Business
Page: 11
Over the weekend, Bloomberg broke the news that the Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group are in talks with Suno and Udio to license their music to the artificial intelligence startups. If the deals go through, they could help settle the major music companies’ massive copyright infringement lawsuit against Suno and Udio, filed last summer.
Billboard confirmed that the deals in discussion would include fees and possible equity stakes in Suno and Udio in exchange for licensing the music — which the two AI firms have already been using without a license since they launched over a year ago.
That sounds like a potentially peaceful resolution to this clash over the value of copyrighted music in the AI age. But between artist buy-in, questions over how payments would work and sensitivities on all sides, the deals could be harder to pull off than they seem. Here’s why.
Trending on Billboard
You need everyone on board
Ask anyone who’s tried to license music before: it’s a tedious process. This is especially true when a song has multiple songwriters, all signed to different companies — which is to say, almost all of pop music today. Since any music that is used as training data for an AI model will employ both its master recording copyright and its underlying musical work copyright, Suno and Udio cannot stop at just licensing the majors’ shares of the music. They will also need agreements from independent labels and publishers, too, to use a comprehensive catalog.
And what about the artists and songwriters signed to these companies? Generative AI music is still controversial today, and it is foreseeable that a large number of creatives will not take too kindly to their labels and publishers licensing their works for AI training without their permission. One can imagine that the music companies, to avoid a revolt from signees, would allow talent to either opt-out of or opt-in to this license — but as soon as they do that, they will be left with a patchwork catalog to license to Suno and Udio. Even if a song has one recording artist and five songwriters attached to it, it only takes one of those people to say no to this deal to eliminate the track from the training pool.
Is the expiration date really the expiration date?
Licensing music to train AI models typically takes the form of a blanket license, granted by music companies, that lasts between one and three years, according to Alex Bestall, CEO of Rightsify, a production music library and AI company. Other times it will be done in perpetuity. Ed Newton-Rex, former vp of audio for Stability AI and founder of non-profit Fairly Trained, previously warned Billboard that companies that license on a temporal basis should look out for what happens when a deal term ends: “There’s no current way to just untrain a model, but you can add clauses to control what happens after the license is over,” he said.
Attribution technology seems great — but is still very new
Many experts feel that the best way to remunerate music companies and their artists and songwriters is to base any payouts on how often their work is used in producing the outputs of the AI model. This is known as “attribution” — and while there are companies, like Sureel AI and Musical AI, out there that specialize in this area, it’s still incredibly new. Multiple music industry sources tell Billboard they are not sure the current attribution models are quite ready yet, meaning any payment model based on that system may not be viable, at least in the near term.
Flat-fee licenses are most common, but leave a lot to be desired
Today, Bestall says that flat-fee blanket licenses are the most common form of AI licensing. Given the complexities of fractional licensing (i.e., needing all writers to agree) with mainstream music, the AI music companies that are currently licensing their training data are typically going to production libraries, since those tend to own or control their music 100%. It’s hard to know if this model will hold up with fractional licensing at the mainstream music companies — and how they’ll choose to divide up these fees to their artists.
Plus, Mike Pelczynski, founder of music tech advisory firm Forms and Shapes and former head of strategy for SoundCloud, wrote in a blog post that “flat-fee deals offer upfront payments but limit long-term remuneration. As AI scales beyond the revenue potential of these agreements, rights holders risk being locked into subpar compensation. Unlike past models, such as Facebook’s multi-year deals, AI platforms will evolve in months, not years, leaving IP holders behind. Flat fees, no matter how high, can’t match the exponential growth potential of generative AI.”
There’s still bad blood
The major music companies will likely have a hard time burying the hatchet with Suno and Udio, given how publicly the two companies have challenged them. Today, Suno and Udio are using major label music without any licenses, and that defiance must sting. Suno has also spoken out against the majors, saying in a court filing that “what the major record labels really don’t want is competition. Where Suno sees musicians, teachers and everyday people using a new tool to create original music, the labels see a threat to their market share.”
Given that context, there is a real reputational risk here for the labels, who also represent many stakeholders with many different opinions on the topic — not all of them positive. For this licensing maneuver to work, the majors need to be able to feel (or at least position themselves to look like) they came out on top in any negotiation, particularly to their artists and songwriters, and show that the deals are in everyone’s best interests. It’s a lot to pull off.
