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

What is documented

Unauthorised music uploads exist. Spotify provides a reporting route for rightsholders whose music has been uploaded without permission.^[2] Spotify has also documented malicious releases being attached to the wrong artist profile, alongside accidental metadata mix-ups.^[1]

Those are real identity and attribution risks. They justify monitoring and investigation.

What is not established

The public sources reviewed for this note do not establish that a duplicate upload, by itself, redirects royalties from the authorised owner. They do not establish the frequency of such events or a total loss figure. Spotify's re-upload guidance shows that matching audio and metadata can cause tracks to be linked in some legitimate re-delivery cases, but it does not describe a royalty-diversion mechanism.^[3]

For that reason, Music Intel treats duplicate-upload royalty hijacking as a threat hypothesis to test against case evidence, not as a proven industry-wide fraud category.

The attack surface

A recording moves through distributor delivery, platform ingestion, artist-profile mapping and rights administration. Each stage relies on identifiers and metadata. DDEX guidance shows that recording ownership is represented through specific release metadata, including the phonogram copyright notice.^[4]

An investigation should therefore compare the audio, ISRC history, ownership notices, distributor delivery records, artist mapping, release dates and payment reports. A mismatch is a question. It is not proof of intent.

Controls a rightsholder can apply

• Keep the original delivery record and distributor acknowledgement.
• Monitor unexpected releases and profile attachments.
• Record ISRC, audio fingerprint, ownership notice and release history together.
• Use the platform's official reporting route for an unauthorised upload.
• Preserve screenshots, URLs, timestamps and responses before a listing changes.
• Do not allege diversion until payment and delivery evidence supports it.

The defensible conclusion is narrow: recording identity can be abused, public controls acknowledge that risk, and careful evidence collection is required before describing the financial consequence.