Universal Music Group and Warner labels have asked a court to dismiss the American Federation of Musicians’ (AFM) AI licensing lawsuit.
The AFM is amid a legal fight against UMG and Warner Records, arguing that recordings performed by its members were licensed to AI companies Suno and Udio without the musicians receiving compensation or being properly notified.
The dispute is over whether AI licensing represents a “new use” of recordings under the AFM’s Sound Recording Labor Agreement (SRLA).
Under the “new use” clause, if a sound recording is used by a record company in a new way that is not anticipated or covered by the SRLA, there is an obligation for the label to compensate any musicians who appear on that recording, and the union should be informed.
Major labels have so far not acted in this way with regard to music being used by AI software, and they are arguing that the clause does not specifically reference AI use.
The labels are arguing that their interpretation is the only sensible one, and so the judge should kick out AFM’s case.
“Article 21(a) does not state a rate,” UMG’s lawyers wrote, per Music Business Worldwide. “It imports one from the separate AFM agreement governing the new purpose.
“And AFM has conceded that no such agreement exists for the AI Use.”
The UMG brief points to a pre-motion conference on July 21, at which US District Judge Edgardo Ramos asked whether such an agreement exists for AI.
“No. So, there is no underlying agreement for AI use. We conceded that,” the union’s counsel, Eyad Asad, answered, according to the transcript quoted in the filing.
“That concession ends this case,” UMG‘s lawyers wrote. “Discovery cannot change that fact, much less create the missing agreement.
“A payment obligation measured by an agreement that does not exist is no payment obligation at all.”
Last year, Warner and fellow major music labels Sony Music Entertainment and Universal Music Group filed lawsuits against Suno and another AI company Udio for copyright violations of “an almost unimaginable scale”.
However, Warner later signed a new licensing deal with Suno, settling the lawsuit in a deal reported at the time to be designed to introduce a licensed model into Suno’s offerings, making it so that users can pay to download songs that were made using AI.
Pitchfork reported that the deal ensures artists and songwriters who opt into AI deals with Warner and Suno will be compensated fairly, and will retain “full control” of their music, likeness and other copyright details, while also overseeing how AI uses their likeness.
At the centre of the case seems to be one of the biggest issues surrounding the creation of AI music – namely, where the material used to train it comes from, and how artists can be properly compensated.
Earlier this month, artists including Jason Isbell file a lawsuit against Suno, alleging that the software allows users to copy artists’ identity and musical style without consent.
Last month, Suno lost a copyright infringement lawsuit to German licensing agency GEMA, after the latter argued that Suno was using songs in its repertoire – including Boney M’s ‘Daddy Cool’, Lou Bega’s ‘Mambo No. 5’, and Alphaville’s ‘Forever Young’ – to train its AI models, without obtaining any licenses or paying the songwriters.
That ruling also meant that other AI companies must now pay to license any music from GEMA’s repertoire going forward.
