Credits and ISRC: Release Metadata to Prepare in Advance

Credits describe who contributed to a song, while an ISRC identifies a particular recording. Prepare both before distribution. The identifier itself is not proof of authorship or an agreement about revenue shares. Treat the information sheet and the agreements between collaborators as connected but separate matters.

Separate the song, recording and release

A song may exist as several recordings and versions. A title alone is therefore insufficient for a delivery package. State whether you are providing a studio recording, a live performance or another version, and retain the connection to the audio file that was approved for release.

IFPI describes ISRC as an identifier for individual sound recordings or music videos. If you need to decide whether a change requires a new code, check the current assignment guidance with your distributor or the relevant agency. The filename of an export is not enough to make that decision, and a new upload should not automatically become a new identity.

Collect names by role

Create a sheet separating the primary artist, featured performers, music and lyric writers, producers and technical credits. One person may hold several roles. Confirm the list with those involved rather than relying on who was present at the final session. Contributions made earlier in the process can be easy to overlook.

Include the correct public spelling and an existing profile link where relevant. A stage name and the name used for writing information may differ. Supply data according to the distributor's requirements and do not assume that every platform displays every contributor role in the same way. Correct delivery and visible presentation are related but not identical.

• The song title, version, language and duration.
• Primary and featured artists with accurate profile references.
• Music and lyric writers and their actual contributions.
• Production, mixing, mastering and other relevant credits.
• ISRC, intended release date and a correction contact.

Keep one current version of this document. Separate spreadsheets can introduce competing spellings or titles. At the final check, make it clear which sheet is approved and whose confirmation is still outstanding. A simple approval column is often enough to prevent uncertainty without creating an unnecessarily complicated administration system.

Credits do not replace an agreement

A visible name does not explain the financial or ownership arrangement between collaborators. Similarly, an omission from a displayed list may not reveal the full history of the work. A practical approach is to resolve roles, permissions and shares before release and retain written records of the decisions.

This article is not a method for deciding disputed authorship. If a disagreement arises, separate a metadata correction from the underlying dispute. A distributor may process supplied information according to its procedures without being responsible for deciding which contributor is entitled to a particular share. Get appropriate specialist advice where the situation requires it.

Retain a change history

For each release, keep the final master, approved metadata and submission date. When requesting a correction, explain exactly what changes and why. This helps establish whether a problem came from the delivered document, the uploaded material or its presentation on a destination platform.

The next step is a straightforward table of names and roles. Send it to collaborators before announcing the release publicly. Uncertainties are easier to address while the project is still being prepared than after the information has been delivered and reused by other services.

Keep one approved metadata document rather than several conflicting messages. Record who confirmed names and versions, making later corrections easier to trace and communicate.