Royalty Investigator

Royalty investigation for unpaid and unmatched royalties.

Royalty Investigator looks into missing royalties for publishers, songwriters, estates, catalogue funds and rights teams. We take your catalogue and its official records. We find where the path from use to payment breaks. You get a pack that shows where every record came from. A named investigator reaches the finding. You and your advisers decide what action follows.

Identity relationship graph Authoritative CWR catalogue facts remain separate from candidate and collaboration evidence, so an investigator can follow the provenance of each relationship without turning a possible match into a conclusion.
Purpose
Royalty investigation
Output
Documented evidence
Engagement
B2B scoped
What we investigate

Black box, unmatched and suspense royalties: money that was collected but never reached the owner.

Four places the route to payment breaks

Black box is an informal term for royalty income that has been collected but has not reached the rights holder entitled to it. It is not a single accounting category. Unmatched income cannot yet be connected to a work or recording. Unclaimed income is linked to a work but nobody has claimed the share. Suspense, or hold, is income an organisation is withholding pending a dispute, a review or a legal question. The routes out of each are different, which is why an investigation starts by recording the collecting body, rights type, territory, period and formal status rather than a headline figure. Definitions for every term used on this page are in the rights and royalties glossary.

Cause

Registration data: submitted is not the same as resolved.

CWR is the standard format publishers use to register works with societies in bulk. A file can pass delivery and still leave a work unpayable: validation can fail, a work-level acknowledgement can require action, shares can stay incomplete, or the registration can meet a conflicting claim. A delivered file still has to be matched before anyone is paid.

Published context: CWR moves registrations in bulk. Sending the file is only the first step.

Registration
Cause

Identifiers: ISWC names the work, ISRC names the recording, IPI names the person.

A royalty can only be allocated when a recording is linked with evidence to the registered work behind it, and that work to the credited writers and their publishers. The ISWC may be missing. The ISRC may be reused or on the wrong recording. The IPI may be left off. In each case the play is logged, but the paper trail to the owner breaks. The UK industry agreement on music streaming metadata states that incomplete or inaccurate metadata can delay or prevent accurate payment.

Published context: Why identifiers and identity matching matter to royalty allocation

Identifiers
Cause

Territory: eligibility and mandates differ country by country.

Uses, eligibility rules and collection arrangements are territorial. Income earned abroad reaches a rights holder only where a reciprocal or bilateral arrangement exists, the mandate covers that territory and use, and the recording data supports the claim. One registration at home does not produce identical coverage everywhere, and a second direct registration can conflict with an existing exclusive mandate rather than improve it.

Published context: Neighbouring rights pay out across borders, and payment depends on data

Territory
Cause

Rights type: one play generates several separate income flows.

A single stream or broadcast can generate a mechanical royalty, a performance royalty and a recorded-music royalty, collected by different organisations and paid to different parties. A catalogue can be correctly administered on one of those flows and unregistered on another. Recording identity can also be abused: Spotify documents both unauthorised uploads and releases maliciously attached to the wrong artist profile.

Published context: Unauthorised uploads and recording identity abuse: what the public evidence establishes

Rights type

A play shows use. Payment needs a paper trail to the owner.

Royalty Investigator pulls scattered catalogue, registration and usage records into one file that others can check. It does not replace collecting societies, royalty accounting systems or recovery specialists. It gives them a clearer evidence base to work from, and it keeps the origin and date of every record it used.

How a royalty investigation runs, from official source record to evidence pack.

Step

Official source intake.

An investigation starts from records the rights holder is entitled to supply: the CWR registrations issued or acknowledged by a PRO or CMO, society statements, distributor and platform reporting, administration exports and the chain of title. Each record is stored with its origin, recipient, version and the date it was received. Nothing is retyped and nothing is inferred from a source we cannot name.

Source · dated and named
Step

Identity and work matching.

Legal names, credited names and aliases are held together with IPI identifiers, society affiliations and the dates those relationships applied. Work records keep title variants, ISWC and controlled shares. Recordings keep ISRC and release history. The link between a recording and its registered work is treated as a claim that must be supported, not an assumption.

Authoritative vs candidate
Step

Conflict classification.

Every difference found is classified rather than quietly resolved: incomplete or conflicting shares, an unacknowledged or rejected registration, a recording with no supported route to a work, a duplicated or reused identifier, a territory with no mandate, a rights type nobody has registered for. A conflict is logged as a question with its evidence attached.

Conflicts logged, not overwritten
Step

Provenance and chain of custody.

