Music Licensing Lawyers Adelaide: Sync Licences, Master Use, Composer Agreements and Clearances
Music licensing, sync and composer agreements in South Australia
Using a song in a film, an advertisement or a venue usually takes two licences, and missing one is expensive. Talon Legal clears music, drafts and reviews sync, master use and composer agreements, and advises South Australian producers, agencies, composers, labels and businesses. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or call (08) 7094 2021.
Music licensing key facts
| Issue | Position in South Australia |
|---|---|
| Two licences | Using an existing recording of a song in a film, advertisement or video usually needs a licence of the song and a licence of the recording (Copyright Act sections 21(1), 31(1)(a) and 85(1)(a)). |
| No statutory licence for film | The statutory licence for records of songs does not extend to a sound-track associated with a film (sections 54(3) and 55). |
| Performers | Copying an authorised recording for use in a sound-track, knowing the recording was not authorised for that use, is an unauthorised use of the performance (section 248G(2)(c)). |
| Commissioned music | The composer owns the music unless employed under a contract of service or the copyright is assigned in writing (sections 35(2), 35(6) and 196(3)). |
| Future music | An agreement signed in advance can assign music not yet written (section 197(1)). |
| Film sound-tracks | Sounds embodied in a film's sound-track are treated as part of the film, not as a separate sound recording (section 23(1)). |
| Edits | For music as included in a film, the author's written consent covers acts within its scope; a consent obtained by duress or knowingly false or misleading statements has no effect (sections 195AW and 195AWB). |
| Samples | Taking a substantial part of a song or a recording needs a licence, judged by quality rather than quantity (section 14(1); EMI Songs v Larrikin at [52]). |
| Missing owners | Since 2 April 2026, remedies are limited where a user could not identify and locate the owner after a reasonably diligent search and gave the required notice (Part V Division 2AAA). |
| Business premises | An occupier who provides the equipment that plays music on the premises is treated as giving the performance (section 27(4)). |
| First step | Same-day free 30-minute consultation. Call (08) 7094 2021. |
Need a music licensing lawyer in Adelaide?
Our music licensing lawyers in Adelaide act for producers, advertising agencies, game developers, composers, songwriters, labels and businesses that play music. Music licensing is the process of getting permission from every owner whose rights a use touches, on terms that match the use. The Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) decides whose permission is needed, and the licence decides what the user gets. This page states the law current to 24 October 2026.
This guide is part of our media and entertainment practice. Related guides cover music recording and publishing agreements and film releases and clearances.
Free Consultation. Send us the cue list, the licence or the brief. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or call (08) 7094 2021.
On this page
- What licences does using music in a production need?
- Does the statutory licence for cover versions apply?
- What should a sync or master use licence cover?
- Do performers need to consent to sound-track use?
- Who owns music composed for a production?
- Can the music be edited, and must the composer be credited?
- When do samples and soundalikes need a licence?
- What if the owner cannot be found?
- Does a business need a licence to play music?
- What about AI-generated production music?
- How similar matters tend to play out
- How we act on music licensing
- Case law
- Frequently asked questions
What licences does using music in a production need?
Usually two. A song and a recording of it are separate copyrights, commonly owned by different people. The song’s copyright includes the exclusive rights to reproduce it, perform it in public and communicate it to the public (Copyright Act section 31(1)(a)), and making a film of a musical work is a reproduction of it (section 21(1)). The recording’s copyright includes the exclusive rights to copy it, cause it to be heard in public and communicate it to the public (section 85(1)).
So a production that uses an existing recording needs a licence of the song, often called a sync licence and usually granted by a publisher, and a licence of the recording, often called a master use licence and usually granted by a label. A production that records its own version of the song avoids the master licence but still needs the song licence.
Using music without a licence, or beyond its terms, infringes. Copyright in a song is infringed by doing an act comprised in the copyright in Australia without the owner’s licence (section 36(1)), and the same applies to recordings and films (section 101(1)). The owner can seek an injunction and either damages or an account of profits (section 115(2)), and additional damages may be awarded having regard to matters such as the flagrancy of the infringement (section 115(4)).
Does the statutory licence for cover versions apply?
Not to film. A cover version released as a record for retail sale can sometimes be made under the statutory licence in section 55, which requires an earlier authorised retail record of the song, prior notice to the owner and payment of the prescribed royalty. That licence does not reach productions, because a record of a musical work does not include a sound-track associated with visual images forming part of a film (section 54(3)).
A film, advertisement, game or online video that uses a song therefore needs the song owner’s licence, however the recording is made. The cover licence is for records, and the music recording and publishing agreements guide explains how it works.
