Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Bombastus, post: 91668, member: 2178"] AFM new-use fees come from union contracts, while copyright royalties arise from the exploitation of copyrighted material under separate licensing rules. The distinction matters because owning or controlling a master does not automatically settle every payment obligation attached to the people who recorded it. A label can have authority to license a sound recording and still owe money under a collective bargaining agreement. Universal’s own film and television licensing guidance reflects the split by warning customers that its sound-recording quotes do not include third-party AFM or SAG-AFTRA payments that a particular use may require. The same separation sits underneath [B][URL='https://goldmidi.com/community/threads/afm-opposed-umgs-and-warners-ai-licensing-dismissal-bids.77084/']the AFM fight over licensed AI recordings[/URL][/B]. The union is not asking the court to hand musicians ownership of Universal or Warner masters. It alleges that signatory labels breached the Sound Recording Labor Agreement after exercising licensing power they already possessed. [HEADING=2]Copyright permission and labor payment answer different problems[/HEADING] A master-use license answers a permission question. It tells a licensee whether the party controlling a particular sound recording will authorize the proposed use, normally subject to whatever limits, territory, term, and fee the parties negotiate. An AFM new-use obligation answers a labor question instead. The SRLA can require additional compensation when musicians’ covered recorded work moves into a new medium or purpose, even though the employer or another rights holder controls the master copyright. One right opens the door to use the recording. The other can determine what the employer owes because it opened that door. AFM Local 47 has put the distinction plainly in guidance for musicians. Copyright royalties are based on copyrighted material, while original session, reuse, and new-use fees come from contracts filed for the recording and later use. Treating every payment as a royalty blurs two different legal pipes. Federal copyright rules add another layer. A sound recording can contain copyrightable contributions from performers and producers, but ownership depends on authorship, work-for-hire rules, assignments, and contracts. A musician therefore does not need to be the person granting the master license for a separate contractual payment right to matter. [HEADING=2]The label’s license price is not the musician’s whole deal[/HEADING] This becomes clearer when you look at ordinary synchronization licensing rather than AI. Universal tells licensees that its quote for use of a recording does not include third-party union obligations and directs users separately to AFM or SAG-AFTRA for applicable fees. Commercial practice therefore already recognizes two ledgers. The label can negotiate the price for access to its recording while union rules create additional costs connected to performers. Paying the first bill does not prove the second one is zero. The SRLA’s assumption-agreement system makes the separation even more concrete. When covered content moves into a medium outside the agreement, the employer’s payment obligation can be transferred to the licensee through approved paperwork. A transfer would make little sense if control of the master alone automatically swallowed the labor obligation. Session musicians often occupy the sharpest edge of this structure because their economic position can depend heavily on contract terms rather than ownership of the master. [B][URL='https://doi.org/10.1080/03007766.2017.1348660']Research on performers and recording remuneration[/URL][/B] has documented how performers can contribute the creative labor heard on a recording while holding weaker ownership positions than songwriters or record companies. [HEADING=2]The AI case is a contract case before it is anything else[/HEADING] The AFM filed its current action under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act. Its core allegation is breach of the SRLA, not a demand that the court decide whether the union owns the defendants’ recording copyrights. Suno and Udio are not the defendants in this case. Universal, Warner Records, and Atlantic are targeted because the AFM says those companies were bound by the labor agreement when they licensed covered recordings without the required notice and compensation. The labels can still argue that Article 21 does not reach generative AI, that no applicable rate exists, or that the particular transactions fall outside the union’s reading of new use. Those are substantial contract fights. Master ownership does not answer them by itself. The practical difference is easy to miss when a licensing announcement says a company has “cleared” a catalog for AI. Clearance can describe permission from the copyright controller without proving every downstream labor obligation has been discharged. The same recording can carry a master right, composition rights, performer-related obligations, and private contractual duties at the same time. For a session musician, the useful question is not whether the label was allowed to sign the AI license. The sharper question is what the label promised under the agreement governing the musician’s recorded work when it exercised that licensing power. [/QUOTE]

Name