Which statement correctly describes synchronization licensing?

Which statement correctly describes synchronization licensing?

• A. One license covers both the song and the recording.
• B. It is a license that applies only to visual works.
• C. It requires two separate licenses: one for the song and one for the recording.
• D. It is a licensing term used only for live stage performances.

Answer: (C)

Synchronization licensing is about clearing music for use in timed relation with visual media. When you want to couple a song with film, TV, commercials, or any moving-image project, you typically need two separate licenses: one for the musical composition itself (the song, usually handled by the publisher) and one for the actual sound recording (the master, handled by the record label). This split reflects the two distinct rights involved: the rights in the underlying composition and the rights in the specific recording. That’s why the statement describing two separate licenses—one for the song and one for the recording—is the best description. It captures how rights holders for the composition and for the master both must be cleared. The other ideas don’t fit as well because a single license covering both the song and the recording is not the standard practice, since those rights are owned by different parties; synchronization licenses are about pairing music with visuals rather than being limited to live stage performances; and the concept isn’t confined to “visual works” in a restrictive sense but to the act of syncing music with moving images.

Synchronization licensing is about clearing music for use in timed relation with visual media. When you want to couple a song with film, TV, commercials, or any moving-image project, you typically need two separate licenses: one for the musical composition itself (the song, usually handled by the publisher) and one for the actual sound recording (the master, handled by the record label). This split reflects the two distinct rights involved: the rights in the underlying composition and the rights in the specific recording.

That’s why the statement describing two separate licenses—one for the song and one for the recording—is the best description. It captures how rights holders for the composition and for the master both must be cleared.

The other ideas don’t fit as well because a single license covering both the song and the recording is not the standard practice, since those rights are owned by different parties; synchronization licenses are about pairing music with visuals rather than being limited to live stage performances; and the concept isn’t confined to “visual works” in a restrictive sense but to the act of syncing music with moving images.