Warner Music Group has asked a New York federal court to dismiss the American Federation of Musicians‘ lawsuit over the company’s AI licensing deals with Suno and Udio.
Warner says the union brought the lawsuit “in an improper attempt to place a judicial thumb on the negotiation scales.”
That argument came in a letter to Judge Edgardo Ramos filed on Friday (July 10), in which Warner requested a pre-motion conference ahead of a motion to dismiss the complaint.
You can read the letter in full here.
The AFM sued Warner and Universal Music Group over what the union describes as the licensing deals the two majors struck with Suno and Udio.
The union’s complaint alleges that Warner and UMG breached the Sound Recording Labor Agreement (SRLA) by licensing recordings made by its members without paying or crediting them.
It seeks a share of the revenues flowing from those licenses, as well as a portion of the money the majors recovered by settling their copyright claims.
Warner argues that the SRLA, which it says was executed in March 2023, does not cover the licensing of recordings to AI platforms.
“Music-focused platforms like Suno and Udio did not exist” when the agreement was signed, Warner said, “and consequently, neither the SRLA nor any AFM agreement contemplates compensation related to the licensing or other use of content for training AI models.”
Warner argues that the AFM‘s own complaint concedes that AI use falls outside the SRLA.
“Use of sound recordings in generative AI software models is not a purpose covered by the SRLA,” the AFM‘s complaint states, according to the letter.
The union’s case rests on Article 21 of the SRLA, a provision titled “Use of a Phonograph Record … in Other Mediums” that governs how performers are paid when a recording is put to a use beyond the purpose for which it was first made.
Warner argues the provision “merely points to other agreements” and “does not itself confer legal rights.”
Because no AFM agreement covers AI licensing, Warner says, Article 21 “has nothing to point to, and there is no entitlement to payment.”
“Because no contract entitles AFM members to any portion of AI licensing revenues, neither AFM nor its members have been injured.”
Warner Music Group
The company also argues that neither the union nor its members have been injured, and that the AFM therefore lacks standing to bring the case.
“Because no contract entitles AFM members to any portion of AI licensing revenues,” Warner said, “neither AFM nor its members have been injured.”
The letter argues that Warner Music Group Corp should not be a defendant in the case.
“Warner Music Group Corp. is not a signatory to the SRLA, does not itself own copyrights, was not a plaintiff in the copyright infringement lawsuits against Suno and Udio, and thus does not have licenses with Suno or Udio,” the letter said.
The company describes Warner Music Group Corp. as a holding company rather than a record label, and identifies two Warner labels as SRLA signatories: Warner Brothers Records and Atlantic Recording Corp.
Warner also argues that granting the union’s request would pull the court into territory reserved for the bargaining table.
It notes that the AFM is currently negotiating the next SRLA with the labels, with AI at the center of the talks.
“AFM’s claim for relief would require the Court to set rates and terms the AFM is currently seeking at the parties’ bargaining table,” Warner said. “That would improperly intrude on the collective bargaining process.”
The letter also rejects the union’s claim that the majors were required to notify the AFM of the Suno and Udio licenses, arguing that no such duty exists where no AFM agreement covers the use.
“AFM filed this lawsuit in an improper attempt to place a judicial thumb on the negotiation scales, asking this Court to impose contractual terms that only collective bargaining can create.”
Warner Music Group
“AFM filed this lawsuit in an improper attempt to place a judicial thumb on the negotiation scales, asking this Court to impose contractual terms that only collective bargaining can create,” Warner said.
Warner said the union “asks this Court to create new contractual obligations out of whole cloth,” and urged the judge to “decline the invitation.”
Warner also asked the court to pause discovery while its motion is decided, arguing that the case presents “substantial threshold defects.”Music Business Worldwide
