If you're an independent artist, your AI licence will probably be a class-action settlement. Start setting its terms now

The AI music licences signed so far are deals between catalogue owners, and an artist who releases music on their own reaches them only by opting in through a distributor, on terms nobody publishes. For most independent musicians the licence that actually pays will be a class-action settlement they are enrolled in by default, and the time to set its terms is before anyone signs it.

Who does the licensed era pay?

Look at the counterparties. Udio's licensors, as listed in Sony's July complaint against it, are UMG, Warner, Merlin, Kobalt, Believe and the National Music Publishers' Association. Suno's v6 partners include Warner, BMG and Believe. Every one of them is a company or trade body that holds or represents catalogues. Suno's own announcement says the products that would pay individual artists who opt in are still to come, and it gives no rate.

None of this is a surprise. In May 2025 the US Copyright Office wrote that direct licensing is "most common and most promising" for corporate catalogue owners, naming major record companies as an example. In the same report it quotes the Recording Academy: direct licensing can be "inefficient or inaccessible" for independent songwriters and artists who lack resources and leverage. The industry has done what the government expected.

Where does that leave independents?

With an opt-in programme, if their distributor signed up. TuneCore's AI & Data Protection Program is the clearest example. You join, and you may be considered for deals, currently with Udio and ElevenLabs. Once you're in, new opportunities that could produce AI content associated with you or your music come with a 20-day review period before your content goes to a partner, and you can opt out of individual deals. The page describes no such window for training deals. The page publishes no rates and doesn't guarantee your music will be picked. That's better than being scraped without being asked. But in practice you opt in once, and after that it's up to you to opt out of each deal, without being told the price. We've written about how Believe and TuneCore went from blocking Suno to distributing it.

If your distributor hasn't signed up, or your music isn't in any of these catalogues, nobody is negotiating for you at all, except class-action lawyers.

Why a class action is the likelier licence

At least four proposed class actions brought by independent musicians are live in the US. The first two, filed by country artist Tony Justice against Suno and Udio in June 2025, propose a class of all independent artists, songwriters and producers whose works appeared on streaming services since 1 Jan 2021, according to Music Business Worldwide. In August a judge refused to dismiss the core claims in the Suno case. Others are pending against Udio and against Google over its Lyria 3 model (our report).

The rule that matters is Rule 23 of the federal rules. If a class like that is certified and settles, the judgment binds every member who didn't ask to be excluded (Rule 23(c)). If you do nothing, you're in. For most independents that settlement would be the first and possibly the only AI money they see, and its terms would be set by lawyers and a judge, not by a negotiation they took part in.

There is already a template. In July a federal judge gave final approval to the $1.5 billion settlement in Bartz v. Anthropic, about $3,000 per work, as the Authors Guild reports. It settled claims over books Anthropic downloaded from pirate libraries, not a training licence. But it shows the shape such a deal takes. Two details matter for musicians. Works that weren't registered with the US Copyright Office were not part of the class. And where no contract showed otherwise, authors and publishers split the money 50-50 by default, while sole rights holders such as self-published authors got the full amount.

What independent artists should demand

The cases are still early. These are the terms to push for, through the named plaintiffs' lawyers, artist groups and, when the time comes, formal objections to the court:

1. Count unregistered releases. In the US you generally can't claim statutory damages for infringement that began before you registered, unless you registered within three months of release (17 U.S.C. § 412). That's why classes get drawn around registered works. A settlement can still pay for unregistered tracks matched by streaming metadata, even at a lower rate. Meanwhile, register new releases within three months.
2. Publish the works list. Bartz used a published list of the works it covered. Music settlements should do the same, matched by ISRC (the code that identifies each recording) so you can check your catalogue in minutes. The data exists: in its 20 Oct answer to the labels, Suno admits it hasn't deleted all the recordings it trained on.
3. Pay the rights owner in full. If you own your masters and your songs, you should get the whole share, the way self-published authors did in Bartz. No default cut to a distributor or a platform that doesn't own the rights.
4. Give notice where musicians actually are. Rule 23 requires the best notice practicable. For musicians that means distributor dashboards and email, not a legal notice in a newspaper.
5. Don't let it become a training licence. A payment for past copying shouldn't also clear future training. Future use should be opt-in, with a published rate.

What we think

The licensed era is real, but so far it pays whoever holds a catalogue. Independents don't need to wait to be invited in. The class actions already filed on their behalf are their seat at the table, and settlements are where AI money actually changes hands. If independents don't push for terms now, the parties will write them and a judge will only ask whether they are fair, reasonable and adequate. Silence will count as a yes.

For what the label deals themselves cover, see our report on Suno's licensed v6.