<\/p>\n
Record labels are increasingly embedding AI rights clauses in artist agreements, transforming a niche legal issue into a routine negotiation point, raising questions about artist control and consent across the industry.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Record labels are increasingly trying to build artificial intelligence rights into artist contracts, turning what was once a niche legal concern into a live negotiating point. Billboard reported that the issue surfaced for artist manager Jimmy Hession in March, when a Sony-owned dance label sent terms for producer Paul Harris that included unusually broad permission to use his recording for AI training. After pushback, the sides reached a compromise that gave Harris approval rights over training uses, though not over wider catalogue-wide licences that Sony might sign elsewhere.<\/p>\n
That kind of language is beginning to appear in other deals too. Billboard said B1 Recordings had used similar wording in a separate agreement, while French company Believe and BMG have also used contract clauses that explicitly refer to AI training, testing and the exploitation of AI-generated output. In the BMG example described by the publication, the wording went further, barring AI-manipulated deliveries, restricting re-recordings that mimic an artist\u2019s voice and reserving adaptation rights that could cover remixes or other AI-assisted alterations.<\/p>\n
The push comes as labels and distributors move closer to AI music companies. Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group settled litigation with Udio and later struck licensing arrangements, while Kobalt and Merlin also followed with deals, according to Billboard. Warner then reached a separate settlement and licensing agreement with Suno. The industry\u2019s public line has been that such deals are meant to licence artists\u2019 work properly and create new revenue, but the effect has been to make AI training a routine topic in record negotiations.<\/p>\n
Lawyers say the market is still unsettled. Talent lawyer Avi Dahan told Billboard that he has seen these clauses appear in some recent contracts, but there is not yet a standard approach. Colin Morrissey, an artist lawyer at Granderson Des Rochers, said such provisions are beginning to creep into newer agreements, especially with smaller distributors and tech-oriented companies, though he said they remain uncommon in major-label deals. Several attorneys also said they are increasingly focused on securing approval rights for clients, even where labels may argue the underlying contract already gives them enough scope to train AI systems.<\/p>\n
A key reason the issue has emerged so sharply in Europe is that some jurisdictions require rights to be spelled out with precision. Estelle Derclay, a professor at the University of Nottingham, told Billboard that many European countries demand specific drafting rather than broad catch-all language. By contrast, U.S. and UK agreements often rely on expansive exploit rights and blanket licensing language, which some lawyers now believe could be used to feed catalogue material into AI training without separate artist consent. That is why \u201copt-in\u201d has become such an important phrase in the sector: executives frame it as a way to preserve artist choice, but advocates worry that training and outputs are not always treated the same way in practice. Even so, several lawyers told Billboard they expect labels to keep asking for consent, not least because AI remains such a sensitive issue for artists.<\/p>\n
Inspired by headline at:<\/strong> [1]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n Sources by paragraph:<\/strong><\/p>\n