Updates on Artists Defending Their Works Against AI Ripoffs

AFM Sues Major Labels Over Unapproved AI Licensing Deals

The music industry’s uneasy relationship with AI escalated again this week as the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) filed suit against Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group, accusing both majors of violating the “new use” clause in the Sound Recording Labor Agreement. According to the AFM, the labels struck licensing deals with AI companies Udio and Suno without notifying or compensating the session musicians whose performances are now being ingested to train generative models. The union argues that these AI uses clearly qualify as a “new use” requiring disclosure and payment—especially ironic given that the same labels previously sued these AI companies for exploiting recordings without permission.

Google Claims YouTube Uploads Give It Permission for AI Training

At the same time, Google is advancing a far more aggressive position in its own AI litigation. In a recent court filing, Google argued that independent artists effectively granted the company permission to use their music for AI training simply by uploading it to YouTube. Pointing to YouTube’s broad, royalty‑free, sublicensable license in its Terms of Service, Google claims it is fully authorized to use uploaded tracks to train its Lyria music‑generation model—no additional permission, compensation, or transparency required. For artists, the message is blunt: if you uploaded your music directly to YouTube, Google believes it can use that work to build competing AI tools. This is why you should always read Terms of Service!

What These Cases Mean for Artist Rights in the AI Era

Together, these developments highlight a widening gap between corporate AI strategy and artist rights. Major labels are cutting lucrative AI deals while leaving performers in the dark, and tech platforms are leaning on sweeping boilerplate terms to justify unlicensed training. For musicians, the stakes are clear: AI companies and rightsholders are rapidly monetizing catalogs in ways existing agreements never contemplated. As these lawsuits move forward, they will help define whether artists retain meaningful control over how their recordings are used—or whether AI training becomes yet another revenue stream that bypasses the creators who make the music possible.

How Yosick Law Protects Artists in an AI‑Driven Industry

At Yosick Law, we help artists navigate exactly these kinds of emerging risks. From reviewing label and distribution agreements to tightening your platform rights, we make sure your music isn’t quietly funneled into AI systems without your consent. And if your recordings or likeness are already being used in ways you didn’t authorize, we can help you understand your options and take action to protect your rights. Reach out for a free consultation!