There is no official rate card for putting a song under picture.
Sync is permission to use a written song with moving images — a scene, advert, trailer or other video. If an existing recording is used, the buyer also needs permission for that recording. Those are separate rights, so the money attached to a placement can arrive through separate channels.
The key distinction is simple: the upfront sync price is negotiated, while some royalties connected to music are paid under separate systems. The U.S. Copyright Office says audiovisual synchronization has traditionally required a license negotiated in the free market, and it recommended keeping audiovisual uses there rather than creating a compulsory rate (U.S. Copyright Office).
That is why a confident answer to “What does sync pay?” cannot begin with one dollar figure. It has to begin with what was licensed, how the production will use it and which payment stream you mean.
The upfront fee pays for permission to put music under picture
The upfront sync fee is the amount negotiated for the visual use of the written song. If the buyer wants your existing recording, it also negotiates a master-use license for the recording. ASCAP’s film-licensing guide says a producer seeking pre-recorded music usually needs both licenses, and that the fees are negotiable because publishers and record labels do not all charge the same amount (ASCAP).
If you control both rights, one conversation can clear the whole track. That is the practical value of a one-stop song: the buyer can get both permissions from one person or team instead of waiting for separate owners to approve separate prices.
The number moves because the permission moves. A license can define the production, media, territory, term and extent of use. Change those rights and the quote can change. ASCAP gives a concrete example: independent films may negotiate reduced festival rates based on limited screenings, then pay higher fees if the film secures theatrical release and reaches a much larger audience (ASCAP).
That structure is often called a step deal. It lets a project buy the rights it needs now while stating what a larger release will cost later. For the artist, the useful question is not “Is this fee good in the abstract?” It is “Exactly what use does this fee buy, and what event raises it?”
There is no statutory sync rate to use as a floor
A statutory rate is a government-set price or formula for a specific licensed use. Sync does not have one. The Copyright Office considered compulsory treatment for consumer audiovisual uses and said it did not see a market failure that justified a new compulsory license (U.S. Copyright Office).
Other music uses show what a statutory system looks like. The Copyright Office publishes a historical schedule for the Section 115 mechanical license, including 2 cents in the early period, 2.75 cents beginning January 1, 1978 and 4 cents beginning January 1, 1981 (U.S. Copyright Office). Those figures are historical examples, not current sync prices.
Digital performance of sound recordings has another statutory system. SoundExchange describes itself as the only organization designated by the U.S. government to administer the Section 114 sound-recording license (SoundExchange). Again, that does not set a sync fee; it shows that when a music rate is statutory, the law identifies the use and the administrator.
With sync, the parties negotiate. That makes a universal “normal fee” misleading, because it strips away the rights that give the number meaning.
Performance royalties can arrive after the upfront license
The upfront license is not the same thing as the public-performance royalty that may follow an eligible broadcast or exhibition.
A performing rights organization (a PRO) pays performance royalties for the written song under its own distribution process. The production reports the music on a cue sheet, which identifies the composition, writers, publishers, timing and type of use. ASCAP explains that cue sheets are the primary way it tracks music in films and television, and that accurately filed cue sheets are essential for distributing royalties (ASCAP).
That creates a real paperwork consequence. You can negotiate the upfront fee correctly and still create a payment problem later if the cue sheet cannot match the use to your registration. The license closes the use; the cue sheet helps route the separate performance income.
Negotiating the fee correctly still leaves the back end to a document you do not file.
If the terms are unfamiliar, start with the plain-language glossary. You do not need to memorize the collection system before reviewing an offer, but you do need to keep the upfront fee and the possible back end in separate columns.
Mechanical and digital-performance income are separate again
A song can earn money in several contexts, but that does not make every payment part of the sync deal.
Mechanical royalties concern reproduction and distribution of the written composition under a separate licensing framework. The Copyright Office’s published Section 115 history demonstrates that this stream has had statutory rates, unlike freely negotiated synchronization (U.S. Copyright Office).
SoundExchange’s statutory work concerns certain digital performances of sound recordings under Section 114 (SoundExchange). That is a master-side income stream, but it is not the negotiated master-use fee for placing a recording in a video.
This separation prevents two expensive mistakes. The first is accepting a weak upfront offer because someone points to unrelated future royalties as if they were guaranteed. The second is assuming the upfront payment includes every later use when the license may cover only a defined production and term.
No placement guarantees a particular back-end amount. The careful approach is to identify each stream, identify who administers it and judge the negotiated license on the rights written into that license.
A public buyout figure is a company term, not an industry benchmark
One public number is useful precisely because it shows how different a company model can be. In its company-published artist FAQ, Epidemic Sound states that it pays a fixed fee of USD $2,000–$8,000 per track and shares streaming revenue 50/50 (Epidemic Sound).
That is Epidemic Sound’s published acquisition model, not a median sync fee and not a rate card for film, television, advertising or games. Treating it as a general benchmark would compare different rights packages as though they were the same purchase.
Before comparing any two numbers, put the permissions beside them:
- Does the payment cover the written composition, the recording or both?
- Is the use limited to one production, or does the agreement acquire broader rights?
- Which media, territories and dates are included?
- Does the price rise if the release expands?
- Who files the cue sheet, and are the writer and publisher details correct?
Those questions turn a headline number into an actual deal.
The right comparison is rights against money, not fee against rumor
There is no defensible universal range in the primary sources above. What they do establish is more useful: sync and master-use fees are negotiated; limited festival use can be priced differently from a theatrical release; performance royalties run through cue sheets and PROs; and statutory mechanical or digital-performance systems do not set the sync price (ASCAP; U.S. Copyright Office; SoundExchange).
So when an offer arrives, do not ask whether it matches a number from somebody else’s placement. Ask whether the payment matches the exact rights, duration, territory and use in front of you.
For a continuing read on how deal structures affect artist income, join the Sync Digest. It is the quieter way to build a reference point before the next offer needs an answer.