What should a sync or master use licence cover?
The use, described precisely. A licence covers only what it grants, so the terms that matter are the production and the scene or campaign, the length of music used, the media and platforms, the territory, the term, any options to extend, the fee, credit, and whether the licence is exclusive.
An exclusive licence must be in writing and signed by or on behalf of the owner (section 10(1), definition of exclusive licence), and an exclusive licensee has rights of action against infringers other than the owner, concurrent with the owner’s (section 119). Advertising licences need particular care with the term and territory, because a campaign that runs longer, or in more places, than the licence allows is use without a licence.
A music licensing lawyer will also look at the warranties. The licensor should warrant that it owns or controls what it licenses, that the performers’ consents cover the use, and that samples in the recording have been cleared, backed by an indemnity.
Do performers need to consent to sound-track use?
Their authority matters. Making a recording of a performance, or communicating it to the public live or from an unauthorised recording, without the performer’s authority is an unauthorised use (section 248G(1)). For productions, the key provision is section 248G(2)(c): making a copy of an authorised sound recording of a performance for use in a sound-track is an unauthorised use where the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the recording was not authorised for use in a sound-track.
A recording made with the performers’ authority for release as a record is therefore not necessarily authorised for a film or advertisement. Broadcasters have a narrow exception for copies made solely for their own broadcasts (section 248H).
Performers can also own part of the recording. For a recording of a live performance, which can include a studio performance without an audience, the performers are makers alongside the record owner and co-owners hold it in equal shares (sections 22(3A), 22(7) and 97(2A)). A performer who consented to recording for a particular purpose is taken to have licensed its use for that purpose (section 113B). Session releases for production music should name sound-track use expressly.
Who owns music composed for a production?
The composer, unless the agreement says otherwise. The author of a musical work owns the copyright in it (section 35(2)). The exception for music written under a contract of service gives the copyright to the employer (section 35(6)), and that rule can be varied by agreement (section 35(3)). Paying a freelance composer does not by itself transfer the music: the commissioning rule in section 35(5) applies only to some photographs, portraits and engravings.
A producer or agency that is to own the score needs a written assignment signed by the composer (section 196(3)), and an assignment of music not yet written can be agreed in advance, so the copyright vests in the producer as each cue is created (section 197(1)). Where the composer keeps the copyright, the agreement should grant a licence wide enough for the film, its trailers and promotion, and any soundtrack release.
The recordings need their own clause. Once embodied in the film’s sound-track, the sounds are treated as part of the film rather than as a separate sound recording (section 23(1)), and the film belongs to its maker or, for a commissioned film, the commissioning party unless agreed otherwise (section 98(2) and (3)). A separate studio recording of the score is a sound recording, owned under the rules for recordings, including the performer rules above (sections 22(3) and (3A) and 97). Composer agreements also deal with the fee, delivery dates, revisions, credit, and any share of income from public performance and broadcast of the music.
Can the music be edited, and must the composer be credited?
Edits need care, and credit is a right. A songwriter or composer has a right of integrity, the right not to have the work subjected to derogatory treatment (section 195AI), meaning a material distortion, mutilation or material alteration, or anything else done in relation to the work, that is prejudicial to the author’s honour or reputation (section 195AJ). The author also has a right of attribution of authorship (section 193).
The answer is a written consent. For a musical work as included in a film, which includes an advertisement or other production with moving images (section 10(1), definition of cinematograph film), the author’s written consent covers acts and omissions within its scope, and it can be given for works not yet made (section 195AW). For other uses, such as a remix released on its own, a consent must relate to specified acts and specified works (section 195AWA). A consent obtained by duress, or by knowingly false or misleading statements intended to persuade the author, has no effect (section 195AWB).
The cases show what is at stake. In Perez v Fernandez [2012] FMCA 2, overlaying a promotional recording onto an artist’s song infringed the songwriter’s right of integrity and the copyright in the recording ([66]). In Meskenas v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [2006] FMCA 1136, the right of attribution was held to be a positive right, and a failure to credit was not excused where nothing prevented the author being identified ([18]).
When do samples and soundalikes need a licence?
Whenever a substantial part is taken. Doing an act in relation to a substantial part of a work or other subject-matter counts as doing it to the whole (section 14(1)). A sample copies part of a recording and usually part of the song in it, so a sample that takes a substantial part of either needs that owner’s licence.
Substantiality depends much more on quality than on quantity, and on the importance of the part to the original work rather than to the new one (EMI Songs Australia Pty Ltd v Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 47 at [52] to [53]). In that case about five bars of a 93 bar song reproduced a substantial part of the melody of Kookaburra, despite the different key, genre and structure ([226]).