Lizzo is launching an appeal aimed at ending a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by her former backup dancers, calling it an “attack” on her “First Amendment right to perform her music and advocate for body positivity.”
The blockbuster case, filed in 2023, accuses the star (Melissa Jefferson) of sexual harassment and discrimination. Though a judge dismissed some claims last year – including a headline-grabbing claim about fat-shaming – he allowed the overall lawsuit to move ahead toward a jury trial.
In an opening brief filed last month, her attorneys urged an appeals court overturn that ruling and toss out the entire case. They say Lizzo’s behavior toward the dancers was clearly part of her artistic approach — and thus shielded by constitutional protections for free speech.
Trending on Billboard
“Plaintiffs’ suit [is] an attack on Lizzo’s First Amendment right to perform her music and advocate for body positivity,” writes Lizzo’s attorneys, who include prominent Hollywood defense attorney Marty Singer. “Rather than accept personal accountability, plaintiffs filed this shotgun action, taking aim at nearly every facet of Lizzo’s creative process.”
One key claim in the case against Lizzo is that she pushed the dancers to attend a sex show in Amsterdam’s Red Light District at a venue called Bananenbar, then pressured them to touch and engage with nude performers. But her lawyers say that incident – which they stress was entirely optional — was directly tied to the creation of her art and thus cannot form the basis of legal liablity.
“There’s no disagreement that Lizzo held these outings as a necessary part of her creative process,” Singer writes. “Early social gatherings during international tours (like the Bananenbar) are critical to teambuilding and fostering cohesion.”
The case against Lizzo, filed by Arianna Davis, Crystal Williams and Noelle Rodriguez, accused the singer and her Big Grrrl Big Touring Inc. of creating a hostile work environment via sexual harassment, religious and racial discrimination. It also accused her of disability discrimination based on weight-shaming – a loaded allegation against a star who had made body positivity a key part of her personal brand.
Lizzo quickly denied any wrongdoing, calling the claims “false” and “sensationalized” and vowing to fight back: “I am very open with my sexuality and expressing myself but I cannot accept or allow people to use that openness to make me out to be something I am not.”
The star’s legal defense centered on California’s so-called anti-SLAPP law — a special statute that makes it easier to quickly end lawsuits that threaten free speech. In seeking to dismiss the case under that law, Lizzo’s lawyers argued the dancers wanted to “silence” Lizzo and “weaponize” her creative expression against her.
In early 2024, Judge Mark H. Epstein partly endorsed that argument and tossed out several allegations, including the discrimination claims about fat-shaming. But he allowed numerous accusations to move ahead toward a potential trial, including those over the Amsterdam sex show.
“It is dangerous for the court to weigh in, ham-fisted, into constitutionally protected activity,” the judge wrote. “But it is equally dangerous to turn a blind eye to allegations of discrimination or other forms of misconduct merely because they take place in a speech-related environment.”
In appealing that ruling, Lizzo’s lawyers argue that it’s dangerous for judges to wade into an artist’s creative process. They cite earlier court rulings that say such work includes discussion of “many bizarre and potentially offensive ideas” and can be “unpredictable.”
“Judges must not dissect the creative process to determine what was necessary to achieve the final product and what was not,” Lizzo’s lawyers write. “By rejecting the artist’s proven experience for what is necessary to, and best enhances, her own art, the trial court stepped far outside its role.”
A rep for lawyers for Davis, Williams and Rodriguez did not immediately return a request for comment. They will file their own appellate brief later this month aimed at rebutting Lizzo’s arguments. The two sides will then argue the case before the court at some point in the coming months.
If the appeals court sides with Lizzo, the case will be dismissed. If the court sides with Davis, Williams and Rodriguez, the case will return to Epstein’s court and move toward an eventual jury trial.
Early in 2024, Clipse prepared to play a new album for their label, Def Jam. While these types of playbacks can be routine, this one was freighted with extra significance: The rap duo composed of brothers Pusha T and Malice had not released an album together since 2009.
Their comeback soon hit a speed bump. One song on the new album featured a guest verse from Kendrick Lamar, who spent part of 2024 in a venomous back-and-forth with Drake. And, as Pusha T recently told GQ, Lamar’s presence on the Clipse track made Def Jam’s parent company, Universal Music Group, uncomfortable.
“They wanted me to ask Kendrick to censor his verse, which of course I was never doing,” Pusha T told the publication. “And then they wanted me to take the record off [the album].”
