ACME IDEA CORP

How to change a split after the song is released

A split can be changed after release. The mechanism is a written agreement signed by every affected writer, followed by the same corrected numbers filed everywhere the old ones live — each writer’s PRO, The MLC, and the distributor. What does not change easily is the past: the paperwork decides the go-forward, and money already paid out is a conversation, not a correction.

  • Splits can be reallocated at any time by written agreement among the writers; registrations are then corrected to match.
  • A correction documents what was always true; a transfer moves ownership and requires a signed assignment under US law.
  • BMI instructs members not to file a new registration over an old one, and requires written authorization from anyone whose share is reduced.
  • The MLC freezes payment on conflicting claims until the parties resolve them.
  • Identifiers never change: the ISRC and ISWC stay; only the ownership records attached to them move.

Can you change a split after release?

Yes. Co-owners can reallocate their shares by agreement at any time; the registrations then have to be corrected to match, everywhere they exist.

Released changes nothing about who is allowed to agree with whom. What release changes is the number of places the old numbers are on file — and every one of them has to hear about the new ones, or the fix is a rumour.

Is this a correction or a transfer?

A correction documents what was always true; a transfer moves ownership from one person to another. The two need different paperwork, and confusing them is where changed splits go wrong.

Registered 25/25/50 when everyone actually agreed 30/30/40? That is a correction — the agreement was always the agreement, and the filing was wrong. A new split sheet stating what was agreed, signed by everyone, is the fix.

But a writer giving up ten points — selling them, gifting them, trading them for a favour — is not correcting anything. That is a transfer of copyright ownership, and section 204(a) is blunt about transfers: not valid unless in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed. A handshake moves nothing. A text saying “sure, take the 10” is a screenshot, not a conveyance.

Decide which one you are doing before anyone files anything. Everything below assumes the agreement part is real.

What has to happen first: the new agreement

Before any organization is contacted, every affected writer signs a superseding split sheet stating the new shares and an effective date.

Everyone signs. Especially the writer whose number goes down — their signature is the entire evidentiary point. An unsigned reduction is not a reduction; it is a dispute with a start date.

Date it, keep the old sheet, and never destroy the history. The old sheet is not an embarrassment — it is the paper trail that makes the new one credible. There is a template if the first sheet never existed, which is its own problem with its own page.

How do you update the registrations?

Each writer corrects their own registrations, at their own PRO and at The MLC, all filing the same numbers from the same signed agreement.

BMI’s update instructions are the clearest worked example of how a PRO thinks about this, and two of its rules generalise. Do not submit a new work registration to revise an old one — existing registrations get amended, not papered over. And any request that reduces or removes someone’s share requires documentation: written authorization from the affected participants, ideally a letter of direction signed by all parties. The signed sheet from the previous section is exactly that documentation.

At The MLC, registrations are edited in the member portal — and if the claimed shares on a work end up overlapping, The MLC’s dispute policy holds the money while the parties sort it out. The MLC does not referee ownership. It waits, with your royalties.

In Canada, the same shape runs through SOCAN and CMRRA. And remember that Canadian co-ownership already demands unanimity for far less — consent is not optional paperwork there; it is the operating system.

What about the master side?

Master splits change the same way — agreement first — but the numbers live in different places: the producer and artist agreements, and the payout settings at the distributor.

A distributor’s payout-split settings are configuration, not copyright. Changing them changes who gets paid from the next statement onward, and nothing else. If actual ownership of the recording is moving, that is an assignment question, and the master has its own rules about what does and does not transfer it.

What if a writer will not sign?

Then the split does not change. A registration change that reduces an unwilling writer’s share has no documentation to stand on, and filing it anyway creates a conflict, not a fix.

The temptation is to just register the numbers you believe in and let the system catch up. Quietly filing a new past is a job for the Ministry of Truth. A PRO calls it a conflicting registration, asks everyone for paperwork, and freezes the money until the paperwork exists.

And the past itself has standing. In Davis v. Blige the Second Circuit refused to let a co-owner’s retroactive paperwork erase claims that had already accrued to someone else. What is owed is owed. A new agreement redraws the future; it does not launder the past.

If the disagreement is real — someone claims the original numbers were never agreed — stop filing things and get advice. That is a legal dispute wearing an administrative costume.

How far back does a change reach?

By default, forward from the effective date: registration changes govern how future royalties are distributed.

How far back an organization will reapply a change is mostly unpublished — policies vary, and none of them advertise it. So take the uncertainty out of the one place you control: put the effective date in the agreement, and ask each organization, in writing, what it will do with the period before it.

And accept the boring truth about distributed money. The cheque that already cleared is not coming back through a form. If the old numbers overpaid someone, squaring it is a conversation between writers — settle it like adults, put the settlement in the agreement, and stop re-fighting the past in the fucking group chat.

FAQ

Can splits be changed without every writer agreeing?

No. A registration change that reduces someone’s share needs their written authorization, and a unilateral re-registration creates a conflict that freezes payment instead of resolving anything.

Does the song need a new ISRC or ISWC after a split change?

No. Identifiers name the recording and the work, not the owners. The ownership records attached to the codes change; the codes never do.

Does a split change apply to royalties already collected?

Registration changes govern how money is distributed going forward. How far back an organization will reapply a change is mostly unpublished — set an effective date in the agreement and ask each organization in writing.

Do I need a lawyer to change a split?

Not for a correction that every writer signs. If ownership is genuinely moving — a share being sold or given — or a writer refuses to sign, that is a legal matter and worth an hour of counsel before anything is filed.

Sources

This is not legal advice, and organization processes change — the linked pages are the living documents. If real money or a real disagreement is involved, talk to a lawyer in the relevant territory before filing anything.

Keeping the register

CatalogTracker keeps the splits with the recording they belong to and the agreements attached to them, so the current numbers, the old numbers, and who signed what are answers you look up rather than reconstruct. In development for iPhone.