Irving Azoff's Music Artists Coalition has joined a legal push over AI copyright rules, as OpenAI and Microsoft face a major court fight. The group, known as MAC, wants judges to hear how creators can license their work for AI use without having to deal with each deal by hand.
Cate Blanchett's Human Consent Foundation and talent agency CAA joined MAC in asking to submit their views. The case brings together copyright claims from book authors and other creators who say the tech firms used their work without consent.
At the heart of the dispute sits a key question. Can AI firms train their models on protected content without a license and still claim fair use under US law? Judge Sidney Stein must weigh requests from both sides for a ruling before trial.
The Human Consent Foundation points to tools that can help artists set rules for AI use. Its system lets creators state what machines may do with their work or likeness in a format software can read.
And the group argues that large-scale deals aren't some new hurdle. Music already has ways to clear rights through bodies such as CISAC and BMI. Its brief doesn't ask the court to favor either side.
Other backers range from Steven Soderbergh and Nick Hexum to voice actors, AI firm Writer, and the Creators Coalition on Artificial Intelligence. Madonna, Bette Midler, Anne Hathaway, and Emma Thompson also appear among the supporters.
The music trade groups take a firmer stance. RIAA, NMPA, ASCAP, BMI, and five allies want the judge to reject the tech firms' fair use claims. A2IM, Songwriters of North America, Black Music Action Coalition, Recording Academy, and Artist Rights Alliance make up the rest.
Their case is that AI firms copy protected songs and recordings to make output that may compete with human music. They also warn that listeners may struggle to tell a machine-made track from one made by an artist.
Microsoft sees broad AI training as a lawful use of source material. The music groups reject that view, saying a model can learn to copy the style of a John Grisham book or Stevie Wonder song, not just gain general skill.
Licensing is another big part of the row. Microsoft argues that finding and paying vast numbers of rights holders is hard and costly. The music groups point to deals as proof that it can work.
KLAY has deals with the three major record companies. Udio has deals with Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and Merlin, while Suno has linked up with Warner, BMG, and Believe.
ElevenLabs has also made deals with Universal, Kobalt, and Merlin. ASCAP and BMI offer another model through broad music licenses.
Then there's Deezer's data. The service says AI tracks make up more than half of its new music uploads, with daily volumes near 90,000. Music groups cite that growth as a risk for artists.
Elsewhere, the AI Coalition for Data Integrity and nine allies, such as AIMP and Music Workers Alliance, have backed the creators. Their filing points to German court rulings in GEMA's cases against OpenAI and Suno.
The American Federation of Musicians, SAG-AFTRA, and both Writers Guild branches filed a separate plea against a blanket fair use rule for AI training.
The US Justice Department takes a different view. It backs OpenAI's fair use case for text training and has raised the role of national security and US tech firms' ability to compete.
A separate US appeals court ruling in the Thomson Reuters dispute with Ross Intelligence also rejected a fair use defense. RIAA and NMPA had backed that case.
MAC has taken part in other AI rights fights as well. It backed music publishers in their case against Anthropic and joined 30 other groups in a call to stop labels from putting artists into AI deals by default.
A win for OpenAI or Microsoft could also give Suno, Udio, and Anthropic a ruling to cite in their legal cases. Sony Music has two pending claims against Udio in the same New York court.
No final call has come from Stein. The music groups are not suing for cash in this case, but they want the outcome to take into account creators' rights and the market for paid AI licenses.
Cate Blanchett's Human Consent Foundation and talent agency CAA joined MAC in asking to submit their views. The case brings together copyright claims from book authors and other creators who say the tech firms used their work without consent.
At the heart of the dispute sits a key question. Can AI firms train their models on protected content without a license and still claim fair use under US law? Judge Sidney Stein must weigh requests from both sides for a ruling before trial.
The Human Consent Foundation points to tools that can help artists set rules for AI use. Its system lets creators state what machines may do with their work or likeness in a format software can read.
And the group argues that large-scale deals aren't some new hurdle. Music already has ways to clear rights through bodies such as CISAC and BMI. Its brief doesn't ask the court to favor either side.
Other backers range from Steven Soderbergh and Nick Hexum to voice actors, AI firm Writer, and the Creators Coalition on Artificial Intelligence. Madonna, Bette Midler, Anne Hathaway, and Emma Thompson also appear among the supporters.
The music trade groups take a firmer stance. RIAA, NMPA, ASCAP, BMI, and five allies want the judge to reject the tech firms' fair use claims. A2IM, Songwriters of North America, Black Music Action Coalition, Recording Academy, and Artist Rights Alliance make up the rest.
Their case is that AI firms copy protected songs and recordings to make output that may compete with human music. They also warn that listeners may struggle to tell a machine-made track from one made by an artist.
Microsoft sees broad AI training as a lawful use of source material. The music groups reject that view, saying a model can learn to copy the style of a John Grisham book or Stevie Wonder song, not just gain general skill.
Licensing is another big part of the row. Microsoft argues that finding and paying vast numbers of rights holders is hard and costly. The music groups point to deals as proof that it can work.
KLAY has deals with the three major record companies. Udio has deals with Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and Merlin, while Suno has linked up with Warner, BMG, and Believe.
ElevenLabs has also made deals with Universal, Kobalt, and Merlin. ASCAP and BMI offer another model through broad music licenses.
Then there's Deezer's data. The service says AI tracks make up more than half of its new music uploads, with daily volumes near 90,000. Music groups cite that growth as a risk for artists.
Elsewhere, the AI Coalition for Data Integrity and nine allies, such as AIMP and Music Workers Alliance, have backed the creators. Their filing points to German court rulings in GEMA's cases against OpenAI and Suno.
The American Federation of Musicians, SAG-AFTRA, and both Writers Guild branches filed a separate plea against a blanket fair use rule for AI training.
The US Justice Department takes a different view. It backs OpenAI's fair use case for text training and has raised the role of national security and US tech firms' ability to compete.
A separate US appeals court ruling in the Thomson Reuters dispute with Ross Intelligence also rejected a fair use defense. RIAA and NMPA had backed that case.
MAC has taken part in other AI rights fights as well. It backed music publishers in their case against Anthropic and joined 30 other groups in a call to stop labels from putting artists into AI deals by default.
A win for OpenAI or Microsoft could also give Suno, Udio, and Anthropic a ruling to cite in their legal cases. Sony Music has two pending claims against Udio in the same New York court.
No final call has come from Stein. The music groups are not suing for cash in this case, but they want the outcome to take into account creators' rights and the market for paid AI licenses.
