A group of 31 organisations representing artists, songwriters and their managers - including the FAC, Ivors Academy and MMF in the UK - have signed an open letter calling on record labels and music publishers to make a number of commitments to music creators as they start entering into licensing deals with AI companies. Those commitments relate to creator consent, fair compensation and deal transparency.
The letter has been organised by the European Music Managers Alliance, whose Executive Director Jess Partridge says “amidst a flurry of AI deals, EMMA has coordinated this letter because of mounting concerns about the misappropriation and landgrab of artist and songwriter rights”.
She adds that the unilateral approach being taken by major music companies in the AI domain is “no way to build a viable, artist-centric music sector” and “risks repeating the mistakes of the past”.
The open letter begins by noting that labels and publishers, and especially the majors, are now “negotiating AI deals that could shape the future of music”, which includes the AI deals announced with Suno, Udio, KLAY and Spotify.
And yet, it says, “the artists and songwriters whose works, voices, performances, likenesses and creative identities make those deals valuable are not being meaningfully consulted”.
Some artists and songwriters are now receiving emails from labels and publishers that have entered into AI deals, the letter concedes, but these are too often simply “informing them that they will be opted in to AI-related uses by default, with little actual choice offered”.
Despite the fact, the letter argues, artists and songwriters “remain the primary holders of many of the rights at stake, including moral, neighbouring, image and personality rights”. Which means, “these rights are not label or publishers’ assets to be licensed without clear authority, consent and accountability”.
There have always been two distinct strands to the big debate around music rights and AI.
First, artists, writers, labels and publishers are pretty much aligned when it comes to the obligations of AI companies: those companies cannot make use of existing music, or an artist’s voice or likeness, without first securing permission via licensing deals.
Many AI companies argue they don’t need permission because of copyright exceptions or the fair use principle in the US, and the legal battle over that difference of opinion continues.
The second strand is a debate within the music industry. Can labels and publishers unilaterally opt in the catalogues they control into any AI licensing deals they sign? And how is the money generated by these deals being shared between all the stakeholders?
Although the majors have said they will secure artist consent over AI voice clones and writer consent over AI remixes, they are not seeking general consent before licensing music for AI training. And there is little transparency about how the money will be shared.
A response to the new open letter from the International Federation Of The Phonographic Industry focuses on the first strand of the debate.
It says that, “at a time when some tech companies large and small are engaging in the wholesale theft of virtually every song ever recorded”, the major labels “have sued infringers, pushed for legislation and developed new licensing models, all to protect the interests of artists, songwriters and rightsholders and ensure they are compensated”.
The IFPI then insists that, “we are strongest when united as a music community and would encourage all who share our goal of a healthy and prosperous music ecosystem to work alongside us as we confront those advancing irresponsible AI”.
However, the IFPI is, for now, still ignoring the second strand of the debate. Even though music creator groups have been arguing for some time that - while it’s good the majors are standing firm and pressuring AI companies into licensing deals - artists and songwriters want from labels what the labels want from the AI companies: consent, compensation and transparency.
Formally backing the open letter, MMF CEO Annabella Coldrick says, “On the issue of AI licensing, artists, songwriters and managers have stood shoulder to shoulder with the wider music industry on the principle of consent” - ie AI companies must get permission first - and “with this open letter we are simply requesting the same courtesy from our label and publisher partners. These rights are not yours to sell”.
The Ivors Academy’s CEO Roberto Neri adds, “Songwriters must not be expected to sign away their rights without proper authorisation, fair remuneration and full transparency. This means having a meaningful say in how their work is used, clear information about the deals being proposed, the ability to give or withhold consent, and a fair share of the value created”.
For many creator groups, one fear is that the widely documented issues with the economics of music streaming will now be repeated with AI. Because the issues with streaming were, in part at least, caused by the majors and Spotify basically conceiving and implementing a brand new music licensing business model in the late 2000s in a self-serving way and without consulting anyone else.
Which is why the statement from EMMA’s Jess Partridge highlights the risk of the music industry “repeating the mistakes of the past” as it pursues opportunities in AI.
The majors are sometimes prone to tell artists and songwriters that while new business models are still being evolved, tricky questions about consent and compensation should be put aside. Creator groups argue the opposite, this is in fact the best time to tackle those questions and secure commitments from labels and publishers about future revenue streams.
The three main demands in the open letter are summarised by EMMA as follows:
Consent & Control: No more opt-ins. Artists and songwriters must have the right to say “no” to their music being exploited in AI systems.
Fair Compensation: It must be clear which percentage of revenue goes to the creator, to the label / publisher and to the AI company, and how it will be allocated if creators do decide to consent.
Clarity & Transparency: Clear, timely and understandable information must be provided in advance of any AI-related deal, allowing informed decisions to be made.
The letter is backed by EMMA and all its members across Europe, including MMF in the UK, plus the International Artists Organisation and European Composer And Songwriter Alliance; FAC and The Ivors Academy in the UK; SONA, NITO, the Music Artists Coalition, Artist Rights Alliance and Black Music Action Coalition in the US; and manager organisations in Australia, New Zealand and Canada.