Session Musicians Just Sued Over AI Deals
There’s a war happening inside the music industry right now, and most musicians don’t even know they’re the ones being fought over.
On June 5th, the American Federation of Musicians — the largest union of professional instrumentalists in the world — filed a lawsuit in Manhattan federal court against Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group. The accusation? The labels failed to compensate union musicians whose recordings were licensed as part of recent AI agreements involving music-generation platforms Suno and Udio.
Let that sink in. The major labels settled their big copyright lawsuits with AI companies. They cut licensing deals. Money changed hands. And the session musicians whose fingers were literally on the strings, keys, and drumsticks? “The AFM brings this lawsuit because defendants, two of the largest music companies in the world, have licensed sound recordings on which AFM-represented musicians have worked, without compensation or credit, to two AI companies.”
This is the story of June 2026 — and it changes everything for independent musicians making music videos.
The Deal Everyone Celebrated (That Left Musicians Behind)
To understand why the AFM is furious, you need the backstory.
In 2024, the three major labels — UMG, WMG, and Sony — sued Suno and Udio for copyright infringement, claiming the AI platforms trained on copyrighted recordings without permission. It was a massive legal battle that dominated headlines for months.
Then the settlements started rolling in. Universal Music Group settled with Udio in late October 2025, announcing a “compensatory legal settlement” plus license agreements for a new AI music platform set to launch in 2026.
Warner Music Group reached its own settlement and licensing deal with Udio in mid-November 2025. WMG also settled with Suno that same month.
The labels celebrated. Press releases flew. “Protecting our artists” was the refrain.
But here’s what the AFM alleges actually happened: “Defendants have failed to share in the settlement proceeds and future revenue with those same artists whose music was copied, used for training, and incorporated into the development of the AI models.”
The union’s argument is straightforward. Their collective bargaining agreement includes a “new use” provision — the AFM contends it requires the major labels to compensate its members when their recorded work is put to a new commercial use. Feeding recordings into an AI training pipeline to build a commercial music generation platform? That sounds like a new use to most people.
The union, represented by attorney Eyad Asad of Cohen Weiss & Simon, is seeking unspecified monetary damages and also demanding that the labels disclose exactly which recordings were fed into the AI training programs.
That last part is crucial. The musicians don’t even know which of their recordings were used.
The Bigger Picture: Everyone’s Getting Paid Except the Players
The AFM lawsuit didn’t happen in a vacuum. It dropped during the single most consequential week for AI music deals in history.
Suno Raises $400M at $5.4 Billion
Just two days before the AFM filed suit, Suno announced it had raised over $400 million at a $5.4 billion valuation.
The raise more than doubles the $2.45 billion valuation Suno reached last November despite ongoing copyright lawsuits with major labels.
The numbers are staggering. The platform reportedly surpassed 2 million paid subscribers in February and has reached $300 million in annual recurring revenue.
Users generate over 7 million songs daily on the platform.
And here’s the detail that should make every session musician’s blood boil: Suno said “leading artists, songwriters and producers” also participated in the funding round, though the company didn’t disclose who. So unnamed artists are investing in the same platform that used their peers’ recordings without compensation.
NMPA Cuts Its Own AI Deals
Five days after the AFM filed its lawsuit, the National Music Publishers’ Association held its annual meeting at Lincoln Center. David Israelite unveiled two groundbreaking deals with AI music companies, Udio and Klay. Israelite confirmed the Udio deal is not only the first ever industry-wide licensing deal with a major AI music company, but it is also the first that will value songs and sound recordings equally when it comes to AI training.
The organization said that deals negotiated and settled by NMPA in the past fiscal year, including those AI deals, have led to the distribution of approximately $110 million to its members.
Meanwhile, Klay is one of very few companies to secure licenses prior to launching its platform. Klay’s Large Music Model will be trained entirely on licensed music.
Israelite put it bluntly: “Litigating against bad AI actors and licensing good AI partners is not in conflict.”
So publishers are getting paid. Labels are getting paid. AI companies are raising billions. The people who actually played the music? They’re filing lawsuits just to find out which of their recordings were used.
Google Says You Already Gave Them Permission
And then there’s Google’s move, which might be the most audacious play of all.
Google has moved to dismiss the copyright lawsuit brought against it by a group of independent musicians over its Lyria 3 AI music model. Their argument isn’t fair use — it’s something far more brazen. The company’s central argument is that the artists licensed their music to YouTube when they uploaded it — and that the license covers the conduct they are now suing over.
Google argued that the plaintiffs failed to prove their specific songs were used, but added that YouTube’s terms of service already grant the company a broad, royalty-free license to create derivative works from any user uploads.
Think about that. Every indie musician who ever uploaded a track to YouTube may have unknowingly signed away the right to have that music used for AI training. The Google case is different from other AI copyright battles because the tech giant owns YouTube, one of the biggest music streaming platforms in the world.
