INSIDE THE BX
JUNE 10, 2025
-
AI-generated music is here—and so is the backlash.
Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music have filed lawsuits against two AI companies, Udio and Suno, for allegedly using copyrighted sound recordings to train their models without permission. These lawsuits aren’t just about protecting current catalogs. They’re about drawing a legal line around what’s off-limits in the AI era.
According to the complaints, the AI platforms trained on songs they didn’t license. Songs written and performed by real artists, under real contracts, with real rights.
The labels (backed by the Recording Industry Association of America) are now asking courts to confirm that’s copyright infringement, plain and simple.
So what does this mean?
1. Copyright Doesn’t End at the Studio Door
Just because AI can copy a sound doesn’t mean it can legally use it. Whether a song is played by a human or used to teach a computer, it’s still protected by copyright. And using copyrighted work to train an algorithm without permission? That’s where these lawsuits are drawing the line.This isn’t just about protecting Drake or Billie Eilish. It’s about setting legal standards before the tech gets too far ahead of the law—and too many small or independent artists get left behind.
2. AI Can’t Replace Authenticity (But It Can Assist It)
UMG CEO Sir Lucian Grainge recently weighed in: “Do I think the next Elton John will come from AI or from a program? The answer is that it can’t.” He’s right.AI can suggest a chord, rhyme a lyric, or help a songwriter get through writer’s block, but it can’t create soul. It can’t invent the feeling behind Amy Winehouse’s voice or the lived experience behind Kendrick’s bars. Those things aren’t programmable.
But here’s the flip side: AI as a tool can support the creative process. Think of it like auto-tune, MIDI keyboards, or even social media. When used responsibly, tech can amplify artistry, it just can’t be a replacement for it.
3. The Real Fight Is About Regulation and Rights
As AI floods into every part of the industry, the legal system is trying to catch up. Grainge called for “responsible AI,” stressing the importance of regulating not just music use, but also name, image, and likeness, especially with deepfakes and voice-cloning tech becoming more advanced.Artists need protection not just from copyright infringement, but from being digitally impersonated or copied without consent.
The lawsuits against Udio and Suno are just the start. These cases could shape how AI interacts with intellectual property going forward—and who gets paid when it does.
The takeaway? AI is a tool, not a replacement.
JUNE 3, 2025
-
In case you missed it, news broke on May 20th that Taylor Swift officially bought back the rights to her original master recordings.
Wait—wasn’t that the whole point of the Taylor’s Version re-recordings? Not exactly. Prior to this deal, the originals (anything without “Taylor’s Version” in the title) were still owned by Shamrock Capital, the investment firm that purchased her catalog from Scooter Braun in 2020. Swift’s re-recordings were a legal means to devalue the existing masters and regain control through duplication, not actual ownership. Now, for the first time since 2019, she holds full rights over both the re-recordings and the original versions. That includes the songs, the visuals, and unreleased material.
This type of reacquisition isn’t common, and it isn’t cheap. The reported deal was in the ballpark of $300–$360 million. It underscores a key legal principle in music: ownership is leverage. Once the masters are back in the artist’s hands, decisions about licensing, distribution, and revenue-sharing no longer involve third-party rights holders.
This isn’t a move unique to Swift. Frank Ocean wrapped up his Def Jam deal in 2016 by dropping a visual album that fulfilled his contract, then released Blonde independently the very next day. He later confirmed he owns all of his masters.
21 Savage took a different route. He’s had ownership from the start, thanks to a deal that prioritized keeping control of his rights early on.
Each of these artists navigated distinct legal landscapes: buy-back, fulfillment-and-split, and early-stage ownership. But all three examples highlight a growing trend: artists using contractual tools and business strategies to reclaim control over their intellectual property.
Ownership isn’t just about royalties, it’s about decision-making power. In many deals, the rights to a single song are split between different owners— think one party owning the recording, another owning the songwriting, and someone else handling the publishing. That kind of split (called rights fragmentation) makes it harder for artists to control how their music gets used or to collect a full share of the money it earns. In an industry still shaped by these kinds of arrangements, ownership can shift the trajectory of a career.
