This July 2026 edition covers what changed in June.
The month’s practical theme was identification. A placement can only move through the royalty system when the work, recording, performers, rights owners, and usage context are described in fields the next system can understand.
What changed
Your next recording can get its ID before the metadata goes missing
On June 2, IFPI and SoundExchange announced automatic ISRC assignment through IFPI-authorized channels, with an initial check against SoundExchange’s data intended to prevent duplicate codes (IFPI). The announcement said the system would reduce manual work for smaller labels and self-releasing artists, but did not name launch timing, price, or every available channel.
What it means if you are trying to get placed. Audit before assigning. One distinct recording should have one ISRC, and a materially distinct version delivered for use should have its own code. Sync catalogues multiply versions quickly: original, clean, instrumental, alternate vocal, 30-second edit, 15-second edit, and re-record can become separate assets. Do not reuse one identifier simply because the underlying song is the same. Search existing records first so you do not create a duplicate for a master that already has a code, then assign and store the result before sending files to a supervisor or clearance team. Keep an ISRC register beside the work-level metadata, not buried inside a distributor dashboard. Include the exact filename, version title, duration, recording owner, performers, release information, and corresponding composition title. The new capability does not guarantee that every artist can use it immediately; it runs through authorized channels, and the fetched page did not list them. Ask your distributor or national agency how assignment is handled, then verify the code in the public data route the announcement describes. Fast assignment helps only if the code remains attached to the right recording everywhere it travels.
The MLC stays in charge. Your registration habits still decide what gets paid
On June 3, the Copyright Office continued the existing MLC and digital licensee coordinator designations after a periodic review that drew more than sixty comments (Copyright Office NewsNet). The MLC said its next review was expected to begin in January 2029 and reported nearly 90,000 members, more than 54 million songs, and nearly $4 billion distributed (The MLC).
What it means if you are trying to get placed. The destination for eligible US digital mechanicals is stable for the next part of the cycle, so waiting for a different system is not a useful strategy. Register and reconcile now. Confirm each work appears under the title used for distribution and sync delivery, that writer shares agree with signed splits, and that the correct publisher or administrator is attached to your share. Instrumental and alternate versions can create matching problems even when they embody the same underlying composition, so make the relationship between work and recordings explicit in your catalogue file. The scale of the MLC’s published database and distribution figures is a warning as much as a milestone: matching depends on identifiers and consistency, not on somebody recognizing your title by hand. Keep the scope straight. The MLC handles the US blanket mechanical licence for eligible interactive streams and downloads. It does not collect the sync fee, it does not replace a PRO for performance income, and it is not a worldwide publishing administrator. If you want to influence the next review, calendar January 2029 and watch for the public process. Until then, the high-return work is ordinary: register, compare, correct, and document.
Voice-clone protection moved one step closer to a Senate vote
The Senate Judiciary Committee met on S.4591, the NO FAKES Act of 2026, on June 18, and on June 24 the bill was placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar as Calendar No. 446 (Congress.gov). The proposal would create a federal right against unauthorized digital replicas of a person’s voice or likeness, but its status remained “Introduced,” so it was not law.
What it means if you are trying to get placed. The movement is worth watching, but it does not create an enforceable federal right today. Protect voice and likeness contractually while Congress works. If a licence, platform term, or production agreement asks for synthetic voice, digital-replica, model-training, or future-technology rights, make the permission narrow: named production, defined use, term, territory, and approved versions. Do not let a sync licence for one recording become an unrestricted right to generate new performances in your voice. Ask whether the grant can be sublicensed, whether it survives termination, how a takedown works, and what evidence the licensee must retain. Keep your own dated vocal takes, stems, sessions, and agreements so you can show what was authorized and what was not. Ownership of the master does not automatically answer every question about the performer’s identity rights, so collect the needed vocalist consent as well as co-owner approval. State digital-replica law may also matter, and the bill’s preemption language is complex, so material negotiations or disputes call for legal advice. The useful signal from June is procedural: the proposal advanced. The useful action remains the same until enactment—define voice uses explicitly and never promise rights you cannot document.
