Musicians want a share of the labels’ AI licensing deals

The American Federation of Musicians is challenging how Universal Music Group and Warner licensed sound recordings to AI companies. The union says session musicians were not informed, credited or compensated before recordings covered by its collective agreement were supplied to Udio and, in Warner’s case, Suno.

The legal argument turns on the agreement’s new use provision. AFM says generative-AI training is a use the contract did not anticipate and should trigger negotiation and payment. UMG has asked the court to dismiss the claim, arguing that the agreement contains no rate for AI training and therefore cannot produce a payment on its own.

The Warner filing did not end the dispute

On 21 August, AFM dismissed claims against Warner Music Group Corp. so it could correct the defendant’s name to Warner Records. That procedural change should not be read as the union abandoning its position.

The larger issue is easy to miss when label licensing deals are described as being good for “artists.” Featured performers, songwriters and session musicians can have different contracts and bargaining rights. A licensed model can therefore be lawful at the label level while the people who performed on the recordings still dispute how value is shared.