The biggest musicians union in North America has picked a fight over who gets paid when record labels license music to AI companies. On 20 October (US time) the American Federation of Musicians (AFM), which represents more than 80,000 professional musicians in the US and Canada, launched a campaign called “Human Made, Human Paid”. It demands “consent, credit and compensation” whenever musicians’ recordings are used to train AI models or are included in AI licensing deals, and it lands two weeks before the union goes back to the bargaining table with Universal Music Group, Sony Music, Warner and Disney’s Hollywood Records.
What the AFM is asking for
The campaign is built around the union’s Sound Recording Labor Agreement (SRLA), the contract that covers major-label recordings made in the US and Canada and sets terms such as royalty rates and healthcare. According to Complete Music Update, the AFM says that “after four rounds of bargaining sessions, negotiations remain ongoing and stalled as the union pushes for contractual guardrails” on AI. Talks resume on 3 November 2026.
The union says it has “three non-negotiable requirements whenever human audio or artistry is used in AI models”:
- Consent: musicians must have “the explicit right to permit or refuse the use of their work for AI training”.
- Credit: “creators must be fully and transparently recognised for their performances”.
- Compensation: “musicians must receive fair payment whenever their work generates value in AI systems or licensing deals”.
It is also seeking “strict contractual safeguards to prevent major record labels from using AI to undercut musician agency, replace human labour or exploit recorded tracks”. The campaign website includes a petition and says the union is “not here to fight technology or tools for music creation”.
“The record labels cannot pocket profits built on the backs of human artistry while cutting working musicians out of the equation. Human Made, Human Paid is about consent, credit, and compensation.” — Tino Gagliardi, AFM International President, to Rolling Stone
Why the union is going after AI licensing money
Over the past year the majors have moved from suing AI music companies to licensing them. Universal Music Group settled its copyright case with Udio in October 2025 and agreed to build a licensed AI music service with it. Warner Music Group settled with Udio in November 2025 and days later became the first major to settle with Suno. Sony Music has not settled with either company, and Universal is still in litigation with Suno. Labels have also signed up to licensed AI tools on streaming services, such as Spotify’s planned AI covers and remixes feature.
The AFM’s complaint is about where that money goes. In campaign material quoted by Complete Music Update, the union says that “while major labels publicly warn that AI generated music risks replacing human artists, they simultaneously license their catalogues to AI platforms for massive corporate payouts while paying recording musicians zero”. The labels have not publicly disclosed how income from their AI deals is shared, and CMU notes that there is “no industry consensus” on how it should work.
Session musicians are the most exposed. Featured artists can negotiate AI terms in their own record or distribution contracts, and songwriters may benefit through publishers and collecting societies. But as CMU points out, session players whose performances sit inside existing recordings are likely to depend on union-led deals like the SRLA, or on changes to copyright law, to see any share of AI income.
AFM member Will Wells, a composer and producer, told Rolling Stone the demands are not about the “villainization” of AI. “We are pro-human creators and pro compensation for our labor,” he said. “We don’t want to stop the advancement of technology. We just want to make sure that people can have a viable career.”
The court case running alongside the talks
The campaign is not the union’s first move. In June 2026 the AFM sued Universal Music Group and Warner in federal court in New York, alleging that the companies breached the SRLA by licensing recordings made by its members to Suno and Udio without paying or crediting them. Warner Records and Atlantic Recording Corp. replaced the Warner parent company as defendants in an amended complaint. Sony Music is not a party.
The case turns on Article 21(a) of the SRLA, a “new use” clause covering the use of a recording “for a purpose not covered by this Agreement”. The union argues that AI licensing is exactly that kind of new use and should trigger payment. Universal and Warner Records disagree and have asked the court to dismiss the claim. According to Music Business Worldwide, Universal argues that the clause imports a rate from a separate AFM agreement for the new purpose and that the union has conceded no such agreement exists for AI. “A payment obligation measured by an agreement that does not exist is no payment obligation at all,” Universal’s lawyers wrote. Warner’s lawyers argued that musicians on the recordings were already paid the agreement’s base session rates and that “collective bargaining on this very issue is currently underway”.
Briefing on the motions to dismiss closed on 11 September. No ruling has been reported, and none of the union’s claims has been tested in court.
What happens next
The next marker is 3 November, when SRLA negotiations resume. The campaign is designed, in the union’s words, to build “collective leverage at the bargaining table, in court, and across the industry”. Watch for whether the labels respond publicly, whether any AI terms make it into a new agreement and whether the New York court rules on the motions to dismiss before a deal is reached.
Why it matters
For AI music creators
Licensed AI music is becoming the industry’s preferred model, and licensed tools are only as stable as the deals behind them. If the musicians on the recordings in those deals win consent rights, some catalogue could be withdrawn from AI training or AI features, and the cost of licensed tools could change. Knowing what a tool was trained on, and on what terms, is becoming part of choosing one.
For Australian artists and session players
The SRLA covers recordings made in the US and Canada, but the question is global: when a label licenses a catalogue to an AI company, do the people who played on those records get a say or a share? Australia is having its own version of that debate over AI training and copyright, which we covered in Australia’s AI copyright opt-out fight. Australian musicians signing deals now should check what their contracts say about AI use of their recordings.
For listeners
“Human made” is becoming a selling point, from Spotify’s push to put human artistry first to chart rules that require AI recordings to be substantially human-made. Unions and labels are now arguing over what that label is worth in money, not just in marketing.
Following AI music on Dizy
Dizy is built on disclosure: artists declare whether a track is AI-assisted or AI-generated when they submit, and listeners decide what rises. See the Overall Top 40, browse New releases and AI artists, or submit your track. For the streaming side of the human-versus-AI debate, read Spotify Pulls 50M AI Slop Tracks From Recommendations, and for the labels’ fight with Suno, see Suno Lawsuit: Labels Want Investor Lightspeed to Testify.
Sources
American Federation of Musicians: Human Made, Human Paid campaign site (October 2026)