MAY 27, 2025
-
Getting music licensed for social media use isn’t just about going viral—it’s about who owns the rights, how those rights are negotiated, and what share (if any) the artist receives. Whether independent, signed, or sampled without consent, the story behind the license can shape an artist’s entire career arc.
Let’s break it down through three real-life situations—with three very different outcomes.
1. Independent and Paid: Tobe Nwigwe
When Tobe Nwigwe’s song “I Need You To (Breonna Taylor)” took off on Instagram and TikTok, it wasn’t luck that got him paid—it was licensing. As an independent artist, Tobe partnered with UnitedMasters, a distribution company that lets artists keep ownership of their masters while helping with brand deals, sync licensing, and marketing. Think label-style support, without giving up your rights.
Because of that setup, his song was submitted to Meta’s music library (for use in Reels and Stories), and every time someone used it, royalties were tracked and paid. Some of that money came directly from Meta through a licensing deal with UnitedMasters. Some may have come through a PRO like ASCAP or BMI. Either way: he got paid.
The takeaway?
Distribution partners like UnitedMasters can help get your music into licensing pipelines without taking your masters. That means the viral moment translates into both exposure and earnings for the artist.2. Signed and Seen: Megan Thee Stallion
Megan Thee Stallion’s “Savage” was everywhere in 2020. TikTok. Instagram. Commercials. The moment was huge—but it was her label, 300 Entertainment, that licensed the song to Meta through a blanket deal. That meant Meta didn’t need to ask permission every time someone used it in a video. Licensing was already locked in.
Because she was signed, Megan got a cut of the royalties from that deal—how much, though, depends on her contract. Labels often take a big slice in exchange for that massive push. And while she didn’t own the masters, she gained global visibility and major brand deals off the viral moment.
The takeaway?
When you’re signed, you trade ownership for exposure. That can launch a career—but it also means less control over where your music goes and who gets paid when it does.3. Refused and Respected: Tracy Chapman vs. Nicki Minaj
Then there’s what happens when you say no—and someone uses your music anyway.
In 2018, Nicki Minaj sampled Tracy Chapman’s “Baby Can I Hold You” in a song called “Sorry.” Chapman said no to clearing the sample. The song leaked anyway. It wasn’t released officially, but it was played on radio and ended up online. Nicki claimed it was protected under “fair use.” The court didn’t agree.
Chapman took legal action and in 2021, won a $450,000 settlement.
The takeaway?
You can’t always stop the spread—but you can enforce your rights. Refusing a license doesn’t mean a song won’t go viral, but it does mean you have legal ground to stand on when it does. Especially if someone profits off work you own.Final Thoughts: Licensing Is Leverage
Going viral might look like success, but licensing is what makes it sustainable. If an artist doesn’t own the master or control their rights, someone else is getting paid for the work. Whether independent, signed, or sampled—understanding licensing is crucial for protecting a career when music goes viral.
Want to Dig Deeper? A few sources that helped inform this post:
https://unitedmasters.com/en/partner
https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/unitedmasters-raises-funding-andreessen-horowitz-9653301/
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/08/954853692/tracy-chapman-wins-lawsuit-against-nicki-minaj
MAY 20, 2025
-
When Taylor Swift started rerecording her old albums and labeling them “Taylor’s Version,” she wasn’t just being petty—she was being powerful. And smart. Intentional or not, she gave the whole industry a masterclass in artist ownership and became a trailblazer on the legal side of the music industry.
So what happened?
The short version: Taylor didn’t own the master recordings (the original sound recordings) of her first six albums. When those masters were sold, despite trying to buy the work herself, her label sold the masters to someone else. BUT she did own the songwriting rights (or in legal terms, she owned the copyright to the composition). Being the songwriter to her early work gave Taylor legal leverage to fight for the rights to her masters.
While her original contract didn’t guarantee rerecording rights, she fought to regain them—and once she legally could, she wasted no time getting back in the studio.
Now, her fans stream her versions. Brands license her versions. Her old masters? They’re collecting dust - or at least they will be once Reputation and Taylor Swift get their Taylor’s Version stamp of approval.
And that’s a power move worth studying.
Want to learn more? Check out our founder’s published article Rerecordings (Taylor’s Version): Being Master of Your Masters