No Alarms and No Surprise Syncs, Please: How to Retain Control Over Sync Licensing After Giving Up Copyright

Key Takeaways

• Copyright ownership does not eliminate creative control, but only if approval rights are negotiated upfront. Artists can preserve influence over sync licensing through contract terms even when rights are assigned.
• “Consultation” rights offer limited protection compared to approval rights. Recent disputes highlight how lack of consent authority can expose creators to reputational risk despite valid licensing.
• Sync licensing remains a high-risk, high-visibility use of creative works. Strategic contract drafting, especially around sensitive categories, is critical to protecting brand alignment and public perception.
• Early negotiation is the key leverage point. Once rights are transferred, meaningful control depends entirely on the contractual framework in place.

---

When Copyright Ownership Doesn’t Mean Creative Control

Jonny Greenwood, Radiohead’s multi‑instrumental genius and proud keeper of the most mysteriously immutable hair in rock, composed the Oscar-nominated score to Paul Thoman Anderson’s 2017 film Phantom Thread. The emotive, lush orchestral arrangement was the perfect counterpart to Anderson’s romantic drama.

But director and alleged Radiohead fan, Marc Beckman, lifted a piece of the soundtrack for his own purposes, adding Greenwood’s orchestral cue to the much-maligned documentary Melania. Greenwood and Anderson were not pleased. Although Universal owns the score as a work made for hire, Greenwood’s composer agreement required that he be consulted on third‑party uses. Greenwood and Anderson have publicly stated that Universal licensed the cue without the consultation required under their deal, and they have requested that the music be removed from the film.

Case Study: Jonny Greenwood, Sync Licensing, and the Limits of “Consultation” Rights

In an interview with Variety magazine, Beckman, a former attorney, denies any wrongdoing and refuses to change the soundtrack. He says he jumped through all the necessary hoops to properly license the music from Universal, and the real issue is between Greenwood and the studio. Universal may have breached by failing to notify Greenwood, but even proper notice would have offered him little recourse. Having the right to “consultation” does not mean your opinion will be heeded.

Licensed Use vs. Copyright Infringement: Why Approval Rights Matter

This distinction between notice and approval sets Beckman’s situation apart from other high-profile disputes involving unauthorized music use. Most recently, the estate of singer-songwriter Isaac Hayes settled a lawsuit with President Donald Trump over the unauthorized use of “Hold On, I’m Comin'” at campaign rallies, with the estate alleging over 100 unlicensed uses before a federal judge ordered the Trump campaign to cease using the song and the parties reached a confidential settlement in February 2026. Unlike Beckman, who obtained a valid license from the copyright owner, the Trump campaign allegedly used Hayes’ music without securing the necessary permissions — illustrating the difference between a licensing dispute where approval rights were not honored and outright copyright infringement.

Can Artists Retain Control After Assigning Copyright?

Many creators assume that once a publisher or label controls their music, they lose meaningful influence over sync placements. Not so. Even when a company owns the copyright, artists can preserve real leverage through approval rights. Sync licensing is one of the most reputation‑sensitive parts of the music business, and creators have more power than they think. The key is to negotiate early.

How Sync Licensing Works: Composition vs. Sound Recording Rights

Every sync placement requires two separate copyright licenses: one for the composition, controlled by the publisher or songwriter, and one for the sound recording, controlled by the recording artist or their record label. In standard deals, the copyright owners handle licensing, and without negotiated approval rights, they can issue licenses without consulting the creator. This leaves artists with no ability to block uses that conflict with their brand or values.

But ownership and consent can be separated. Artists can require express approval or consultation before any sync is issued. Some agreements mandate notice of potentially controversial requests, giving the creator a chance to object before the license is finalized. Others include credit or publicity approval to prevent misleading associations. These provisions don’t change who owns the copyright; they simply make exploitation contingent on respecting the artist’s input.

Types of Sync Approval Rights: Full Consent vs. Category-Based Restrictions

Strength of control depends on the negotiated language. Some creators secure full approval over all sync uses. More commonly, artists obtain category-based approvals — veto rights for politically sensitive, advocacy-related, adult, or reputationally risky uses — while allowing routine placements to proceed without delay.

