A report about Ethiopian musicians receiving international royalties raises a practical question for artists across Africa and the diaspora: when a song travels, who has the information and authority needed to collect its earnings? The opportunity involves more than placing a recording on a streaming service. It also involves identifying the work, its owners and the rights being administered.

In an interview published by The Reporter on 31 October, Geez Creative Digital Music Distributor chief executive Dawit Solomon described an initiative that he said had been operating for eight months. He described quarterly payments to participating artists and claimed direct partnerships with ASCAP and Sentric Music.

Those details are the company’s account to the newspaper. RIM has not independently verified the claimed partnership agreements or participating artists’ payment statements. They should not be read as confirmations from ASCAP or Sentric, or as evidence that an individual artist will receive a particular amount.

### A recording and a song are different assets

The wider rights distinction is independently explained in primary industry guidance. Sentric’s introduction to music publishing, published in 2023, separates the underlying song from its recorded performance. Publishing concerns the musical work; ownership and income associated with a particular recording follow another route.

That distinction matters when collaborators perform several jobs. A singer may also write lyrics, compose melodies and own a recording. Another performer may have contributed to the recording without writing the song. Identifying each role helps avoid assuming that a single payment statement accounts for everything the participants may be entitled to receive.

APRA AMCOS’s guidance on digital aggregators makes the separation concrete in the Australian and New Zealand system. It explains that aggregators deliver recordings to digital platforms and collect recording income, while royalties for the underlying musical work are administered separately through rights organisations. This is an explanation of that system, rather than proof of the Ethiopian company’s arrangements or a universal contract template.

For creators, the analytical lesson is straightforward: distribution and publishing administration should be checked separately. A recording being available internationally does not, by itself, demonstrate that every relevant right has been registered or that every contributor has a route to payment.

### What an earnings percentage leaves unanswered

The Reporter says Geez Creative’s model passes 80 per cent of collected international royalties to artists after international partners deduct their shares, alongside a one-time distribution fee. That description leaves important contract questions for anyone considering the service.

A percentage needs a defined starting amount. Creators would need to understand which deductions occur before their share is calculated, what services the fee covers, which territories are included and how statements explain each payment. RIM has not reviewed the contracts, so this article cannot establish the full financial terms or recommend the arrangement.

The same care applies to any distributor or administrator. An attractive percentage is only one part of a service. A useful agreement also makes clear the rights granted, duration, reporting process and what happens when the relationship ends.

### The records behind an international audience

APRA AMCOS also stresses registering works and notes that recording identifiers can help match information. Its guidance warns that international processing can take longer than domestic distributions. Those timings are specific to its systems; they should not be used as a payment promise for Ethiopian musicians.

For an artist collaborating across Addis Ababa, London or another diaspora centre, consistent names and agreed ownership information can be as important as the release campaign. Written records give the parties something concrete to compare when credits, registrations or statements differ. They also make it easier to distinguish a rights dispute from an administrative mismatch.

This is part of the business behind the audience growth discussed in RIM’s ACCES coverage. International reach creates a stronger opportunity when creators can follow the associated rights and income.

The next useful evidence in the Ethiopian initiative would be confirmation of its claimed relationships and transparent terms explaining how payments are calculated. Until then, the report offers a timely reason to examine royalty administration carefully, while keeping the company’s claims separate from established rights principles.

*Illustration: an AI-generated conceptual music-rights still life; it depicts no real artist, company office or contract.*

Why this matters

African and diaspora music can circulate far beyond the country in which it was made, while the people who created it may hold different rights in the song and recording. Understanding those distinctions helps musicians, producers and collaborators ask better questions about a proposed service. Transparent agreements, accurate credits and understandable statements are central to assessing whether wider circulation produces traceable income. Geez Creative’s reported initiative is relevant to that discussion, but its partnership and payment claims require further verification before being treated as established results.

Sources

Topics: Ethiopia · Music royalties · Music publishing · Recording rights · Diaspora creators

← All news & insights