Neighboring rights are rights connected to the recorded performance: the interests of performers and the producer of the recording. They are not the publishing rights in the written song.
That separation is the first thing to get right. A song has a composition — melody, lyrics, harmony, and structure — and a master, the specific recording. Sync licenses usually need permission for both. Neighboring-rights income sits on the recording side, so registering the composition with a publisher or performing rights organisation does not complete this job.
For many U.S. artists, the useful first move is to register with SoundExchange and check the recording data attached to their name. That does not solve every foreign collection question, but it establishes the main U.S. path for eligible digital performances.
Neighboring rights pay for uses of the recording
The Rome Convention describes the international framework. It protects performers in their performances, producers in their phonograms, and broadcasting organisations in their broadcasts (WIPO). A phonogram is the recorded sound; in everyday music-business language, think of the master.
For certain secondary uses of a commercially published recording, the Convention contemplates a single equitable payment to performers, producers, or both. It also lets contracting countries decline or limit that rule (WIPO).
That flexibility is why “neighboring rights” is not one identical royalty everywhere. The use covered, the people paid, and the collection process can change by territory. A radio performance that generates recording-side income in one country may be treated differently in another.
Neighboring rights are not one identical royalty in every territory, so the use and the payee change with the border.
The Convention was adopted in Rome on October 26, 1961 and is administered jointly by WIPO, the International Labour Organization, and UNESCO (WIPO). The United States does not appear on WIPO’s list of contracting parties (WIPO Lex).
For your money, the practical lesson is simple: never project one country’s recording royalty rules onto the rest of the world.
U.S. law covers certain digital audio transmissions
U.S. copyright law gives the owner of a sound recording an exclusive right to perform it publicly by means of a digital audio transmission under §106(6) (17 U.S.C. §106). Section 114 defines and limits that right.
The same section says sound-recording rights do not include a performance right under §106(4), the general public-performance right that applies to musical works (17 U.S.C. §114). That is the legal divide behind the familiar U.S. result: the recording side does not receive a general terrestrial-radio performance royalty under current federal law.
Do not read that as “recordings do not earn performance royalties in the United States.” Certain non-interactive digital audio transmissions are covered. SoundExchange administers the statutory license for that U.S. recording-side stream as the government-designated collective (SoundExchange).
The difference is the transmission. A composition performance and a sound-recording performance are separate rights, and U.S. law does not treat every delivery method the same way.
Because legislation can change, check the current law before relying on this article for a release or registration decision. The safe habit is to identify the right, the recording, the territory, and the service rather than asking whether “radio pays” in the abstract.
SoundExchange is a practical first registration, not a synonym for every royalty
SoundExchange collects and distributes eligible recording-side digital performance royalties under the U.S. statutory system. Its registration materials serve both featured performers and sound-recording copyright owners (SoundExchange).
Those can be different people or entities. If you performed on a track but a label owns the master, your performer record and the label’s owner record answer different questions. If you are self-released and own the master, you may need to make sure both roles are represented correctly.
Registration is the gate to matching the money to the right party. At minimum, check:
- the legal name and artist name attached to the performer;
- the legal name of the sound-recording copyright owner;
- each recording title and version;
- whether duplicate or unmatched records appear; and
- whether the person who controls the master has changed.
Do the search even if a distributor delivered the track to streaming services. Delivery to a service and registration for a statutory performance royalty are separate tasks. Assuming one completed the other can leave money unmatched while the recording remains active.
The free one-stop self-audit can help you separate recording control from composition control before a sync pitch. It does not register neighboring rights, but it makes the two-property structure visible on one song.
Foreign collection may require an international path
SoundExchange also says it collects available international performance royalties through a global partnership network (SoundExchange). “Available” matters because foreign rights depend on the law and collection rules in the territory where the use occurred.
Do not assume that a U.S. registration automatically captures every foreign use. Ask concrete questions:
- Which countries are covered by the collection mandate?
- Does the mandate cover the performer share, the master-owner share, or both?
- Are any territories already covered by another agreement?
- How are recordings matched when titles, artist names, or ownership changed?
- What commission, deductions, or term applies?
The global publishing network is separate. CISAC says its member authors’ societies represent creators across more than 110 countries (CISAC). That is useful context for compositions, not proof that a SoundExchange registration administers your songs as a publisher.
Keep two columns in your catalog records: “composition collection” and “recording collection.” Then add a territory column to each. That small structure prevents you from paying two providers for the same mandate or leaving a country uncovered because each provider was assumed to be handling it.
You may not need another service until you can name the gap
A neighboring-rights company can only be evaluated against a defined problem. “International” is too broad. The useful question is: which recording-side income, in which territory, for which role, is not already being collected?
Start with evidence:
- Register and search your catalog at SoundExchange.
- List every country where you have a separate neighboring-rights mandate.
- Identify whether you are claiming as performer, sound-recording owner, or both.
- Note recordings with changed ownership or inconsistent metadata.
- Ask any prospective collector to name the uncovered territories and rights in writing.
If the proposed service overlaps an existing mandate, you may create conflicting claims and spend time untangling them. If it fills a documented territory gap, you can compare its cost with a specific potential benefit.
Neighboring rights also should not be confused with publishing administration. VERILUX’s U.S.-only publishing scope concerns the composition. SoundExchange concerns eligible performances of the recording. One relationship does not replace the other.
If you want a fast next step, audit one song’s recording and composition control. You will leave with a clearer list of who owns each side before you add another collection agreement.