Authoritative catalogue facts stay separate from candidate and corroborating records for the life of the case. Every processing step is recorded, so any finding can be walked back to the source record it rests on and the date that record was received.

Traceable to source
Step

Accountable human review.

A named investigator reviews the record, challenges the conclusion and reaches the finding. No finding is published to a case file on automated processing alone.

Named investigator
Step

Evidence pack.

The output is a documented pack: source records with their provenance, the identity and work records the finding depends on, the classified conflicts, the processing history, the reviewing investigator and clearly labelled possible-value scenarios. Values remain labelled as scenarios until a claim is acknowledged and settled. The filing route stays specific to the customer, society, territory and any instructed adviser.

Ready for review and filing
Methodology

Our method, under NDA

The methodology can be reviewed under an agreed NDA. This page describes the result. How the system scores and processes records is confidential. Our wider position on sources and method is set out in data and methodology.

Reviewable under NDA

IP notice: Royalty Investigator, its documentation, workflows, evidence architecture and underlying methodology are proprietary to Music Intel Ltd. Certain technical and operating materials are confidential and disclosed only under NDA. Formal IP protection is in progress.

Inside the workspace

What an investigator sees at each stage.

Demonstration case

These screens come from a demonstration case. The writer, the case reference and the figures are demonstration data.

Evidence standard

Every finding traces back to its source.

Some cases start from an official CWR record issued by a PRO or CMO, with its receipt logged. In those cases the record is designed to support tribunal-grade scrutiny. It shows where each document came from, every processing step, who reviewed it and the full chain of custody. Source quality, methodology, processing, investigator judgement and the resulting finding remain open to appropriate challenge. No tribunal, recovery or claim outcome is guaranteed.

Evidence state
Visible
Scenarios
Labelled
Review
Human
Output
Documented
Royalty Investigator claimant share review: a table of claimants by capacity, royalty lane, recorded share and society, with each share-applied reference range in pounds marked as a scenario only.
Claimant share review Possible-value scenarios remain labelled as scenarios until a claim is acknowledged and settled.
Who it is for

Built to strengthen rights and recovery teams, not replace them.

Royalty recovery is usually one-off consultancy work. Royalty Investigator organises the records. The people already authorised to act stay in charge. The investigation file moves between the rights holder, their recovery team, an instructed adviser and the relevant society without pretending that every party performs the same role.

  • AdministrationHolds and maintains the operational rights record.
  • InvestigationTests the gaps and prepares structured evidence for review.
  • RecoveryUses the approved record to support filing and follow-up.
Publishers and administrators

Registration backlogs, unacknowledged CWR files, conflicting shares and works that earn usage but never allocate.

Royalty investigation for rights teams →
Songwriters and composers

Aliases, missing IPI identifiers, split sheets that disagree with the society record, and income held in suspense.

How identifiers decide who gets paid →
Estates and heirs

A deceased writer, a historic co-write, a publisher acquired decades ago and society registrations that no longer agree.

Open a confidential estate enquiry →
Catalogue funds and acquirers

Diligence on what a catalogue should have earned, not only what it did earn, before capital is committed.

Catalogue due diligence →
Labels and recorded-rights owners

Recording identity abuse, reused or duplicated ISRCs and international recorded-music income that never arrives.

Solutions for labels →
Managers and advisers

A client who suspects income is missing and needs the question answered with documents rather than opinion.

Solutions for management →
Published evidence

What the official figures actually establish, and what they do not.

Our published research, with sources and limits
Finding

One society, one rights type, one country: $160.7m of a historical pool still undistributed.

The Mechanical Licensing Collective's June 2026 report gives an adjusted historical royalty total of $397,286,419.01, of which $236,587,337.78, or 59.55 per cent, had been distributed. The arithmetic difference is about $160.7 million. That balance should not automatically be called unmatched: the pool moves as matching, claims, adjustments and distributions continue, and money can be matched but not yet paid. It covers United States blanket-licence mechanical uses before 1 January 2021, so it is not a global figure and cannot be extrapolated to other territories or rights types.

Source and working: The MLC historical royalties pool: what the current figures show

Mechanical · US · pre-2021
Finding

Recorded-music income crosses borders at scale, and the path depends on data.

PPL reported £315.3 million of 2025 revenue, including £94 million from international activity, and said it paid more than 182,000 performers and recording rightsholders. GVL reported €257.927 million in 2025 collections and SENA reported €86.9 million in gross payments to performers and producers. These are differently defined measures and should not be compared as though identical. What they do establish is material cross-border activity whose payment depends on registration, complete performer line-ups, recording claims and the mandate held in each territory.

