TuneCore Became My Publisher – Then Told Me My Music Wasn’t Eligible for YouTube (part 1)
Subtitle: How TuneCore signed a publishing agreement with me, failed to monetise 158,000 streams, and then rejected my ownership documents.
Introduction
I am an independent musician and composer – I love music, listening, creating; – it is the part of life I most enjoy. Like many of you, I used TuneCore to distribute my music to platforms like Spotify, Apple Music etc – I want to reach people with the music I am making. At TuneCore’s invitation, I signed up for their Publishing Administration service and TuneCore became my exclusive publisher.
What followed was a 158,762‑stream discrepancy on YouTube – and a circular, contradictory response from TuneCore that every independent artist should understand could happen to them if they use TuneCore as a distributor and/or publisher.
This post is a public account of what happened. It is intended for two audiences:
- Other musicians – so you can avoid the same trap.
- Regulatory bodies – because this behaviour warrants attention.
The Short Version
| Period | What TuneCore Said | What Actually Happened |
|---|---|---|
| July 2024 – March 2026 | TuneCore was my exclusive publisher | TuneCore reported 7,364 streams from YouTube |
| Same period | I manually checked the same videos individually | Public YouTube views: 407,000 |
| Same period | Using standard retention rates | Estimated qualified streams: 168,080 |
| Result | 158,762 missing streams (95% undercount) |
I know 150k streams of monetisation revenue may not work out to all that much in terms of payment for an individual artist, but it is the principle of the matter, I own the work, I own the monetisation from the streams, so why does TuneCore, YouTube or another creator get the right to keep it?
I sometimes wonder if the smaller independent artist is subsidising these big companies by the back door through the apparent lack of transparency in the distribution reporting process.
When I asked TuneCore for an explanation about this under-reporting of streams and monetisation, they told me my music was “not eligible for YouTube Content ID” – despite having signed a contract with me that explicitly required them to monetise my music on YouTube.
They went on to state that because some of my tracks had been made available on a royalty free platform, that those tracks could not be monetised. However, the platform I uploaded the tracks to “Pixabay”, specifically states the following in their contract:
Responsibility for determining whether permissions are needed always rests solely and exclusively with you. We do not warrant that any consents or licenses have been obtained in relation to any Content.
PixaBay Terms of Service, Clause 5
Uploading to Pixabay does not grant exclusive rights to Pixabay, nor does it waive my right to monetise my music elsewhere. Non‑exclusive licences are explicitly permitted under TuneCore’s Content ID eligibility rules. Besides, TuneCore still refused to monetise some of my tracks that were not uploaded to PixaBay.
The Contract They Signed
On 7 March 2024, I signed TuneCore’s standard Publishing Administration Agreement. Under that agreement:
- Clause 1.1 – TuneCore became my “sole and exclusive” publisher worldwide.
- Clause 1.1(f) – TuneCore specifically agreed to “identify, claim and monetize videos containing Compositions” on YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, and other platforms.
- Clause 6.1(iv) – I warranted that the rights were “free and clear of any claims”.
- Clause 6.1(v) – I confirmed that “no consent of any third party is required”.
TuneCore accepted these warranties. They registered themselves as my publisher with PRS UK (appearing as Sentric Music). They began collecting the publisher’s share of my royalties.
Then, when I asked why YouTube streams were not being properly monetised, they told me my music was “not eligible”.
A publisher cannot sign an agreement to monetise your music and then declare that same music ineligible for monetisation. That is a blatant contractual contradiction.
The Evidence I Provided
When TuneCore asked for proof of ownership, I provided:
| Evidence | Format | TuneCore’s Response |
|---|---|---|
| PRS UK registration sheets | Rejected as “split sheets” | |
| US Copyright Office registrations | Rejected as “copyright registrations (e.g., ASCAP, BMI)” – despite being a US government agency | |
| Successful YouTube copyright strike confirmations | No comment so far from TuneCore, but YouTube accepted my ownership and removed infringing videos | |
| My own spreadsheet (video‑by‑video) analysing which of my works is used and the precise time it features in the video | XLS/PDF | No comment so far from TuneCore, but this document forms the basis for my calculations on the 158,762 missing streams |
| Their own Publishing Agreement | Demonstrates their contractual obligation |
TuneCore’s evidence policy appears to exclude:
- Government copyright registrations
- Collecting society registrations
- YouTube’s own acceptance of ownership
- Any documentation not in their preferred format
This creates an unmeetable standard for independent artists. I know TuneCore support can be frustrating and I’ve read many articles from other artists about TuneCore’s circular conversations and inexplicable decision making. It makes me think that for smaller artists like myself TuneCore is a trap, offering enough to lure you in, but then leaching you out of your value once their claws are in.
