- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 6 hours, 39 minutes ago by .
-
Posts
-
I am getting a Disco.ac site going.
While adding metadata they ask for ISRC codes. I have ISWC codes via BMI, but I don’t have ISRC codes that I myself have acquired – at least for most songs.
However, some songs and versions of those songs that I previously submitted to some music libraries in the past did get ISRC codes that the library paid for and assigned– and my question is should I/can I use those codes?
Would using that code mean that the library would get a percentage of any monies since they created/paid for the ISRC and it is used so that they get their percentage? Or do the ISRC codes not include the libraries in the payout/info?
Also, I am creating new mixes of all those songs, so perhaps I could get new ISRC codes for these new mixes since they are probably considered new versions…?
Or maybe the ISWC code is sufficent and I don’t need the ISRC?
Signed,
ConfusedHi angopop,
Good question, and it can definitely get a little confusing because ISWC and ISRC codes identify two different things.
The ISWC identifies the composition — the underlying song, meaning the music and lyrics. That’s the code you would get through BMI/ASCAP/your PRO or publisher.
The ISRC identifies a specific sound recording. So if you have one song with several different recordings, mixes, edits, or versions, each recording can potentially have its own ISRC.
On the library-assigned ISRCs, I would be careful. The ISRC itself does not automatically give the library a percentage of your royalties just because they created or paid for the code. It’s basically an identifier for that particular recording. However, if that ISRC was assigned by a library for a specific version they distributed or represented, I’d be hesitant to reuse it unless you know the agreement allows you to do so. The code may be tied in various databases to that library’s release or metadata, and using it elsewhere could create confusion.
Since you are creating new mixes, I think the cleanest approach would be to get new ISRCs for those new mixes, especially if the recordings are meaningfully different from the versions the libraries previously had. That gives you clean metadata and avoids any possible conflict with the library-assigned versions.
If it’s just a straight remaster of the exact same recording, there can be an argument for keeping the same ISRC. But if these are new mixes or new versions, I’d lean toward new ISRCs.
As far as Disco.ac goes, the ISWC is useful, but it does not replace the ISRC because they identify different rights. ISWC is for the composition. ISRC is for the actual recording. If Disco is asking for ISRCs, I’d treat that as the field for the recording identifier.
So my practical answer would be:
Use your ISWC for the song/composition metadata.
Do not reuse library-assigned ISRCs unless you are sure you have the right to use them and that they refer to the exact same recording.
For your new mixes, get new ISRCs and use those going forward.
That should keep everything cleaner and avoid any confusion down the road.
@Art. Excellent post. I’m starting down that path too. This is great info!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
