A fundamental fight over who gets paid when vintage tracks feed computer models is playing out in federal court. Universal Music Group and Warner Records have asked a judge to throw out a lawsuit brought by the American Federation of Musicians, which claims the labels violated labor agreements by licensing master recordings to generative music startups without paying session performers.
The dispute centers on commercial platforms like Suno and Udio, which produce full pieces of music from short text prompts. The union filed suit on the grounds that supplying studio recordings to these systems amounts to a distinct new use under the Sound Recording Labor Agreement. Under that pact, record companies are required to notify the union and compensate session players whenever a recording is directed toward an application that was not originally covered or anticipated. Because the performers gave the original takes their character, the AFM contends they should receive notice and their share of the income.
The record labels take a strictly technical view of the text. In their motion to dismiss, Universal argued that the union has misunderstood how the labor contract actually functions. According to company attorneys, the relevant provision, Article 21(a), does not set an automatic payment rate. Instead, the clause depends on rates defined in a separate agreement negotiated between the union and labels specifically for that new purpose. Because no side agreement covering artificial intelligence was ever hammered out, the labels claim there is no legal basis to demand compensation.
That argument gained ground during a July 21 pre-motion conference before US District Judge Edgardo Ramos. When Judge Ramos asked whether any collective bargaining agreement addressing artificial intelligence was actually in place, union attorney Eyad Asad acknowledged that no such document existed. Universal seized on that admission, telling the court that this single point should resolve the matter immediately, since legal discovery cannot produce an agreement that both sides agree was never drafted.
The motion to dismiss comes during a confusing time for corporate music strategies. Last year, Universal, Warner, and Sony Music Entertainment presented a united front, suing Suno and Udio for copyright infringement on a sweeping scale. Not long after, Warner broke ranks by striking a direct licensing deal with Suno. That agreement resolved the initial infringement claims and set up a system where people can pay to download computer-assisted tracks, while allowing opt-in artists and songwriters to protect their likeness, control audio usage, and collect payments.
Session musicians are far from the only creators pushing back against these models. Earlier this month, a coalition of musicians including Jason Isbell filed a separate suit against Suno, arguing that the service allows users to mimic distinct artist styles and identities without authorization. Abroad, German performance rights group GEMA secured an infringement win against Suno by proving that classic tracks, including Lou Bega's Mambo No. 5, Alphaville's Forever Young, and Boney M's Daddy Cool, were fed into the company's training systems without permission or songwriter compensation. That court decision made clear that commercial authorization is mandatory before any GEMA catalog material can be digested.
The clash between the AFM and the labels cuts straight to the economic future of background musicians. If the court rules that feeding classic recordings into generative systems falls outside existing labor protections, session players risk being shut out from the profits derived from their own foundational work.
