Rights & policy
Independent Publishers Draw Their Line: Songs Must Count as Much as Masters in AI Deals
IMPF and IMPEL say the underlying song should, absent other salient factors, be valued at least equally with the recording.
AI-assisted
AI assisted with research and writing; the article was revised under editorial direction and checked against the linked sources.
Independent music publishers remember how the early streaming economy was wired. When major labels negotiated the first digital licensing frameworks twenty years ago, master recording rights captured the lion’s share of revenue while the underlying song—the composition and lyrics—was left fighting for a smaller slice. As generative AI licensing takes shape, publishers are trying to make sure history does not repeat itself.
On 30 September, two leading independent publishing bodies—IMPF (the Independent Music Publishers International Forum) and IMPEL—released a joint framework of generative AI licensing principles, covered the same day by Complete Music Update.
The document rests on a blunt premise: in any legitimate AI licensing model, the musical work (the song) should, absent other salient factors, be valued at least equally with the sound recording (the master). Without a composition, there is nothing to record or train on. Beyond parity in valuation, the two organizations tie the credibility of any future licensing market to rightsholder control, transparent record-keeping and technical attribution.
The joint declaration is an industry policy stance rather than an enacted European regulation, a binding tariff or a signed deal with an AI vendor. Its weight is political and commercial: any AI platform hoping to license independent repertoire now knows the opening price of admission.