When it comes to the use of music in AI training, both tech companies and rightsholders in the music industry must respect every music-maker’s right to consent, control and compensation. Make it fair – just ask us first!
THE MUSIC-MAKER POSITION
The organisations that make up the Council Of Music Makers are campaigning to ensure that the rights of music-makers are respected by AI companies, and by rightsholders in the music industry that are negotiating deals with AI companies.
We published our five fundamentals for music and AI in September 2023, participated in government roundtables on copyright and AI in 2023 and 2024, and made a submission to the UK government’s consultation on copyright and AI in February 2025.
Our core ask is that copyright law should be strengthened to ensure music-makers – and creators in all artforms – have consent, control and compensation when their creativity is exploited by both tech companies and rightsholders in the context of AI.
Transparency measures should also be introduced into copyright law obliging AI companies to be fully transparent about what music has been used to train their models. Music-makers also need full transparency from their business partners about the use of their music in AI training.
Extracts from our submission to the government’s consultation providing more detail about these requirements are published below…
THE OBLIGATIONS OF AI COMPANIES
Many generative AI models are trained using datasets that contain copyright protected works created by music-makers, including songs, recordings, images and video. In many scenarios this training is done without the consent of music-makers.
It is unconscionable that billion dollar AI tech companies should be allowed to exploit decades worth of investment and creativity from millions of British music-makers, without getting permission and free of charge, to develop AI models that will compete with the same music-makers.
This conduct infringes copyright and other music-maker rights.
Our core position is simple…
- Music-maker consent must always be secured before any music is used to train an AI model.
- Music-makers must have control over how their music is used by AI companies and platforms.
- Music-makers must receive fair compensation when their music is exploited by AI.
THE OBLIGATIONS OF RIGHTSHOLDERS
Music-makers often work with business partners to manage and commercialise the copyrights in their work, including record labels, music distributors, music publishers and collecting societies.
Music-makers often assign or license certain specific rights to these different business partners via written agreements. We will refer to these business partners as rightsholders.
Both AI companies and rightsholders must respect our core position and ensure that music-makers always have consent, control and compensation when their music is used to train generative AI models.
Where AI companies seek consent from rightsholders, those rightsholders must first ensure they have secured explicit and meaningful consent from music-makers before entering into any licensing deals with the AI companies.
This consent cannot be assumed to have been granted via generic terms in old agreements. The use of music to train generative AI models is a new usage, which has exceptional and unprecedented impact on human creators and explicit meaningful consent must always be secured.
The process for securing this consent may differ for different groups of music-makers, and processes can be developed within the industry that ensure all music-makers are fairly compensated.
Additionally, consent for AI training is a broad concept, and permission for usage must be adequately detailed and specific rather than a general assignment for all purposes.
TRANSPARENCY
Transparency measures should be introduced into copyright law to support good licensing practices.
Without transparency, it becomes harder to track whether AI developers are exploiting copyrighted materials without permission. Music-makers also need full transparency from their business partners about the use of their music in AI training.
These measures should NOT be contingent on the introduction of a new text and data mining copyright exception, as has been previously proposed.
DIGITAL REPLICAS
It is vital that music-makers have control over their voice and image in the context of digital replicas.
First, there are significant concerns that digital replicas will result in misappropriation and false endorsement, potentially causing harm to the reputation and personality of music-makers.
Second, the commercialisation of digital replicas is potentially an important opportunity for both music-makers and AI companies, fueling growth in both the music industry and the AI sector, but a solid legal framework is required to properly capitalise on this opportunity whilst minimising the potential risks.
There are currently various legal instruments protecting individuals from misappropriation or false endorsement, including the tort of passing off and trademark law. However, we believe stronger protection is required in this domain and urge the government to consider the introduction of a new right directly relating to digital replicas.
In the US, the Copyright Office has explicitly recommended federal legislative action on this. Meanwhile the bipartisan NO FAKES ACT, which entered the House Of Representatives in July 2024, looks to create a federal property right for every individual to control their own voice and likeness.
Important consideration has been given during the drafting of the NO FAKES ACT as to how individuals might commercialise this new right. Business partners will likely play an important part in pursuing that opportunity, but it is vital that the law protects individuals from exploitation.
To that end, under the NO FAKES ACT the new right would not be assignable during the lifetime of the individual, and licensing deals in relation to the new right would be limited to ten year terms and would require a “reasonably specific description of the intended uses of the applicable digital replica”.
We recommend that the UK government investigate these proposals and consider introducing a similar new digital replica right under UK law, with similar protections regarding the licensing of the new right to protect individuals from exploitation.