Dear diary,
for an independent musician, merchandise sales are rarely a side note; they are often the financial backbone of the entire operation. T-shirts, tote bags, cassettes, and vinyl records sold at shows can generate more income than streaming or record sales. Yet it is precisely these tangible expressions of an artist’s identity that carry a significant amount of legal risk. Fonts, images, logos, photographs, and even typographic choices may fall under someone else’s intellectual property rights. A single poorly drafted agreement or an unclear transfer of rights can result in a situation where an artist loses control over their own name, visual identity, or brand - things that should fundamentally belong to them.
About a year ago, I purchased a PDF that I hoped would bring clarity to the growth of my artist project. In practice, it sat untouched on my desktop, one of many items on a mental “to do later” list. Finally reading The Independent Artist Blueprint by Robin Morgan and Nico Jend and “Music merchandise: the new key to branding for musicians” by James Nurton in WIPO Magazine, something became clear to me: an independent artist is not merely a content creator, but an owner of their catalogue, their audience relationship, and their identity. The Blueprint does not explicitly advise whether an artist name should be registered as a trademark, but it frames trademarks not as legal formalities, rather as strategic tools that support direct and sustainable relationships with an audience and how to take of your core content, your music.
When an artist owns their name, visual identity, and the rights connected to them, they can build visibility in a long-term and intentional way, without the constant fear that someone else might appropriate or dilute the economic value of their work. This sense of ownership also shapes an internal mindset: it reinforces the uniqueness of one’s artistic identity and grounds it in a financial reality that is especially important for independent artists, who are responsible for every aspect of their work themselves.
In today’s digital landscape, maintaining this balance has become increasingly difficult. The daily reality of an indie musician is a constant negotiation between visibility and protection. Algorithms reward activity, openness, and continuous presence, yet every image, video, or thought shared online is also vulnerable to copying, misuse, or detachment from its original context. When an artist’s name, aesthetic, or mode of expression begins to spread, a paradox emerges: the more widely recognized something becomes, the harder it may be to protect legally especially if protection was not considered early on. The rapid development of artificial intelligence only intensifies this tension.
Even though I am far from a global superstar who would need to trademark f.ex. their face, every song I release and every way I present myself is still unique and easily replicable. The digital environment does not distinguish between large and small; it simply amplifies. This reality forces independent musicians to think of themselves simultaneously as artists and as guardians of their own brands. Creativity does not need to be sacrificed; it needs to be protected, even when the principle of deliberate visibility lies at the heart of a musical career. Not everything must be shared immediately, and not everything needs to be given away for free in order for an audience to form. By managing your name and the plans you are building, you allow your impact to be as strong as possible. When visibility and rights management move forward together, they can form the foundation of a sustainable career.
The case of Rihanna and PUMA’s Fenty brand illustrates this tension on a larger scale. The FENTY name quickly became an iconic brand within fashion and street culture, but its widespread visibility also gave rise to legal complications. “Fenty” is Rihanna’s surname, and personal names are generally more difficult to protect as trademarks than invented words. As the name began to function independently as a descriptor of a certain aesthetic or style, trademark protection had to be narrowed and defended on a case-by-case basis. Not all registrations were approved, and the protection remained partial. This demonstrates that fame alone does not guarantee strong legal protection, sometimes it can even weaken it.
When I began building my own artist project, SERITA, I felt a strong resistance toward commercial language and branding logic. My aesthetic was shaped in a home studio, through self-designed outlook and dimly lit music venues, not through polished campaigns. For me, a brand was never a separate construct, but an identity: the music, the values, the visual language, and the way I interact with listeners. Still, examples like the Fenty case forced me to confront an uncomfortable question: what happens when visibility grows without control? If something becomes “widely known” before it is protected, legal safeguards may disappear precisely when they are most needed.
In my case, my artist name is my surname, which makes trademark registration both challenging and appealing. Registration would not prevent the name from being used in speech, media, or as an adjective, but it could prevent another artist from operating under the same name, or a company from branding products under it within the same field. The principle is the same as in Rihanna’s case, even if the scale is vastly different. For an independent musician, a trademark is not a tool of dominance, but one of defense, a way to ensure that one’s work remains under one’s own control.
The Independent Artist Blueprint also emphasizes the importance of collaborative contexts. The question of whether to build a brand entirely independently or to collaborate with small labels, fashion brands, or other partners is rarely straightforward. Licensing partnerships can feel intimidating, but when structured correctly, they can bring visibility, resources, and expertise that an artist may not have alone. Owning a trademark provides clarity in these negotiations: it defines who decides, and under what conditions.
At the same time, it is essential to recognize that indie audiences value authenticity. Excessive commercialization can quickly erode credibility. If every release feels like an advertisement, the music risks becoming secondary. The line between commercial collaboration and artistic freedom is fluid, which makes ownership all the more crucial. When artists own their brands, they retain the ability to say no. They can choose partnerships that support their art rather than allowing it to be reshaped uncontrollably.
Independence, however, also means carrying the full weight of responsibility. Financial, legal, and emotional risks all fall on one person. In return, ownership offers long-term rewards: the value of everything created ultimately returns to its maker. For smaller artists, lower volumes often make rights management more manageable than for major acts. Licensing and trademark ownership enable controlled collaborations, provide a legal basis to address misuse, and strengthen one’s negotiating position.
Ultimately, the question is not whether independent musicians should think of themselves as brands, but who controls the brand. Trademark registration and deliberate visibility are not the enemies of creativity; they are its safety net. A spiritual, soul-driven product can be both delicate and legally resilient, so long as it is allowed to grow on its own terms, rather than by chance or according to someone else’s interests. I think I’ll file that trademark application tomorrow and finally put this thinking into practice.
Best,
Anna Serita
AI was used to help structure the text and improve sentences that needed clearer or more polished English.
References:
https://indepenjend.com/products/the-independent-artist-blueprint?srsltid=AfmBOoo0zvAQcJWuU5pNjLfRa9eMwrPkxD4WK3pPZD7loIpqAsibr8FONurton, James. ‘Music Merchandise: The New Key to Branding for Musicians’. WIPO Magazine, 15 May 2025. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-magazine/articles/music-merchandise-the-new-key-to-branding-for-musicians-74266.