee sits at 10% (SOCAN FAQ on reproduction rights). CMRRA, Canada's mechanical licensing agency, used to do sync and now doesn't: its own FAQ says plainly that it no longer handles synchronization licensing and that you should contact the publisher or copyright owner directly (CMRRA FAQ). Re:Sound, which handles neighbouring rights for performers and labels, doesn't touch sync either (Re:Sound FAQ).

So in both countries, the org you'd assume handles this mostly doesn't. Sync clearance comes back to whoever owns the rights.

What does the sync clearance process actually look like?

The sync clearance process runs in roughly six steps, from identifying rights holders to filing cue sheets. It's the same shape whether you're a label or an independent artist. The difference is how many people you have to call.

First, identify the rights holders for both the composition and the master. PRO databases like ASCAP's ACE, BMI Repertoire, and the SOCAN database are where you start. Second, define the intended use: project type, how long the music plays, territory, distribution scope, and exclusivity. Third, contact the rights holders or their reps, meaning the publisher, label, or sync agent. Fourth, negotiate terms and fees. Fifth, execute a written license agreement. Sixth, submit and maintain cue sheets so PROs can track royalties.

That last step is worth a beat. A cue sheet is a detailed log of every piece of music used in a show, film, or commercial. Broadcasters file these with PROs, and the PROs use them to distribute performance royalties to registered composers and publishers. If your cue isn't on the sheet correctly, the back-end money doesn't find you.

One thing to set your expectations on: those performance royalties are slow. Payments to composers typically lag the broadcast date by 6 to 18 months and arrive quarterly or semi-annually (That Pitch). The upfront sync fee is your near-term money. The royalties are a long tail.

How does owning both sides change the economics?

If you own all of both your master recording and your publishing, you're what the industry calls a one-stop. A single entity, you, can grant both licenses at once. That changes the math and the speed in ways that matter to a music supervisor.

Here's why one-stop status is so attractive. It removes the chasing. The supervisor deals with one party, signs one contract, makes one payment, and closes the deal fast. On a tight production deadline, and advertising briefs can turn around in as little as 48 hours, "easy to clear" often beats "slightly better fit." The structural advantage is real: a label-signed artist can have the better song and still lose the placement because their rights are split across a label and a publisher who both have to say yes.

And when you own both sides, you keep both sides of the fee. You collect all of the master sync fee and all of the publishing sync fee, with no label or publisher taking a cut. The numbers below are market-observed ranges from industry guides, not disclosed deal filings, so treat them as rough.

Source: multiple industry guides (Blakmarigold, Chartlex, Elizabeth Records). Market-observed ranges, not verified deal filings.

A clean catalog is what lets you say yes fast. If your metadata is a mess, you can be a one-stop on paper and still stall the deal because nobody can confirm who owns what. That groundwork is what makes the "one signature" promise true.

Run your release through the free metadata checker to confirm your ISRC, ISWC, writer credits, and splits are filled in and consistent before you pitch for sync. →

Is a sync license the same as a royalty?

No. A sync license is a one-time permission you negotiate and get paid an upfront fee for. A royalty is the ongoing performance payment a PRO collects later, after the synced content airs or streams. They're two different payments from two different sources for the same placement.

Keep them straight, because they hit your account at very different times. The sync fee lands when the deal closes. The royalties show up months later through your PRO, in that 6-to-18-month window, and only if your cue sheet was filed right. Independent artists who own their publishing and are registered with a PRO collect both. Artists who never registered, or whose cue sheets got fumbled, leave the royalty side on the table.

If you want the full breakdown of what each media type pays and how the two streams stack, the sibling guide on real fee ranges goes deeper than I can here.