Here are examples of each:

Sample Clause: Sensitive-Category Sync Approvals

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, no synchronization license for the Composition or the Master may be granted for use in any of the following categories (collectively, the “Sensitive Categories”) without Artist’s prior written approval, which may be granted or withheld in Artist’s sole discretion:

1. Political campaigns, political advertising, advocacy content, or content reasonably likely to be perceived as endorsing any political party, candidate, or position;
2. Adult content or sexually explicit material;
3. Firearms, weapons, or related promotional content;
4. Alcohol, tobacco, vaping, cannabis, or other regulated substances;
5. Any brand, product, service, or organization that Artist reasonably believes would be controversial, harmful to Artist’s reputation, or inconsistent with Artist’s values or public image.
6. For all other synchronization uses outside the Sensitive Categories, Publisher/Label may exercise approval and issue licenses in the ordinary course, provided that such uses do not reasonably imply Artist’s personal endorsement.”

Sample Clause: Broad Sync Approval

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Publisher shall not license, authorize, or otherwise permit the synchronization, reproduction, or use of any Composition, or any portion thereof, in or in timed relation to any motion picture, television program, streaming or on-demand content, advertisement, trailer, video game, interactive media, short-form video, or any other audiovisual work (each, a “Sync Use”) without first obtaining the prior, written consent of Songwriter. Such consent shall specify, at minimum: (i) the title of the Composition(s) to be licensed; (ii) the name and a brief description of the audiovisual project; (iii) the scope of the proposed license, including territory, term, and media; and (iv) the proposed synchronization fee and any other compensation to be paid. Publisher shall provide Songwriter with written notice of each proposed Sync Use, together with all material terms of the proposed license, no fewer than ten (10) business days prior to the date by which Publisher must respond to the licensing request (or such shorter period as the parties may agree in writing in time-sensitive circumstances). Songwriter’s consent may be withheld in Songwriter’s sole and absolute discretion, and any purported license granted in violation of this Section shall be void and of no force or effect.”

How to Negotiate Sync Approval Rights in Publishing, Label, and Composer Agreements

Negotiation strategy varies across publishing, recording, and composer agreements. Writers may trade economic terms (e.g., lower advances or adjusted splits) for stronger approval rights. Publishers often accept full approval for politically sensitive uses but push for a “not unreasonably withheld” standard for mainstream placements. Recording artists may negotiate full master‑use approval or, at minimum, category‑based protections and a requirement that labels honor any approvals the artist has secured on the publishing side. For composers working under work‑for‑hire arrangements, the Greenwood situation underscores why it’s essential to secure approval or consultation rights before the studio acquires the copyright.

Effective approval provisions are specific, functional, and enforceable. They define “Sync Use” broadly, cover all media (including trailers and user‑generated content), establish clear procedures and response timelines, and provide remedies for breach.

If you’re looking to build real leverage into your next publishing, label, or composer deal, please contact a member of AGG’s Entertainment & Sports team to help you negotiate for the protections you need.

Frequently Asked Questions About Sync Licensing and Approval Rights

What is sync licensing in music law?

Sync (synchronization) licensing is the process of obtaining permission to use music in audiovisual content, such as films, television, advertisements, or digital media. It typically requires two licenses: one for the composition (song) and one for the sound recording (master). Without both, the use is not fully authorized.

Do artists lose control after assigning copyright?

Not necessarily. While copyright ownership transfers control over licensing by default, artists can retain influence by negotiating approval or consent rights in their agreements. Without those provisions, the copyright owner can generally license the work without the artist’s input.

What is the difference between consultation and approval rights?

Consultation rights require that the artist be notified or asked for input before a license is granted, but they do not give the artist the power to stop the use. Approval rights allow the artist to approve or reject a proposed use before it is finalized. This distinction is critical in determining whether an artist has meaningful control.

Can an artist block use of their music in political campaigns?

Yes, but only if they have negotiated approval rights or specific restrictions in their agreements. Without those protections, a copyright owner may be able to license the music for political use even over the artist’s objection. Many artists address this risk through “sensitive category” approval provisions.

What contract terms provide the strongest protection?

The strongest protections come from broad approval rights that require the artist’s prior written consent for any sync use. Category-based approval rights, especially for political, controversial, or reputationally sensitive uses, also provide meaningful control while allowing routine licensing to proceed. Clear definitions, timelines, and enforcement mechanisms are essential to make these provisions effective.