Music publishers are negotiating with AI, and the money at stake is getting clearer
At its June 10 annual meeting, the NMPA announced what it called industry-wide licensing pacts with Udio and KLAY; the following day it reported US publishing revenue of $7.3 billion for 2025 and said bundling had cost publishers nearly $500 million since 2024 (NMPA). The fetched listing did not disclose the AI deals’ rates, participation rules, catalogue scope, term, or opt-in mechanics.
What it means if you are trying to get placed. Ask whether your works are actually included before treating an “industry-wide” pact as authority over your catalogue. Your publisher or administrator should be able to state whether participation is automatic, elective, or unavailable; which tracks are covered; how a share is calculated; where it appears on statements; and how you can leave. Get those answers in writing. Keep the master side separate: a publishing licence does not clear a recording, so an AI product can have permission for the composition and still lack permission for the master it wants to use. The market figures are context, not promises. A $7.3 billion industry total says nothing about what one writer will receive, and the bundling estimate is an advocacy claim from a publisher trade group, not an audited loss assigned to your account. The useful planning point is that streaming mechanicals can be affected by service packaging outside your control. Negotiate sync fees on the use itself, preserve cue-sheet-driven performance income, and maintain complete registrations rather than assuming scale elsewhere will reach you. “Industry-wide” should make you ask a narrower question: which right of mine, under which agreement, on what terms?
Songwriters can now win Grammys for more of their album work
On June 16, the Recording Academy announced that songwriters and composers of new material on winning albums in most genre album categories would receive statuettes and certificates, while the new-recording threshold for album eligibility fell from 75% to 66% (Recording Academy). It also created Best Latin Song, requiring lyrics to be predominantly Spanish with at least 51% in Spanish, but announced no change to the visual-media song category.
What it means if you are trying to get placed. Fix credits before release or submission. If you contribute new writing to a soundtrack, cast album, or compilation, confirm that your writer credit appears in label copy and delivered metadata, not only in a split-sheet email. The lower 66% threshold may make some projects with a mix of new and existing recordings eligible, but it does not turn a pre-existing licensed song into a commissioned visual-media song. Keep those paths separate. For bilingual writing, the 51% Spanish test in Best Latin Song is a concrete eligibility threshold that may affect the final lyric; make that choice during writing, not during awards paperwork. If visual-media recognition is the goal, the existing category still centers on songs written specifically for and used in the project. A catalogue placement can be commercially and creatively successful without satisfying that definition. Calendar product eligibility and online-entry windows early, then assign one person to verify credits, percentages, release dates, and submission responsibility. An award rule does not improve a credit that was omitted at delivery. Accurate metadata does.
Cue sheets can finally carry the recording data that helps royalties find you
On June 18, CISAC launched AVR+, a structured JSON implementation of Global Cue Sheet Standard 2.0 that includes work data, recording identifiers, recording metadata, and contextual usage information (CISAC). The schema and examples were made public, but no mandatory adoption date or confirmed implementer list was announced.
What it means if you are trying to get placed. Align your delivery sheet with the information AVR+ is designed to carry even if nobody asks you for JSON. For the work: exact title, every writer, society, identifier, publisher, and share. For the recording: version title, ISRC, master owner, performers, and duration. For the use: production, episode or asset, timecode, actual duration, and context such as background instrumental, featured vocal, theme, end credit, trailer, or promo. Context is not decoration; it can affect how a performance is classified and paid. Give each delivered recording version the right identifier, and keep the version name consistent between audio file, licence schedule, cue sheet, and registration. After a placement, ask the production to confirm that a cue sheet was filed and compare later statements with your own record. You do not file the broadcaster’s cue sheet yourself, and AVR+ is not mandatory simply because the schema exists. Its immediate value is a published checklist for complete data. When production systems begin validating against it, a clean catalogue will pass with less friction and a vague one will fail faster.
June connected the full chain: identifier, registration, contributor consent, licensing authority, public credit, and cue sheet. Build one catalogue record that can answer all six questions, then keep the source documents behind it.