The latest report setting out how licensing should work for GenAI music companies comes from economic consulting firm Compass Lexecon.
Its ‘Generative AI Models at the Gate’ study was commissioned by global labels body the IFPI. So yes, its conclusions fall in line with the well-established beats of music-business lobbying on this topic.
The report outlines why rightsholders “must be appropriately remunerated” if their content is used to train GenAI models; claims that they “should be allowed to deny the use of their protected content” for that training; and that “arguments in favour of free use are flawed and unconvincing”.
These are familiar arguments, although the report does a good job of setting them out clearly. One angle that’s been lower profile in the past, though, is its claim that “the terms of use for protected content should be left to bilateral licensing”.
That means deals struck between individual rightsholders and AI companies, which is what’s been happening in recent weeks with companies including Suno, Udio, Stability AI and Klay Vision.
However, it has been suggested that collective licensing could have a role to play too, and that’s something the report – and by extension the IFPI – is not keen on.
It cites “obvious risks of under-remuneration and risks to competition that would arise from
compulsory collective licensing” and suggests that bilateral deals allow “greater flexibility in setting terms and conditions”. You can read the full report here.
Source link