Artists and songwriters warn AI deals: no default opt-ins, no forced AI clauses

On June 22, a worldwide coalition of artists, songwriters, and managers' groups released a letter aimed at record labels and publishers negotiating AI music licensing deals. The message is blunt: stop the misuse of artists' rights in AI deals. And the specific line they draw is about training, not just outputs. The letter argues that labels and publishers are treating AI training as something artists and songwriters are opted into by default, with little actual choice.

This is happening while a flurry of licensing announcements has been made between publishers, labels, and AI music companies over the past year, including deals involving Suno, Udio, ElevenLabs, and others. The coalition points to licensing activity like Warner Music Group's deals with Suno, Klay, Udio and others; Universal Music Group's deals with Udio, Spotify, Klay and others; Sony Music's deal with Klay; and partnerships involving Merlin and Kobalt with Udio and ElevenLabs. The headline takeaway for decision-makers is that these announcements are not addressing the training question in a way artists say they can understand or meaningfully control.

The letter lands against a backdrop Billboard described in April. In that reporting, multiple top talent attorneys were said to have been made aware that labels and publishers could feasibly use common contract language in U.S. record deals, specifically related to blanket licensing and exploitation, to opt in artists' works to train AI partners' models without seeking individual artist approval. One cited position in that reporting was that “Some of the labels have already taken the position that they technically don't need special approvals to train.” The coalition is effectively challenging that logic, insisting that artists and songwriters are not being consulted in the way licensing for AI training requires.

Part of the dispute is semantic in practice, but not in impact. Billboard's April reporting included comments explaining the difference being drawn between inputs and outputs. Audrey Benoualid, a partner at Myman Greenspan Fox Rosenberg Mobasser Younger & Light, told Billboard then that artists are increasingly concerned about being opted in to AI-related uses by default, with little choice. “We’re seeing a differentiation between the way training - or inputs - and outputs are treated,” she said. The coalition's letter reflects that exact concern: artists and songwriters may be offered choices about their name, image, or likeness in relation to AI outputs, but training is described as a separate area that is “never mentioned” in many AI deal announcements.

The letter also points to concrete contract language that has been added to some agreements. Billboard previously reported clauses from BMG, Sony, and Believe, including a provision that allowed the “unlimited, exclusive rights” for Sony-owned dance label B1 Recordings to “use the recording in models and systems of generative artificial intelligence and applications based thereon, including generative AI, including [but] not limited to the analysis of the Recording for the purpose of extracting information on patterns, trends and correlations (AI training).” Whether one views these clauses as legally defensible, the coalition frames them as creating a serious imbalance: artists and songwriters are being asked to give permission without sufficient information, clear terms, or guaranteed remuneration.

The coalition is not just complaining about process. It lays out three core principles they want respected by record companies, publishers, policy makers, AI companies, digital platforms, and others involved in these deals: “Consent and control,” “fair compensation,” and “clarity and transparency.” Under consent and control, the letter says artists and songwriters must actively and specifically consent before their works, voice, performance, likeness, or creative identity is used in connection with AI. It explicitly calls out that consent cannot be buried in broad catch-all contract language, must not include rights in perpetuity, and cannot be imposed through default opt-ins or be a condition of signing a new deal. It also demands an ability to say no without fear of penalization.

On fair compensation, the coalition argues that when artists and songwriters choose to participate, they must receive fair and meaningful remuneration, share in the value created, and be consulted on which percentage of revenue goes to the creator, to the label, and to the AI company. On clarity and transparency, the letter calls for purpose-specific requests: clear, timely, understandable information on which rights are included, what uses are permitted, the safeguards in place, duration of permission, and how consent can be withdrawn.

Then the letter gets very specific about what it wants companies to publicly commit to in AI licensing deals. It calls for “No default opt-ins. No forced AI clauses. No use of artists’ work, voice, performance, likeness or creative identity without meaningful consent, fair remuneration and full transparency.” That “no” list matters strategically because it is essentially a governance framework for contract design. For executives in music, platforms, and adjacent AI businesses, the immediate implication is that future deals may require not only approvals but also new disclosure and opt-in mechanics that go beyond what some current licensing announcements emphasize.

At a time when policymakers are reviewing copyright rules in response to AI, the coalition argues that protection of artists’ and songwriters’ rights, voices, and remuneration is not negotiable and that the structures being created now will shape the music ecosystem for years to come. The letter concludes with a simple thesis: the future of music must be built with artists, songwriters and their representatives, not imposed on them. For boards and senior deal teams, that is a signal to expect more friction, more bargaining, and more scrutiny over how “permission” is operationalized, especially around training rights.