American Federation Of Musicians Challenges Major Labels Over AI Licensing Deals, Citing "New Use" Clause in Landmark 1999 Agreement
The American Federation Of Musicians (AFM) has initiated legal proceedings against Warner Music and Universal Music, two of the world’s largest record companies, accusing them of a "nonsensical" interpretation of a "new use" clause embedded in their long-standing Sound Recording Labor Agreement (SRLA). At the heart of the dispute is the union’s contention that major labels are attempting to circumvent obligations to compensate musicians for the use of their recorded works in emerging artificial intelligence (AI) music generation platforms, specifically citing recent licensing deals with Udio. The AFM argues that this interpretation threatens to "swallow" a fundamental bargain struck between the union and the recording industry nearly a quarter-century ago, potentially allowing companies to profit from AI integration without fairly remunerating the artists whose performances fuel these new technologies.
The legal battle, unfolding in New York courts, centers on the application of the 1999 "new use" clause to AI licensing agreements. The AFM asserts that this clause unequivocally mandates Warner Music and Universal Music to share revenue generated from their respective Udio licensing deals with all musicians hired under the union’s agreement. Furthermore, the union claims the labels are obligated to inform AFM members about these and any other AI licensing partnerships they forge. To date, neither major label has reportedly communicated with or compensated AFM members in connection with their Udio collaborations, prompting the union’s legal action. Notably, Sony Music is not currently a target of the lawsuit, primarily because it has not yet finalized a licensing agreement with Udio.
Chronology of a Contentious Clause
The "new use" clause, a pivotal element of the Sound Recording Labor Agreement, dates back to 1999. This period marked a significant inflection point in the music industry, with the nascent digital revolution beginning to reshape how music was distributed and consumed. The internet was rapidly gaining traction, and file-sharing platforms like Napster were challenging traditional business models. Recognizing the potential for unforeseen technological advancements and new avenues for monetization, the AFM and the record industry negotiated the "new use" clause. Its original intent, according to the AFM, was to provide flexibility for labels to exploit recordings in novel ways not explicitly covered by the existing agreement, while simultaneously safeguarding musicians’ rights to fair compensation for such unforeseen applications. The bargain, as articulated by the union, was clear: companies would gain the freedom to reuse recordings for purposes unknown at the time, but in return, they would compensate the musicians for that reuse.
Fast forward to the early 2020s, and the landscape has once again been dramatically altered by technology – this time, the rapid emergence of generative artificial intelligence. Platforms like Udio, backed by significant investment and technological prowess, are capable of creating new musical compositions, arrangements, and even vocal tracks from text prompts or existing musical inputs. The core technology often relies on vast datasets of existing music, much of which includes performances by union musicians recorded under the SRLA.
In early 2024, both Warner Music and Universal Music entered into licensing agreements with Udio, signaling a major step by the recording industry into the AI domain. These partnerships aim to explore the commercial potential of AI-generated music, but they immediately raised red flags for the AFM. Upon learning of these deals and the lack of communication or compensation to its members, the AFM filed its lawsuits against the two majors, bringing the 1999 "new use" clause squarely into the contemporary debate over AI ethics and creator rights.
The Majors’ Defense: A Narrow Interpretation
In response to the AFM’s legal challenge, Warner Music and Universal Music have written to the New York court, asserting that it is the union, not the labels, that is misinterpreting the "new use" clause. Their central argument is that the clause, as drafted, does not apply to their current AI licensing deals and, therefore, the lawsuit should be summarily dismissed.
The majors contend that the clause is more intricate than the AFM suggests. They interpret it to mean that if a recording is used in a new way not covered by the SRLA, a musician should be compensated as if they were brought back into a studio to record music specifically for that new use. The compensation would then be based on whatever standard agreement would govern that particular kind of recording session.
Crucially, the record companies argue that because there is currently no established AFM agreement or standard rate specifically for "AI training" or licensing music to generative AI platforms, the "new use" clause is rendered inoperable in this context. Warner Music, in its letter to the court, explicitly stated that "where no agreement exists covering the new medium," the new use clause "has nothing to point to," and consequently, "there is no entitlement to payment." This argument suggests a circular logic: without a pre-existing agreement for AI, the clause designed to cover new uses cannot be invoked.
AFM’s Rebuttal: Preventing the "Swallowing" of a Bargain
The AFM vehemently refutes the majors’ narrow interpretation, labeling it "nonsensical" and a deliberate attempt to undermine the original intent of the 1999 agreement. In its counter-filings, the union insists that the "new use" clause "applies to all new uses," not merely those for which a rate has already been established in another AFM agreement. The union emphasizes that, "given how quickly technology reshapes" the industry, a "contrary reading" would be illogical and would effectively make the clause redundant for genuinely novel uses, which was precisely what it was designed to address.
