Photo Credit: Romain Dancre
Looks like the AFM’s lawsuit against Universal Music and Warner Music was just the beginning. Now, 29 organizations are calling on labels and publishers to prioritize “meaningful consent, fair remuneration and full transparency” in their AI licensing agreements.
Those organizations, repping artists, songwriters, and music managers alike, today voiced several pressing concerns in an open letter. In their view, as gen AI pacts continue to pour in, creatives themselves “are not being meaningfully consulted” despite being “the primary holders of many of the rights at stake.”
Besides recorded and compositional IP, this refers to the comparatively little-discussed moral, image, and personality rights, the Music Artists Coalition, Songwriters of North America (SONA), the National Independent Talent Organisation (NITO), and others indicated.
“We are increasingly concerned that artists and songwriters in existing recording and publishing agreements are receiving letters from major labels and publishers informing them that they will be opted in to AI-related uses by default, with little actual choice offered,” the entities spelled out.
“At the same time, artists and songwriters signing new agreements are being presented with AI rights clauses as a standard condition of signing,” they proceeded.
Short of litigation – like the AFM’s aforesaid complaint, which centers on compensation as opposed to authorization and has already garnered international support – what’s the solution?
According to the letter’s authors, also including the UK’s Ivors Academy and Featured Artists Coalition, “all companies entering into AI music deals” should publicly commit to a no consent, no agreement approach.
(Elsewhere in the letter, the organizations urged action from “record companies, publishers, policy makers, AI companies, digital platforms and all industry partners.”)
In practice, that would entail expressly seeking permission from artists and songwriters before using any of their rights “in connection with AI” – on top of being upfront about usage scope and abstaining from penalizing professionals who decide against participating.
Furthermore, the relevant details “cannot be buried in broad catch-all contract language or include rights in perpetuity,” nor can consent “be imposed through default opt-ins” or as a condition for signing a new contract, per the text.
Next, labels and publishers must be transparent about AI agreements’ included rights, permitted usages, safeguards, duration, and clauses enabling one to withdraw consent if so inclined.
Lastly, when creatives do choose to participate, “they must receive fair and meaningful remuneration” and “share in the value created by their works.”
“Artists and songwriters must be consulted and it must be clear which percentage of revenue goes to the creator, to the label and to the AI company,” the signatories wrote.
Aside from the above-mentioned organizations, the Music Managers Forum Canada, New Zealand’s Music Managers Forum Aotearoa, Australia’s Association of Artist Managers, the International Artists Organisation (IAO), the European Composer and Songwriter Alliance, the European Music Managers Alliance (EMMA), and 18 EMMA members likewise signed the letter.
Time will, of course, tell whether the pushback fuels changes in the ultra-active AI-dealmaking arena. But more immediately, will this pushback, now consisting of the letter and the AFM lawsuit, keep on intensifying? And will it prompt additional contract-terms scrutiny on the part of artists and songwriters?