The plaintiffs’ attorney fired back: “Google hasn’t shown a single plaintiff ever agreed to its terms of service.”
This case could determine whether the fine print of a platform you joined in 2008 to share your garage band demos gives a trillion-dollar company the right to build AI systems from your creative work.
What This Means for Independent Musicians
Here’s the uncomfortable truth of June 2026: the AI music economy is being built, and the money is flowing. But the plumbing is being designed right now, and if you’re not paying attention, you’ll be the one without a faucet.
1. Your Back Catalog Has AI Value — Protect It
If you’ve ever played on a recording released through a major label, your performances may already be part of an AI training dataset. The AFM lawsuit alleges the labels haven’t even disclosed which recordings are involved. If you’re an AFM member, your union is fighting for that information. If you’re not a union member — and most indie musicians aren’t — you’re essentially on your own.
2. Platform Terms of Service Actually Matter Now
Google’s argument in the Lyria 3 case should be a wake-up call for every musician. Google argued that it does not need to debate copyright philosophy because independent musicians already handed over the rights to their music once they checked the box on YouTube’s terms of service. Read the terms. Seriously. Before you upload anywhere.
3. The Licensed AI Era Creates Opportunity
Here’s the silver lining. Warner Music Group settled in November 2025, followed by independent licensing body Merlin in January 2026 and publisher Kobalt in April 2026.
Sony Music remains the only major music company yet to reach a deal with Udio.
The industry is slowly building a licensed infrastructure. Companies like Klay are launching with licenses first. That means there’s a growing ecosystem where your music can be properly compensated for AI uses — if you understand how to navigate it.
The Entertainment Industry Is Going All-In on AI Video
While musicians fight over AI audio rights, the visual side is accelerating at a dizzying pace.
Lionsgate has taken an equity stake in the generative AI video company Runway and plans to pull from its existing catalogue of intellectual property for an AI short-form series. The studio behind John Wick and The Hunger Games is creating AI-generated episodic content. Lionsgate vice chairman Michael Burns told attendees at the Gabelli Sports and Media Symposium in New York that AI will save the company “tens and tens of millions of dollars a year” in film and TV production costs.
According to a Memeburn comparison published in June 2026, the top AI video tools now offer near-real-time generation, improved temporal coherence, and native support for 4K resolution. The days of glitchy, surreal outputs are largely behind us.
For musicians, this is the key takeaway: while the legal battles over AI music training rage on, AI video tools are becoming extraordinarily powerful — and they’re available to you right now, no licensing controversy attached.
If you’re looking to understand the full landscape of what’s possible, our complete guide to AI music videos breaks down every major approach. And if you want to get started immediately, how to make an AI music video walks through the process step by step.
Why This Moment Matters for Your Music Video Strategy
The AFM lawsuit highlights a fundamental shift: in the AI era, visual content is where musicians retain the most creative control.
Think about it. Your song recordings? They might already be in an AI training set. Your publishing rights? Being negotiated in industry-wide deals you weren’t consulted about. YouTube’s terms of service? Potentially granting Google rights you didn’t know you gave.
But your music videos? Those are still 100% yours. You decide the visual identity. You control the narrative. You own the output.
Whether you’re making hip-hop visuals with gritty urban aesthetics, dreamy lo-fi landscapes, or high-energy EDM experiences, AI video generation puts the creative power squarely in your hands — no label deal required, no fine print to worry about.
Labels using AI-generated music videos saw a 40% increase in engagement on social media compared to static album art. That’s not a theoretical benefit. That’s a measurable competitive edge for artists who invest in visual content.
The Road Ahead
The result is a split-screen the music industry has never seen before: venture investors betting billions that AI music companies will win, and labels betting in court that it’s built on infringement. Whichever side is right will shape what AI music costs, who gets paid for it, and whether the tools millions already use stay free to operate.
The AFM lawsuit will take months — possibly years — to resolve. Google’s Lyria 3 case will set precedents that ripple through every musician’s relationship with every platform. The NMPA’s licensing deals will create templates that either protect or sideline independent creators.
In the meantime, the smartest move for independent musicians is clear: don’t wait for the industry to decide your future. Build your visual brand now, while the tools are accessible and the playing field is level. Create content that’s undeniably yours. Establish a visual identity that no algorithm can claim it trained on.
The session musicians who played on thousands of hit records are learning the hard way that their contributions can be absorbed into AI systems without their knowledge, consent, or compensation. Don’t let the same thing happen to your visual identity.
The deals are being made. The money is flowing. The question is whether you’ll be a participant in the AI music economy — or just another data point in someone else’s training set.
Ready to take control of your visual identity? OneMoreShot.ai lets you create stunning, professional music videos in minutes — no label deal, no licensing controversy, no fine print. Just your music, your vision, and AI that works for you.