Source and working: Neighbouring rights pay out across borders, and payment depends on data

Neighbouring rights · 2025
Finding

We do not publish a universal error rate, because no public source supports one.

There is no credible public evidence for a global CWR error rate, a universal share of royalties delayed by identity mismatch, or a frequency for unauthorised duplicate uploads. We say so in the research rather than round a number up. The measurable question is always the one in front of us: this catalogue, these registrations, these acknowledgements, these statements. That is what an investigation answers, and it is why we do not publish recovery percentages or case studies we cannot evidence.

Source and working: CWR moves registrations in bulk. Sending the file is only the first step.

Evidence boundary
Engagement model

Scoped around the catalogue. Never a percentage of the recovery.

Every engagement begins with a real catalogue and a defined recovery question. The price depends on the processing needed, secure storage of the case file and your team's access.

Royalty Investigator is not sold as a share of recovered royalties. Pricing is agreed directly with the organisation. There is no public price card. Where a first engagement needs to prove capability before commitment, that is handled through our Proof of Value.

  • CatalogueVolume, history, territories and rights complexity.
  • ProcessingThe investigation question and data preparation required.
  • Secure storageSecure hosting and continuing custody of the case record.
  • AccessInvestigator access required by the authorised team.
Frequently asked

Royalty investigation: the questions rights holders ask.

Q.01What are black box royalties?+

Black box is an informal industry term for royalty income that has been collected but has not reached the rights holder entitled to it. It is not one accounting category. See the section.

Q.02What is the difference between unmatched, unclaimed and suspense royalties?+

They are not synonyms. The Mechanical Licensing Collective reports unmatched, unclaimed and suspense income as separate categories rather than one pool, and the route to payment differs for each. See the section.

Q.03Why do royalties go unpaid when the usage is visible?+

The route from use to payment breaks in four common places: registration data, identifiers, territory and rights type. See the section.

Q.04What is Royalty Investigator?+

Royalty Investigator looks into missing royalties for publishers, songwriters, estates, catalogue funds and rights teams. It investigates and documents. It does not file claims and does not replace a society, an administrator or an adviser. See the section.

Q.05How is it different from royalty accounting or administration software?+

Royalty accounting and administration systems hold and process the operational record: registrations, statements, splits and payments as they are. Royalty Investigator works on the gaps between those records. It compares what an administrator holds with official registration and usage evidence, classifies the conflicts, and prepares a file another organisation can review. The service works alongside those systems rather than replacing them.

Q.06What does a royalty investigation produce?+

A documented evidence pack: the source records with the date and origin of each, the conflicts found, the investigator who reviewed it, and clearly labelled possible-value scenarios. Values remain labelled as scenarios until a claim is acknowledged and settled. See the section.

Q.07Is the investigation record tribunal-grade?+

The investigation record is designed to support tribunal-grade scrutiny when the stated source and custody conditions are met, as set out in the evidence standard. Source quality, methodology, processing, investigator judgement and the resulting finding remain open to appropriate challenge. No tribunal or claim outcome is guaranteed. See the section.

Q.08Does Royalty Investigator file claims or contact societies for me?+

No. It prepares a reviewable evidence base that you or an instructed adviser use for claim preparation, filing and follow-up. Filing routes, deadlines and eligibility rules are specific to the society, territory and rights type, and the decision to pursue a claim stays with the authorised rights holder and their advisers.

Q.09How are engagements scoped, and what does a royalty investigation cost?+

Engagements are B2B and scoped around four things: the catalogue, the processing the investigation question requires, the secure evidence workspace and hosting that must be maintained, and the investigator access the team needs. Royalty Investigator is never sold as a percentage of recovered royalties. Pricing is agreed directly with the organisation and no public price card is published.

Q.10Do you take on contested catalogues and estates?+

Yes. Contested writer credits, deceased writers and inherited catalogues, historic publisher acquisitions and catalogues in the middle of a transaction are all common starting points, because those are exactly the situations where the registration record and the commercial reality have drifted apart. Where a matter needs legal representation, we work alongside the instructed firm and prepare evidence for their review.

Open a forensic enquiry

Bring the catalogue. Establish whether the evidence supports action.

We start with the catalogue, a defined royalty question and the records available. From there we scope the investigation and the evidence standard the team requires. Please do not send sensitive documents at first contact.