What Did Britney Spears Actually Sell to Primary Wave?

Reports that Britney Spears has sold the rights to her entire music catalog to Primary Wave have generated enormous attention—but surprisingly little clarity. For artists, rights holders, and investors, the most important point is that the public record on this deal is thin, and much of the commentary is potentially running ahead of the facts.

We Actually Know Very Little

At this stage, there is essentially one concrete account of the deal: a brief TMZ report stating that Spears has sold the rights to her music catalog to Primary Wave for a substantial sum. However, the article offers almost no detail about the structure of the transaction, the categories of rights involved, or the carve‑outs that almost certainly exist.

Other outlets (including major news and entertainment trades) largely repeat the TMZ framing, sometimes adding generalized language about “entire catalog” or “other rights,” but they do not supply transaction documents, deal term sheets, or independent confirmation of the precise assets conveyed. For a deal of this magnitude, the combination of nondisclosure agreements and layered copyright ownership means the public record is, at best, an outline.

Why It Is Unclear What She Actually Sold

The second problem is structural: Britney Spears’ rights stack is more fragmented than many headlines suggest.

• She does not own the master recordings for her classic albums; those are controlled by Sony (through Jive/RCA and affiliated entities).

• She does not have writing credits on her biggest early-career hits (e.g. “Toxic”, “. . . Baby One More Time”, “Oops . . . I Did It Again”), which means she never controlled the full publishing on the songs most listeners associate with her name.

• Her songwriting and publishing interests are concentrated in mid‑ and late‑career tracks (e.g. “Work Bitch”, “Make Me . . .”), niche fan favorites, and album cuts where she appears as a co‑writer, not as the sole author.

If Spears neither owns her masters or publishing on the majority of her hits, the pool of assets that she could personally convey to Primary Wave is much narrower than “entire catalog” implies. The narrow scope of the rights involved in the deal also calls into question the actual value of the Primary Wave acquisition. Based on their unnamed source, TMZ speculated that Spears’ deal was “in the ballpark of the $200-million deal Justin Bieber signed when he sold his music.” This comparison seems unlikely, since Justin Bieber is a prolific songwriter who was able to convey the publishing rights for dozens of major hit songs when he sold his catalog to Hipgnosis Songs Capital in 2022. Considering that Spears does not have a similar track record as a hit songwriter, it is hard to believe that the two deals would be of comparable value.

The Rights Spears Likely Had to Sell

Given what we know about the underlying ownership, the assets Spears actually had the power to sell likely fall into two main buckets:

1. Master recording royalty streams (not master ownership)

1. Even when a label owns the master, the artist typically has a contractual right to a share of revenue from streams, sales, and certain exploitations of those recordings.

1. In a catalog deal, those royalty streams can be assigned or sold—often for a lump‑sum payment—without transferring the master copyrights themselves.

1. In this context, “selling her catalog” may mean that Spears has assigned to Primary Wave her right to receive some or all of her artist royalties from Sony‑controlled masters.

1. Publishing rights in songs she co‑wrote (writer’s and/or publisher’s share)

1. On songs where Spears has a writing credit, she may hold a writer’s share, a publisher’s share, or both, depending on how her publishing deals were structured.

1. Those interests can be sold, licensed, or partially assigned to a company like Primary Wave, giving the buyer a cut of performance, mechanical, and sync income from those specific compositions.

1. Because her co‑written songs are concentrated in mid/late‑career albums, the publishing package in this deal is likely skewed toward those works, not the early mega‑hits where she has no writing credit.

Why the Distinction Matters for Artists and Investors

For Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP’s clients—artists, funds, labels, and publishers —this deal illustrates several important principles:

• Headlines compress complex rights stacks. Phrases like “sold her entire catalog” are marketing terms layered on top of multiple contracts that divide masters, publishing, and neighboring rights among many parties.

• Economic rights can be unbundled from control. An artist can sell royalty streams and publishing income while leaving master ownership, approval rights, and name/image rights largely untouched.

• Due diligence cannot rely on press language. Any party contemplating a similar transaction must trace each revenue stream back to the underlying contracts with labels, publishers, PROs, and prior assignees—not simply rely on how a deal is described in the media.

A Transparent Summary of the Spears Deal

We know very little about the deal beyond a single, detail‑light TMZ article and derivative coverage from other outlets, and at this time, it remains unclear exactly which rights Britney Spears sold, and for how much. Because she does not own her masters and lacks writing credits on most of her big hits, the most plausible interpretation is that she has sold her master recording royalty streams and her publishing interests in the mid‑ and late‑career songs she co‑wrote, rather than the underlying master recordings themselves or broad, open‑ended control of her catalog.

For clients contemplating catalog sales, acquisitions, or financing structures built on royalty streams, Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP routinely helps:

• Map exactly which rights are held by which party.

• Distinguish between ownership, income participation, and approval rights.

• Structure transactions that reflect those realities, rather than the simplifications that make it into the press.

If you are considering a catalog transaction—or trying to understand how a deal like Spears’ would translate to your own rights stack—contact our firm today using our online submission form.