A soundalike made for an advertisement still uses a song if it is a re-recording of it, and a new track written to evoke a famous one can still take a substantial part of its melody. The brief to the composer, and the composer’s warranty of originality, should deal with both.
What if the owner cannot be found?
The law changed on 2 April 2026. Part V Division 2AAA limits the remedies available against a person who used copyright material when, after a reasonably diligent search, the owner could not be identified and located (sections 116AAB and 116AAD).
The conditions are strict. The search must be reasonably diligent and made within a reasonable period before the use, a record of it must be kept, the user must have been unable to identify and locate the owner at the time of the use, and a clear and reasonably prominent notice must be given (section 116AAE). Where they are met, the court cannot award damages or an account of profits but may order a reasonable payment to the owner, and the user bears the burden of proving the conditions (section 116AAD). Continuing use can proceed on agreed or court-fixed terms, although the court may grant an injunction instead (section 116AAF).
For music, the search usually means the publishers, labels and composers named on the release, and the records of the bodies that administer music rights. The record of the search is the user’s defence, so it should be kept with the production’s clearance file.
Does a business need a licence to play music?
Generally, yes. Playing recorded music to customers in a shop, gym, cafe or venue involves both copyrights: performing the songs in public (section 31(1)(a)) and causing the recordings to be heard in public (section 85(1)(b)). Performance includes presentation by the use of a record or reception equipment (section 27(1)(a)).
The occupier is responsible. Where music is played on equipment provided by or with the consent of the occupier of the premises, the occupier is treated as the person giving the performance or causing the sounds to be heard, whether or not they operate the equipment (section 27(4)).
Online use is different again. Posting a video with music on social media reproduces the song and copies the recording, and making it available online communicates both to the public (sections 10(1), definition of communicate, 31(1)(a) and 85(1)). A business should check that its licence covers that use, and not assume that access to a song means permission to use it.
What about AI-generated production music?
It should be dealt with in the licence. Copyright needs human authorship: where a computer performs the functions of an author and the operator does not control the material form, copyright does not subsist (Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 149 at [118]).
A licensee paying for exclusivity in a track generated without human authorship may be paying for a right nobody holds. Library and composer agreements should include warranties about how the music was made and whether AI tools were used, and the licensee’s remedy if the warranty is wrong.
How similar matters tend to play out
Three illustrations of how the law on this page combines on ordinary facts. They are not predictions. Outcome depends on the documents, the evidence and the court.
Lower range. An Adelaide cafe plays a streaming playlist through its speakers without any licence for public performance. The occupier who provides the equipment is treated as giving the performance (Copyright Act section 27(4)), and playing recordings to customers involves both the songs and the recordings (sections 31(1)(a) and 85(1)(b)). Licences covering both resolve it, ideally before a complaint arrives.
Middle range. A production company licenses a well-known recording for a short film from the label, but nobody approaches the publisher. Making the film reproduces the song (section 21(1)), so the production also needs the song owner’s licence, and the statutory licence for records does not help (section 54(3)). Clearing the song before release avoids negotiating after the film is locked.
Upper range. A composer writes a feature score without a written agreement, and after a falling out the producer wants to release a soundtrack album. Without a written assignment the composer still owns the copyright in the music (sections 35(2) and 196(3)). If the producer paid for the studio recordings under an agreement, the producer may own those recordings (section 97(3)), but the album still needs the composer’s licence or an assignment. A negotiated agreement is the usual end.
How we act on music licensing
We act for producers, agencies and businesses that use music, and for composers, songwriters and labels that license it. For a user, the aim is a clearance file that covers every use and survives scrutiny by a distributor or broadcaster. For a rights owner, it is a fee and terms that match the use, and a clear remedy when the use goes further.
| Stage | What happens | What we do |
|---|---|---|
| Clearing | A production or campaign needs music. | Identify the owners of the song and the recording and the licences needed. |
| Licensing | Terms are offered or requested. | Draft or review sync and master use licences, media, term, territory and warranties. |
| Commissioning | A composer is engaged. | Draft the composer agreement: rights, recordings, credit and moral rights consent. |
| Performers | Musicians record for the production. | Prepare releases and consents that cover sound-track use. |
| Dispute | Music is used without a licence or beyond it. | Advise on infringement, remedies and settlement. |
We cannot promise an outcome, and no lawyer can. We can make sure the music in your production is cleared before anyone else checks.
Every hour matters. Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation, or call (08) 7094 2021 now.
