Technology news and discussion on TalkFuse.
UMG asks court to dismiss US musicians’ union lawsuit over Udio AI deal
Universal Music Group has filed a motion asking a US federal court to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) over UMG's licensing of members' recordings to AI music platform Udio. UMG argues that the union's collective bargaining agreement sets no fixed rate for using recordings to train generative AI, meaning the claim fails as a matter of law. The case is significant because it tests how existing music industry labour agreements apply to the fast-growing area of AI-generated music, and could shape how artists are compensated for this new use of their work.
The AFM sued UMG and Warner Music in June, alleging recordings were licensed to AI firms Udio and Suno without compensation or credit; UMG has since settled with Udio, while Warner has settled with both Udio and Suno. The dispute centres on Article 21(a) of the Sound Recording Labor Agreement, covering "new uses" of recordings, with UMG arguing that the clause requires a separate agreement setting a rate before payment is owed, and no such AI-specific agreement exists. At a pre-motion hearing, Judge Edgardo Ramos questioned why UMG shouldn't pay artists given it benefits from the AI licensing deals, comparing the situation to how rap sampling disputes were eventually resolved through negotiation.
In short
- UMG seeks dismissal of AFM lawsuit over Udio AI licensing deal
- UMG says its union contract sets no rate for AI training use
- Judge compared the dispute to how rap sampling was resolved
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The musicians' union contends that UMG should compensate artists whose recordings were licensed to AI companies under the existing collective bargaining agreement's "new uses" clause. They argue that when UMG profits from licensing recorded music to AI platforms, fairness demands the artists whose creative work enabled those profits share in the compensation—a principle with historical precedent in how the music industry resolved sampling disputes through negotiated payments.
The case against
UMG argues their collective bargaining agreement requires a separately negotiated rate schedule before payment obligations arise for new uses, and since no AI-specific rate agreement was established between the parties, the contract cannot obligate compensation as a matter of law. They contend this is straightforward contractual interpretation: the union agreed to these terms, and if it wished to ensure compensation for emerging technologies, it should have negotiated AI-specific provisions accordingly.
Explained simply
The American Federation of Musicians (AFM) is a union representing musicians who perform on sound recordings. Its agreements with record companies set terms for how members’ recordings can be used. The dispute concerns a clause on “new uses” of recordings and whether it covers using them to train AI music systems.
UMG and Warner Music licensed recordings to AI companies Udio and Suno. The AFM says musicians should receive compensation and credit for those uses; UMG argues its agreement does not set a payment rate for AI training. The case could affect how existing music contracts apply to AI and how musicians are paid when their recordings are used this way.
AI Americas Entertainment Music Technology World