AFM opposes Universal and Warner motions to dismiss over AI licensing of recordings

# What happened

Musicians (AFM) filed an opposition on September 4 in a New York federal court to motions by Universal Music Group, Warner Records and Atlantic Recording Corp. that sought dismissal of the AFM's lawsuit. The union alleges the labels licensed recordings featuring AFM members to AI companies — specifically Suno and Udio — without compensating or notifying the musicians involved.

# Why the contract matters

The case turns on Article 21(a) of the Sound Recording Labor Agreement (SRLA), the collective bargaining contract between the union and the labels. Article 21(a) covers what the SRLA calls a "new use" of a recording: a use not already covered by the contract. The AFM's position is that licensing recordings to be fed into AI systems for training and commercial music generation is a new use that triggers notification and payment obligations under the SRLA.

Universal and Warner counter that Article 21(a) does not independently establish a payment rate for new uses and instead refers to rates in other agreements. Because there is no existing, separate agreement that specifically addresses AI uses, the labels say there is no automatic payment obligation that the court should enforce now. Warner and Atlantic have made similar dismissal arguments.

# Evidence the union highlights

# Labels' legal strategy

In seeking dismissal, the labels frame the dispute as a contractual question that should be resolved in their favor because the SRLA's payment mechanics depend on other agreements. Their filings argue courts should end the lawsuit now rather than allow prolonged litigation. The AFM's opposition stresses that Article 21(a)'s wording is at least open to multiple interpretations, and where contract language is ambiguous the court should allow factual development and enforcement proceedings to go forward.

# What this means beyond the parties

If the court allows the AFM's case to proceed, it will press a broader question for performers and smaller contributors: whether existing labor and recording contracts already cover AI-driven uses of recorded music, or whether new agreements are needed. That outcome would influence how labels negotiate future AI licensing and how session musicians, independent artists and producers expect to be notified and compensated when recordings are licensed for model training or generation.

# Next steps and immediate stakes

# Practical takeaways for musicians

• Read your recording agreements and any union-covered contract language that mentions new or additional uses.

• Follow this litigation for precedent on notification and compensation rights tied to AI uses of recorded performances.