The American Federation of Musicians, the biggest musicians union in the US, has launched an AI campaign called Human Made, Human Paid. It wants AI rules written into its next contract with the major labels: consent before training, credit and payment. That matters to anyone who plays on records or uses AI music tools. The reason is simple. This contract decides who gets paid when a recording becomes training data. Below you’ll find the musicians union’s AI demands, the timeline, the key clause and what to do now.
The musicians union AI demands in plain words
The AFM is the largest musicians union in the U.S., covering more than 80,000 professional artists, according to Rolling Stone. On Tuesday it launched Human Made, Human Paid. Think of it as the poster.
The real target is a contract. In November the union restarts talks on the Sound Recording Labor Agreement (SRLA), the written contract with the labels that sets things like royalty rates and healthcare for the musicians who play on their records.
The asks are specific. Union musicians want the right to approve or refuse AI training on their recordings, transparent credit, and payment for both AI use and the licensing deals labels sign. The list goes to Universal Music Group, Sony, Warner and Hollywood Records (Disney).
AFM International President Tino Gagliardi told Rolling Stone it comes down to “consent, credit, and compensation”. Three nouns. All starting with C. It may be the shortest contract in music history, and so far nobody has signed it.
What happened so far
The campaign is new. The fight underneath it isn’t.
- June 24, 2024: Universal, Warner and other labels sued Suno and Udio for copyright.
- October 2025: Universal settled with Udio.
- November 2025: Warner settled with Udio, then with Suno days later.
- June 5, 2026: the AFM sued Universal and Warner, MBW reported, over member recordings licensed to Suno and Udio without pay or credit, the same complaint the new campaign now turns into a bargaining demand.
- July 24, 2026: amended complaint.
- September 4, 2026: the AFM opposed the labels’ motions to dismiss.
- September 11, 2026: label replies close briefing.
- October 20, 2026: the campaign launches.
- Early November 2026: talks with the majors restart, per AFM Local 47.
Sony Music has not settled with either AI company and is not a party to the lawsuit. Still, it sits at the bargaining table in November, which means the musicians union’s AI demands land on its desk too.
The whole fight depends on one clause called Article 21
The musicians union’s AI lawsuit and its campaign both come back to one idea: the “new use”. Under Article 21(a) of the SRLA, when a label uses a recording for a purpose the agreement does not otherwise cover, the musicians on it are owed a new use payment. The musicians union says AI training is exactly that.
The labels see a gap. Warner argued that no AFM agreement covers AI licensing, so the provision “has nothing to point to, and there is no entitlement to payment.” Then came the awkward bit. Asked in court whether any such AI agreement exists, union lawyer Eyad Asad answered “We conceded that,” per Music Business Worldwide.
We read the 2017 version of the SRLA to see what a rate even looks like. (Yes, the whole PDF. No, we don’t recommend it.) For certain licence types, the new use fee is 3% of the company’s revenue from the licence, with a $100 minimum and a $3,500 maximum, which is a very precise answer to a 2017 question. It has no number for a machine that listens to the whole catalogue.
So the November talks matter more than the lawsuit. A judge enforces what the contract says. Bargaining writes what it doesn’t say yet.
Why the musicians union AI fight reaches creators who never signed anything
Most creators have never seen an SRLA. Its terms still flow into the tools they use. Billboard reports that Suno and Udio are both building new models based on licensed music. If the musicians union wins AI consent as a contract term, some recordings could need a yes before they go anywhere near a training set, and that changes what licensed models can learn from and how fast they ship.
Credit is the second lever the musicians union wants in any AI deal. Transparent credit means someone keeps a list of which recordings went into training. Today that list is mostly a guess. (We covered the takedowns it already causes and the lawsuit that came with Suno’s new models.)
There’s also a fine irony in the filings. The labels’ own 2024 complaints said AI firms create sounds that “substantially dilute the royalty pools paid out to artists”. Now the union quotes it back. It’s the legal version of reading someone’s diary aloud at their own dinner party.
What we think
The musicians union is right on principle about AI. The slogan also beats most label strategy decks. Consent, credit and pay are not anti-AI demands, and the people making them say so out loud: composer Will Wells, an AFM member, told Rolling Stone the campaign is not about the “villainization” of AI but about whether music stays a viable career. Right frame. Nobody is asking to switch the models off. They want to see the bill.
A small tangent. The current SRLA packet defines “Musicians” broadly enough to include anyone who makes a computer, sequencer, synthesizer or other instrument produce music or sound. So the person programming the drum machine has been a musician, contractually, for years. Anyway.
Our bias, stated openly. Mubert generates music from samples that artists upload and get paid for, so consent and payment are simply how our input works, not a clause we’d have to be talked into at a bargaining table. We’ve made plenty of mistakes building that pipeline. Asking permission was never one of them. That’s the part the labels are now being asked to put in writing.
Where we’re less sure: what happens to those 80,000 musicians if the union’s AI talks drag on. Contracts move slowly. Model releases don’t. A deal signed in 2027 won’t cover recordings already licensed in 2025, unless the court reads Article 21 the union’s way.
What musicians and creators can do while the union bargains over AI
If you’ve played major-label sessions, ask your AFM local whether they fell under the SRLA. Ask what the union’s AI demands for musicians include, too. Keep your own session records anyway. Dates, labels, titles. If the credit demand wins, someone will need to match names to recordings, and given how the industry has kept those lists so far, that someone might well be you.
If you make videos, streams or games with AI music, save your tool’s terms with the date. Licence terms tied to label deals can change when those deals change. Watch two dates. The ruling on the motions to dismiss, and the first week of November.
We’ll update this post when either one moves. Until then, the musicians union’s AI position fits in four words. The labels’ lawyers have needed a great many more than four, spread across motions, replies and one awkward hearing, to explain why those words don’t apply yet.
Who we are
