HFA vs. The MLC: Which Organization Handles Your Mechanical Royalties?

The Harry Fox Agency (HFA) and The Mechanical Licensing Collective (The MLC) both appear in conversations about musical-work mechanical royalties, but they are not interchangeable organizations. The MLC administers the statutory U.S. digital blanket-license system created by the Music Modernization Act. HFA offers publisher-authorized licensing and administration services, with published services that include physical-format and download licensing, ownership-data management, royalty processing, and compliance support.

The practical answer is this: if you are an eligible songwriter, publisher, administrator, or collective management organization seeking to register works and collect applicable U.S. digital audio mechanical royalties, The MLC is the relevant statutory registration and collection pathway, and its membership is free. If you want a publisher-service relationship that can administer authorized mechanical licensing and related rights data, HFA is a separate option whose current commercial terms and scope must be reviewed directly. Neither organization administers every publishing right, every use, or every territory.

This article focuses on the United States, primarily Title 17 §115 and related Copyright Office regulations. The MLC’s role is specifically tied to U.S. digital audio mechanical royalties. HFA’s materials describe services in the United States and internationally, so those broader services should be kept separate from the U.S. statutory framework.

The basic difference

The MLC is the designated administrator of a legal licensing system. HFA is a publisher-facing licensing and administration service.

Title I of the Music Modernization Act changed the way eligible digital uses obtain mechanical licenses. Before the change, the compulsory system was generally organized around song-by-song notices and licensing. The law created a blanket-license framework for eligible digital phonorecord deliveries, including covered interactive streams, limited downloads, and permanent downloads. The U.S. Copyright Office explains the modernization framework and its covered digital uses in The Music Modernization Act.

The Copyright Office designated The MLC to administer that new digital blanket license, with the license availability date set at January 1, 2021. That designation gives The MLC a statutory administrative role; it does not make The MLC a general-purpose administrator for all publishing rights or all music uses. The designation and framework are described by the Copyright Office in The Music Modernization Act and its FAQ on the designation of The Mechanical Licensing Collective.

HFA operates through a different structure. HFA’s publisher materials describe services such as registering musical works and ownership information, administering mechanical licenses for physical formats and downloads, enforcing license terms, processing and reconciling royalties, distributing funds to publishers, and supporting compliance. Its affiliation materials state that an HFA affiliate authorizes HFA to issue its mechanical license to licensees, describing that license as a variation on the Section 115 compulsory license. See HFA’s publisher services and its explanation of HFA affiliation.

That distinction matters because the two pathways can involve overlapping vocabulary—works, ownership data, mechanical licenses, downloads, and royalties—without creating a universal rule that every use must go through only one organization.

What The MLC administers

The MLC’s operational remit is U.S. digital audio mechanical royalties for eligible streaming and download services operating within the statutory blanket-license framework. The MLC describes its work in How It Works: digital music providers send usage information and royalties, The MLC matches reported uses to registered musical works, and it pays members monthly when the relevant data and ownership information support a payment.

The system is built around several connected functions.

First, a digital music provider operating under the blanket license reports its usage and pays royalties to The MLC. The applicable regulations establish reporting and payment obligations for blanket licensees, including monthly reporting and certification requirements. Those requirements appear in 37 CFR §210.27.

Second, The MLC uses its work and ownership information to match reported recordings and uses to the underlying musical works. A registration therefore gives the system information it needs to connect usage with the people or entities entitled to the musical-work mechanical royalty. Registration is not merely a profile-building exercise; it is part of the data pathway used for matching and collection.

Third, The MLC distributes matched royalties to its members. The regulations address monthly distributions, adjustments, and the information that must appear in royalty statements in 37 CFR §210.29. The MLC’s own explanation also describes monthly payments to members in How It Works.

Fourth, The MLC maintains a publicly accessible musical-works database and has procedures for royalties that cannot initially be matched to identified owners. The Copyright Office FAQ describes The MLC’s database, collection and distribution functions, and unmatched-royalty role in Frequently Asked Questions on the Designation of The Mechanical Licensing Collective. The statutory framework also addresses owner claims and equitable distribution where owners are unidentified, as shown in Appendix K: Orrin G. Hatch–Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act.

A public database does not automatically establish ownership, prove a disputed split, or guarantee that every use has been matched. It is a tool within the administration system. Accurate work registrations, ownership shares, identifiers, and timely corrections still matter.

What HFA administers

HFA’s published publisher-service description covers a broader administrative relationship than The MLC’s statutory digital role. HFA says it can register musical works and ownership data, administer mechanical licenses for physical formats and downloads, enforce terms, process and reconcile royalties, distribute funds to publishers, and support compliance. These are HFA’s published service descriptions, not a complete legal map of every license category or market participant. They should be read as a description of what HFA offers publishers and affiliates, subject to the applicable relationship and terms.

The affiliation model is especially important. According to HFA’s explanation, becoming an HFA affiliate means authorizing HFA to issue its mechanical license to licensees. HFA characterizes that license as a variation on the Section 115 compulsory license, and says commissions apply to HFA-issued licenses. The details of an affiliation—including services, authority, commissions, term, reporting, and termination—should be checked in the current HFA materials or agreement before relying on them.

HFA’s materials also describe worldwide representation or international services, while The MLC’s role is the U.S. digital audio mechanical system. That means a publisher should not assume that an HFA relationship and an MLC registration have the same geographic reach. A service can be relevant in one territory or format while a different registration, administrator, society, or direct licensing arrangement is relevant elsewhere.

The evidence does not establish a universal HFA fee schedule, and it does not support treating HFA as categorically for-profit for purposes of this comparison. The safest practical description is that HFA affiliation is a separate publisher-service relationship with terms that should be verified directly. Similarly, the evidence does not establish that HFA and The MLC divide all digital and physical uses into two perfectly exclusive categories.