It makes me angry, that you spend your money on equipment, lessons, and take the time to do the work, register it; but then in the distribution and revenue collection process come up against organisations that appear to have a greater claim to the revenue from your work than you do, especially as they have invested next to nothing, if anything at all, in the work itself!?
This follows on from the nonsense that Spotify has introduced where tracks with fewer than 1,000 streams in the previous 12 months do not generate royalty payments – effectively blocking the smallest independent artists from earning anything at all. Independent companies are finding ways to block artists from exercising their statutory rights.
The Termination
I terminated the Publishing Agreement effective 31 March 2026. TuneCore confirmed a 12‑month post‑term collection period.
The period in dispute (July 2024 – March 2026) falls entirely within the active term. Termination does not erase liability for the breaches I am alleging that occurred while the agreement was in force.
TuneCore continues to collect royalties from that period under the post‑term clause. They have not corrected the underreporting to the date this article was published.
Why This Matters for Other Musicians
If you are an independent artist, ask yourself:
- Does your distributor also act as your publisher? Read the agreement carefully. You may be granting exclusive rights without realising it.
- Does your distributor require proof of ownership they will not accept? TuneCore rejected US government copyright registrations. Ask what evidence they will accept before you sign.
- Does your distributor have a conflict of interest? TuneCore collects publisher’s share while allegedly unable to monetise your music. Who is that serving?
- Can you ever audit their reporting? Section 14(b) of TuneCore’s standard terms states: “You shall have no right to inspect or audit TuneCore’s books.” This is a red flag.
Before signing a publishing agreement with any distributor, obtain independent legal advice.
What I Am Asking For
To TuneCore (publicly):
- Correct the 158,762 missing streams for the period July 2024 – March 2026
- Provide the
claim_idandstatusfor each video URL in my spreadsheet using the Content ID Partner API - Explain how my music can be simultaneously “under exclusive publishing administration” and “not eligible for Content ID”
- Clarify what proof of ownership they will accept from independent artists
To regulatory bodies (CMA, FTC, EU Commission, competition authorities):
- Investigate whether TuneCore’s Publishing Administration service creates an inherent conflict of interest when the same company is responsible for both distributing music and administering publishing rights
- Examine whether TuneCore’s evidence requirements for Content ID eligibility are reasonably attainable for independent artists, or whether they function as a barrier to monetisation
- Review the contractual clause that waives an artist’s right to audit TuneCore’s reporting (Section 14(b) of their standard terms)
What I Am Doing Next
On my original support query, I asked TuneCore to provide a substantive response by 30 April 2026, but my ticket with them was closed even before that date. I raised another ticket as a chaser and got no clear response. Therefore I intend to:
- File individual YouTube Content ID disputes for every video in my spreadsheet
- Escalate this matter to YouTube’s Partner Support
- Consider legal action for breach of contract
- Share my findings with every independent musician and regulatory body willing to listen
Supporting Documents (Available to Regulatory Bodies on Request)
- TuneCore Publishing Administration Agreement (signed 7 March 2024)
- PRS UK registration sheets (15 works)
- US Copyright Office registrations
- YouTube copyright strike confirmations (3 examples)
- Detailed spreadsheet showing 407,000 YouTube views vs. 7,364 reported streams
Closing
I am one artist. My catalog is modest. But if TuneCore is doing this to me, they are doing it to others.
Independent musicians already face enough barriers. We should not have to fight our own publisher to be paid for the streams we are owed.
This is not a dispute about a few dollars. This is about whether a distributor who becomes a publisher can be trusted to act in the artist’s interest.
The evidence speaks for itself.
This post represents my personal experience and is based on documentation I hold. I am sharing this in good faith to inform other independent artists and to invite regulatory scrutiny where appropriate.
Anthony Ewers
Future by Design
May 2026
Contact me if you need more info here.
