Artists and Songwriters Demand Consent in AI Music Licensing Deals

A worldwide coalition of artists, songwriters, and managers has sent a formal letter to major record labels and publishers demanding they stop using AI licensing deals to exploit artist work without meaningful consent. The letter, released June 22, was signed by the Music Artists Coalition, Artists Rights Alliance, Black Music Action Coalition, Songwriters of North America, the Ivors Academy, and more than a dozen international music managers organizations.

The core issue is one that independent artists and creators need to understand right now. Labels including Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group, and Sony Music have signed AI training deals with companies like Suno, Udio, ElevenLabs, and Klay over the past year. What those announcements almost never mention is whether the artists whose recordings are being used to train these models ever got a say in it.

What AI Training Clauses in Record Deals Actually Mean for Artists

According to reporting from Billboard and statements from music attorneys, labels are relying on broad existing contract language, clauses around blanket licensing and exploitation, to quietly opt artists into AI training without seeking individual approval. "Some of the labels have already taken the position that they technically don't need special approvals to train," said Jason Boyarski, founding partner at Boyarski Fritz.

Artists signing new deals are also now being presented with explicit AI rights clauses as standard conditions of signing. Billboard has previously reported on language from BMG, Sony, and Believe that grants "unlimited, exclusive rights" to use recordings for generative AI training. That is a significant transfer of creative rights, often buried in boilerplate.

The coalition letter calls on labels, publishers, AI companies, and policymakers to commit to three principles: consent and control, fair compensation, and clarity and transparency. The demands are concrete. No default opt-ins. No forced AI clauses. No use of an artist's work, voice, performance, or likeness without meaningful consent and guaranteed remuneration.

The letter is direct on one point that often gets lost in the broader AI debate. Labels are correctly arguing that AI companies need permission to train on their catalog. What they are not doing is extending that same logic to the artists and songwriters who created that catalog in the first place. That contradiction is exactly what this coalition is calling out.

For independent artists, this moment matters even if you are not signed to a major. The contract structures being normalized at the major label level tend to filter down across the industry. Clauses that become standard at Sony today can show up in indie distribution agreements and smaller label deals within a few years. Understanding what you are signing before you sign it has never been more important.

If you are an independent artist navigating deals, releases, or industry questions, [submit your work and story to us](/submit) and keep an eye on our [events calendar](/events) for industry panels and artist rights conversations happening across LA.

This letter is a starting point, not a finish line. Watch to see which labels and publishers respond publicly, which AI companies make formal commitments, and whether policymakers move on copyright reform that reflects what artists are actually asking for.