Friday Jun 12
ENTERTAINMENTOther

Musicians Union Sues Universal And Warner

12JUN
WHO GETS PAID?PLAYERSAI MUSIC

Session musicians want their cut of the AI money. Their union sued Universal and Warner for licensing recordings to Suno and Udio without paying players. The fight shifted from labels-vs-AI to artists-vs-labels.

The complaint lands in Manhattan federal court. The gap: the 2025 deals protected studio revenue but skipped the people who actually recorded the tracks.

The split is inputs versus outputs. Studios promise opt-in approval for new songs. None promised it for feeding old catalogs into training.

Sony is the lone holdout, still in court. The grievance leans on a 'new uses' clause. Rival guilds are watching the test.

full brief & sources

⚡ Why this matters

  • First time a union sues the labels, not the AI firms, over training money.
  • Tests whether old contract clauses cover AI training data.
  • Signals the next AI-rights fight is about splitting the settlement, not whether to settle.

🔍 What happened

  • Filed June 5 in the Southern District of New York.
  • AFM represents session and backing musicians.
  • Universal settled with Udio in fall 2025; Warner settled with both Suno and Udio.
  • Sony still hasn't settled with either company.
  • AFM wants to know which recordings feed the AI training sets.
  • Both Suno and Udio models are still in development.

💬 Smart takes

  • AFM complaint: the labels 'refused to compensate the musicians whose work ... is fed into AI machines for profit.'
  • Universal: 'The AFM chose this route during our collective bargaining negotiations,' calling the suit premature.
  • Warner: 'disappointed by the AFM's unproductive action amid our ongoing negotiations.'
  • Skeptic: labels may lean on blanket license clauses, the same ones used for TikTok, to authorize AI training without individual sign-off.

🧭 Where this goes

  1. Likelythe case hinges on whether 'new uses' covers AI training inputs.
  2. Likelyother creative unions watch and copy the contract argument.
  3. Possiblelabels settle quietly with AFM to avoid setting a precedent.
  4. Possibleartists win disclosure of which songs trained the models.
  5. Wild Carda court rules training data needs fresh per-artist consent, reopening every label-AI deal.

🥄 The Spoon Take

The music-AI war just turned inward. For two years it was labels suing AI companies. Now the people who played the notes are suing the labels. The real question isn't whether AI can use the catalog. It's who gets paid when it does.

🤔 Pushback

Union grievances over contract clauses usually settle in negotiation, so this may end as leverage for the next bargaining round, not a landmark ruling.

·Billboard - AFM lawsuit·Hollywood Reporter - Union sues labels·Digital Music News - UMG/WMG suit