The AFM underscores the historical context of the clause, reiterating that it was a mutually beneficial provision that "opened the door to reusing recordings for purposes not known at the time." However, this flexibility came with a clear understanding: "the bargain struck was that the companies would have to compensate musicians for that reuse." By attempting to restrict the scope of the "new use" clause now, the union argues, the majors are seeking to "swallow the bargain," allowing them to "profit from licensing recordings to AI companies while avoiding payment to musicians." This, the AFM contends, directly contravenes the spirit and letter of the agreement.
To bolster its position, the AFM presents two additional arguments to the court. First, even if a direct AFM agreement for "AI training" doesn’t yet exist, the union points out that music generated by Udio and similar AI platforms may subsequently be streamed or synchronized into videos. There are existing AFM agreements covering these latter uses (streaming and sync licenses). Therefore, if the majors insist on the necessity of an existing agreement for the "new use" clause to reference, the union posits that these established streaming or sync agreements could logically serve that purpose for the downstream applications of AI-generated music.
Second, the AFM argues that even if the court finds the "new use" clause to be "ambiguous and susceptible to more than a single interpretation," this ambiguity itself should prevent the immediate dismissal of the union’s lawsuit. In legal terms, such ambiguity typically means that a case should proceed to discovery and potentially trial, allowing for a more thorough examination of the facts and the parties’ intentions, rather than being resolved at an early stage.
Broader Industry Implications and Parallel Debates
This legal showdown between the AFM and major record labels is not an isolated incident but rather a crucial front in a much broader, industry-wide debate about the role of AI, intellectual property rights, and fair compensation for creators. As record companies and music publishers increasingly announce AI licensing deals, the music community is grappling with fundamental questions:
- Consent and Authorization: Should the explicit consent of artists, songwriters, and musicians be sought before their music is included in datasets used to train generative AI, or before their recordings are licensed to AI companies by labels and publishers? The current dispute highlights a perceived lack of transparency and consultation.
- Revenue Sharing: How will the substantial revenues generated from AI licensing deals be distributed among the various music creators, including not just headline artists and songwriters, but also session musicians, background vocalists, and studio producers, whose contributions are integral to the original recordings?
The AFM’s lawsuit directly addresses the second point, specifically for session musicians who are often compensated through union agreements and residuals. For many, particularly those working in studio settings, union contracts represent a vital safety net and a mechanism for ensuring fair remuneration in an industry prone to rapid technological shifts. The outcome of this dispute could set a significant precedent for how future labor agreements are structured and interpreted in the age of AI, not only within the music industry but potentially across other creative sectors.
Economic Impact and the Future of Creative Labor
The economic implications for professional musicians, particularly session players, are profound. Generative AI holds the promise of unprecedented creative tools, but also the threat of displacement. If recordings featuring human performances can be licensed to train AI models without additional compensation, it not only devalues the original work but also undermines the economic stability of musicians. The fear is that AI could be used to generate new music that directly competes with human-created content, while the human creators of the source material receive no ongoing benefit.
Historically, unions like the AFM have played a critical role in establishing minimum wages, working conditions, and residual payments for musicians, ensuring they share in the long-term success of their work. The "new use" clause from 1999 was a forward-thinking attempt to future-proof these protections. The current legal challenge represents a critical test of whether these existing frameworks are robust enough to address the unprecedented challenges and opportunities presented by AI, or if they will be rendered obsolete by interpretations that favor corporate interests over creator compensation.
Legal Precedent and the Evolving Landscape of IP Law
The court’s decision in this case will have far-reaching implications. A ruling in favor of the AFM could establish a vital precedent, compelling record labels to negotiate specific compensation structures for AI uses and to be more transparent with artists and unions about such deals. It would reinforce the principle that new technologies, while transformative, must not erode existing labor protections and intellectual property rights. Conversely, a ruling in favor of the major labels could weaken the protective scope of "new use" clauses, potentially leaving creators vulnerable to the uncompensated exploitation of their work in AI contexts.
This case also touches upon the broader legal discourse surrounding copyright, fair use, and generative AI. While the AFM’s lawsuit focuses on contract interpretation rather than direct copyright infringement, the underlying tension is the same: how do we ensure creators are fairly compensated when their work is ingested and transformed by AI? The outcome will undoubtedly influence future negotiations, not just between unions and labels, but also between individual artists and AI companies, shaping the economic framework for creative work in an increasingly AI-driven world. The music industry, often at the vanguard of technological disruption, is once again confronting a pivotal moment that will define the relationship between art, technology, and compensation for decades to come.
Related posts:
