The UK’s Council Of Music Makers has called on record companies and music publishers to pledge that they will secure “explicit consent” from music creators before including their recordings and songs in any AI licensing deals.
Music creators should also have “full control” over how their music is used by AI, it says, and be fairly compensated from any revenues generated by AI licensing deals.
A new statement, prompted in part by Universal Music’s recent deals with Udio and Stability, says “Now is the moment to genuinely put human creators at the centre of the AI opportunity”.
The CMM - which brings together five organisations representing UK music creators, The Ivors Academy, Featured Artists Coalition, Musicians’ Union, Music Producers Guild and Music Managers Forum - doesn’t pull its punches. It continues, “No more misleading rhetoric, no more deceitful buzzwords”, before demanding “an industry wide standard guaranteeing music-maker consent, control and compensation".
The forthright statement echoes one put out by the USA’s Music Artists Coalition last week, which was also a response to Universal’s Udio deal. It made near-identical demands for “artist consent” and “fair compensation” in music-related AI deals, alongside “deal and data clarity”.
The music community is more or less aligned when it comes to the copyright obligations of AI companies, with labels, publishers, artists and songwriters all in agreement that those companies should get permission from the music industry before making use of existing music when training AI models.
Many AI companies, of course, argue they can use music without getting permission because of copyright exceptions or the US principle of ‘fair use’. The music industry strongly rejects that position.
In a white paper published on its website, the CMM states, “billion dollar tech companies must not be allowed to plunder a century’s worth of human creativity, spending millions on lawyers and lobbyists to exploit and expand supposed loopholes in copyright law rather than engaging with the creators without whom they have no business”.
To that end, most music creators were supportive of the major record companies when they launched lawsuits against AI start-ups Udio and Suno, both of which developed and launched generative AI models by scraping music from YouTube and without securing any licences from the music industry.
However, as Universal - and the other majors - start to enter into licensing deals with AI companies, a division is starting to appear within the music community.
Music creators argue that labels and publishers should seek their consent before including their music in any AI deals. They also want transparency on how things like Universal’s Udio deal will work, and how the income it generates will be shared with individual artists and songwriters.
When campaigning against AI companies using music without licence - and when communicating their AI deals - the majors are keen to stress that they are standing up for “human creativity”, and they are focused on developing new opportunities for artists and songwriters.
However, according to the Council Of Music Makers, music creators “remain in the dark” as to how AI platforms will be licensed and how AI income will be shared, despite it asking “a series of questions of the major record companies about how they would approach AI licensing deals” back in July 2023. These questions “remain unanswered” it says.
Concluding, CMM says it is calling on “rightsholders across the music industry”, and “AI companies and digital platforms”, to “publicly commit to the three pillars of consent, control and compensation”.
It then also urges lawmakers to “urgently strengthen copyright and related laws to ensure creator rights are protected in AI, in relation to their performances, productions, lyrics, compositions, voice and likeness”.