Two groups representing independent music publishers, IMPEL and IMPF, have published a joint set of principles for licensing songs to generative AI companies, and want collecting societies and other licensors to back them. The framework covers how AI money is split between rights, what each kind of use is paid for, and how trust is built into the process.
The point they call non-negotiable is value: when an AI deal splits money between publishing and master rights, the song should be worth at least as much as the recording unless other factors justify otherwise.
Deals should also pay separately for past use, training, outputs and future exploitation, with deductions disclosed and justified. Transparency should run through the licensing process, and the groups see technology helping with clear terms, reporting duties and oversight by rightsholders. Systems for attributing and valuing works used in training and output must be agreed with rightsholders, and AI music made downstream should keep paying the songs behind the model.
IMPEL chief Sarah Williams spoke of setting a precedent at an inflection point for the business; IMPF president Annette Barrett called the song the keystone that needs protecting. Both ask AI firms to build the market with independent writers involved.
Sources · 1