Here’s a bombshell for the music industry: a new report is shaking up the debate on how AI-generated music should be licensed—and it’s not holding back. Commissioned by the IFPI, the global voice of the recording industry, this study from Compass Lexecon argues for a ‘bilateral’ licensing approach, where individual rightsholders negotiate directly with AI companies. But here’s where it gets controversial: it outright dismisses the idea of collective licensing, claiming it poses risks of underpayment and stifles competition. Is this a fair stance, or are we overlooking a more balanced solution?
The report, titled Generative AI Models at the Gate, doesn’t mince words. It insists that rightsholders must be fairly compensated when their music is used to train AI models—a point that’s hard to argue against. It also asserts that creators should have the right to opt out of having their work used in AI training, a stance that aligns with longstanding copyright principles. But this is the part most people miss: the report doubles down on the idea that bilateral deals offer greater flexibility, allowing both parties to tailor agreements to their needs. Think of recent partnerships between AI companies like Suno, Udio, and Stability AI with individual rightsholders—this is exactly what’s happening in real time.
However, the report’s dismissal of collective licensing raises eyebrows. Critics argue that collective models could simplify the process and ensure smaller creators aren’t left behind. The study counters that such an approach risks undervaluing creators and limiting innovation. Is this a valid concern, or are we prioritizing corporate interests over fairness?
What’s clear is that the AI music licensing debate is far from over. The report’s conclusions, while well-argued, leave room for interpretation—and plenty of room for disagreement. For instance, could a hybrid model, combining elements of both bilateral and collective licensing, offer the best of both worlds? And how will this impact the future of music creation and ownership?
We’d love to hear your thoughts. Do you agree with the report’s stance on bilateral licensing? Or do you think collective models deserve a seat at the table? Drop a comment below and let’s keep this conversation going. After all, the future of music—and who gets to shape it—is too important to ignore.