Music licensing case law
None of the decisions below concerned a sync licence. EMI v Larrikin and Perez v Fernandez concerned music, Meskenas v ACP concerned the credit given for an artistic work, and Telstra v Phone Directories concerned computer-generated material.
| Case | Court | Principle | Pinpoint |
|---|---|---|---|
| EMI Songs Australia Pty Ltd v Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 47 | Full Federal Court | Substantial part judged by quality and by importance to the copyright work | [52], [53], [226] |
| Perez v Fernandez [2012] FMCA 2 | Federal Magistrates Court | Altering and streaming a song infringed the recording copyright and the songwriter's right of integrity | [66], [84], [95] |
| Meskenas v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [2006] FMCA 1136 | Federal Magistrates Court | Crediting the wrong artist infringed the rights of attribution and against false attribution | [18], [31] |
| Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 149 | Full Federal Court | Computer-generated works need a human author | [118] |
Case notes
EMI Songs Australia Pty Ltd v Larrikin Music Publishing Pty Ltd [2011] FCAFC 47
The Full Court dismissed an appeal from findings that two recordings of “Down Under” reproduced a substantial part of the melody of “Kookaburra” (orders). Emmett J said whether a substantial part was taken depends much more on quality than on quantity, and on the part’s importance to the copyright work rather than to the new work ([52] to [53]). Jagot J noted that about five of the 93 bars were involved, in a different key and genre, and that describing the borrowing as a tribute did not change it ([226]). A short musical quotation in a sync can raise the same question.
Perez v Fernandez [2012] FMCA 2
A Perth DJ overlaid a promotional recording of the artist’s voice onto the artist’s song and streamed the altered version on his website ([64] to [65]). The Court held this infringed the copyright in the sound recording and the songwriter’s right of integrity ([66]), found the alteration prejudicial to his honour and reputation ([84] to [88]), and said moral rights infringement is actionable without proof of damage ([95]). It awarded $10,000 for the moral rights infringement and $2,312 for the copyright infringement (orders). Edits made to fit a scene or an advertisement are best covered by a written consent.
Meskenas v ACP Publishing Pty Ltd [2006] FMCA 1136
A magazine published a photograph of a portrait and named the wrong painter. The Court held the right of attribution is a positive right and, since nothing prevented the painter being identified, the reasonableness defence failed ([18]). False attribution means attribution that is objectively incorrect, with no need to prove intention ([31]). The painter was awarded $9,100 (orders). Credit clauses in composer and sync agreements carry the same weight.
Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 149
The Full Court dismissed the appeal, so copyright did not subsist in the directories (orders). Perram J said that where a computer performs the functions ordinarily performed by human authors, and the operator does not control the material form, copyright does not subsist ([118]). Production music made without human authorship raises the same question.
Frequently asked questions
What is a sync licence?
A licence from the owner of a song to use it with moving images, such as a film, advertisement, game or online video. Making a film of a musical work is a reproduction of it (Copyright Act section 21(1)).
What is a master use licence?
A licence from the owner of a recording to copy it into a production. The recording copyright includes the exclusive right to make a copy of it (section 85(1)).
Do I need both a sync licence and a master use licence?
Usually, if the production uses an existing recording. A production that makes its own recording of the song still needs the song owner’s licence (sections 21(1) and 31(1)(a)).
Does the statutory licence for cover versions apply to film?
No. A record of a musical work does not include a sound-track associated with a film, so the section 55 licence does not reach productions (section 54(3)).
Who owns music composed for a film or advertisement?
The composer, unless employed under a contract of service or the copyright is assigned in writing (sections 35(2), 35(6) and 196(3)). Paying for the music does not by itself transfer it.
Do session musicians need to consent to sync?
Their authority matters. Copying an authorised recording for a sound-track, knowing it was not authorised for that use, is an unauthorised use of the performance (section 248G(2)(c)).
Can a production edit a song to fit a scene?
Only within the licence and any moral rights consent. For a musical work as included in a film, the author’s written consent covers acts within its scope (section 195AW).
How much of a song can be sampled without a licence?
There is no safe amount. Taking a substantial part infringes, and substantiality depends on quality rather than quantity (section 14(1); EMI Songs v Larrikin at [52]).
Does a business need a licence to play music?
Generally, yes. Playing recorded music to customers performs the songs and causes the recordings to be heard in public, and the occupier who provides the equipment is treated as giving the performance (sections 27(4), 31(1)(a) and 85(1)).
Do I need a music licensing lawyer?
Before licensing music for a film, advertisement, game or business, or commissioning a score, yes. A music licensing lawyer can check that the licences cover the use and that the composer, the performers and the owners have signed what is needed. A free 30-minute consultation will tell you where you stand.