The non-digital framework still matters

The Music Modernization Act did not turn every mechanical use into a digital blanket-license use. The Copyright Office explains that the non-digital notice-of-intention system remains for uses such as CDs and vinyl in Music Licensing Modernization.

This is why it is misleading to say simply that “The MLC handles digital” and “HFA handles physical” as though the two statements completely resolve every licensing question. The statutory framework, the type of use, the service or product, the territory, the rights owner’s authorizations, and the applicable licensing relationship all matter. HFA publicly lists physical-format administration among its services, but that does not mean every physical use automatically belongs with HFA. The MLC administers the statutory digital blanket-license system, but that does not mean every download-related transaction is necessarily within the same pathway.

The MLC itself also emphasizes that it does not replace performing-rights organizations or SoundExchange. Those organizations administer other rights, not the musical-work mechanical royalty pathway described here. A songwriter may therefore need multiple registrations or relationships for the same recording ecosystem: one for musical-work mechanical royalties, another for public performance royalties, and another for sound-recording rights where applicable. The MLC’s scope clarification appears in How It Works.

Registration and affiliation are different decisions

For eligible self-administered writers, publishers, administrators, and collective management organizations, The MLC says membership is free. Membership enables eligible participants to register works, claim works, use collection tools, and receive applicable U.S. digital audio mechanical royalties. The membership requirements and process are set out in Membership.

Free membership does not mean that collection is automatic. A rightsholder still needs accurate ownership information, complete work registrations, appropriate shares, and the administrative details needed to receive payments. Registration also does not replace resolving ownership disputes. The MLC’s membership and collection tools work best when the underlying data is complete and consistent.

HFA affiliation is a different decision. It is an authorization for HFA to issue its mechanical license and provide the services described in the publisher relationship. It is not the same thing as joining The MLC, and it does not convert HFA into The MLC or grant access to The MLC’s statutory role. Because HFA affiliation is a private service relationship, review the current HFA terms directly before signing or relying on a commission, authority, territory, catalog, or licensing assumption.

A publisher can therefore evaluate the pathways separately. Registering with The MLC addresses the eligible U.S. digital blanket-license system. An HFA relationship may address authorized licensing and administration services for selected catalog, format, territory, or client needs. The evidence supports presenting them as distinct pathways, not as universally interchangeable or universally exclusive organizations.

A practical routing map

Use the following sequence as an educational starting point:

1. Identify the underlying right. This article concerns musical-work mechanical royalties, not every royalty generated by a recording.

2. Identify the use and product. Ask whether the use is an eligible U.S. digital audio activity, a physical product such as a CD or vinyl release, a download activity, or something outside the described frameworks.

3. For an eligible U.S. digital blanket-license use, check The MLC pathway. An eligible writer, publisher, administrator, or CMO can use free MLC membership to register and claim works and collect applicable royalties. Confirm that the provider and activity qualify under the statutory framework.

4. For physical-format or other publisher-authorized administration needs, evaluate HFA’s services and affiliation terms. Confirm what HFA is authorized to license, which territories and formats are included, what data it requires, and what commissions or other terms apply.

5. Check for overlap and gaps. Do not assume that registering with one organization automatically transfers data, authority, or collection responsibility to the other. Review catalog ownership, co-writer shares, administrator authority, identifiers, statements, and unmatched uses.

6. Keep other rights separate. The MLC does not replace PROs or SoundExchange, so those rights may require separate administration.

Worked example

Suppose a self-administered songwriter owns a share of a musical work that is used by an eligible U.S. interactive streaming service. The songwriter should consider becoming a free member of The MLC, register the work and ownership share, and monitor matching and statements. The provider’s monthly usage and payment obligations flow through the blanket-license system, while The MLC’s matching and distribution process connects reported uses to registered works. The result still depends on accurate data, provider reporting, successful matching, and the applicable procedures.

Now suppose the same catalog is being licensed for a physical vinyl release. The songwriter or publisher must consider the non-digital licensing framework, which remains in place for uses such as vinyl. If the rightsholder wants HFA to provide authorized licensing and administration, the rightsholder can evaluate HFA affiliation and confirm the current terms. The MLC registration for eligible U.S. digital uses does not, by itself, answer the vinyl licensing question.

Finally, suppose the catalog also earns public performance royalties. The MLC registration does not replace the relevant PRO relationship, because The MLC’s role is the digital audio mechanical pathway rather than public performance administration. The songwriter should keep those collection channels distinct in records and statements.

Practical next steps

Start with a clean catalog record: title, writers, ownership shares, publisher or administrator, identifiers, recording associations, and territories. Register eligible works with The MLC if you are an eligible participant and want to collect applicable U.S. digital audio mechanical royalties. Then review whether an HFA affiliation would provide useful authorized licensing or administration for particular formats, services, territories, or clients.

When reviewing any HFA relationship, verify the current commercial terms directly. Ask what HFA can license, what authority you grant, which catalog is included, how commissions are calculated, how royalties are reconciled and paid, what compliance services are provided, and how the relationship ends. When reviewing The MLC records, confirm that ownership shares are accurate and investigate unmatched or missing uses rather than assuming database visibility equals payment.

The central lesson is simple: The MLC is the designated administrator for the statutory U.S. digital blanket-license system, while HFA is a separate publisher-authorized licensing and administration pathway. They may both be relevant to a catalog, but they answer different administrative questions. Open Music Business is educational content, not individualized legal, financial, tax, contract, or royalty advice; particular uses and agreements should be evaluated with qualified professional guidance.