Trending on Billboard
Clipse refused to make the requested changes, leading to the unravelling of Pusha T’s association with Def Jam — his label home for over a decade. Even though the rapper still owed Def Jam albums, he paid a seven-figure sum to get out of the deal, according to longtime manager Steven Victor. “If you’re an artist, your whole life is to create art and put it out,” Victor says. “If someone’s telling you that you can’t do that, or you have to do it within the confines of whatever box they put you in, that’s like creative jail.” (Reps for Universal Music and Def Jam did not respond to requests for comment.)
Pusha T has his own antagonistic history with Drake, which culminated in the scathing 2018 diss record “The Story of Adidon”; Victor says Pusha T’s verses have been facing strict label scrutiny ever since. Meanwhile, the fallout from Lamar’s battle with Drake is still ongoing: The latter has sued Universal Music Group, accusing the company of defamation over Lamar’s track “Not Like Us.”
Victor spoke with Billboard about the end of Pusha T’s relationship with Def Jam, and finding a new home for the rapper — and the Clipse album — at Roc Nation.
When you started to hear objections to the Lamar verse on the Clipse album, where were they coming from?
UMG has this department where they review lyrics. So it was that department. The real reason [that department] is there is to protect the artists and the label from lawsuits for copyright infringement. They do it for all the labels. Some labels adhere to it closer than others.
Let’s say you interpolate somebody else’s song. [That department] is there to make sure that the song is properly cleared. It’s not meant to be like, “You said XYZ about XYZ artist, so we’re not going to release this music.”
While you’ve been working with Pusha, have you ever had challenges with that department before?
In the beginning, no. But starting in 2018, yeah.
That’s the year Pusha released “The Story of Adidon.” He put that on SoundCloud, and it’s never been officially released on streaming services. Was that a way of getting around any internal objections?
Part of the reason, yeah, to avoid that. [Also] we never actually properly cleared it.
Pusha T mentioned two songs in his interview with GQ, Rick Ross’ “Maybach Music VI” and Pop Smoke’s “Paranoia,” where his verses were ultimately cut. Was that because of the same department’s scrutiny?
Yes. What happened on the Pop Smoke song is that UMG thought that he was dissing Drake on that song. He wasn’t, but they thought he was. Pop Smoke was released on my label [Victor Victor], and obviously I managed Pusha. So they came to me and said, “We’re not going to put this out now, unless you get Pusha to change these lyrics.” Even though it has nothing to do with Pop Smoke, they’re like, “Either he changes these lyrics, or we’re not putting the album out.”
What happened to freedom of speech? First of all, he’s not dissing Drake. But how do you get to tell him to just change his lyrics or you’re not putting this album out?
From what Pusha told GQ, this Kendrick verse they’re concerned about on the new record is not dissing Drake, either.
Yeah, I don’t know what their concern is. But they were like, “There’s a line here; we think it’s controversial; [Kendrick] needs to change it, or we’re not putting it out.” We’re not going to ask him to change the verse. You guys are wrong. Stop looking at this this way. None of this makes any sense.
It got to the point where the conversation became, “You can’t keep stopping this guy from being able to put out his art.” He’s a rapper. Every time he puts out an album or a song, you can’t listen to it to make sure that he’s not dissing somebody before you put it out. He has to think about what he’s saying before he’s saying it in the hopes that you might not think that he’s saying the wrong thing? Who could live their life like that?
I went to them and I said, “Let us put the song out somewhere else since you guys have an issue with it. You guys won’t have to stand behind whatever complications come from it. We’ll put the song out somewhere else, and we’ll license it back to you guys when the album comes out.” Their response was, “How about you just find somewhere else to put out Clipse? Just pay something to us and put it out somewhere else.”
My thing was, we can’t do that — Pusha and the Clipse are one thing. [At this point], he clearly doesn’t trust you guys. You guys haven’t been good stewards of his career.
So they said, “Find another deal, and let’s figure out a business.” They didn’t drop us. They were like, “Pay us this money” — which was an exorbitant amount of money, a s—t ton of money — “and we’ll let you out the deal.” That’s what happened. We paid them the money, an insane amount of money. It wasn’t, like, $200,000. It was a lot of money for an artist to come up with. They bought themselves out of the deal.
How many solo albums did Pusha have left on his deal with Def Jam?
I don’t really want to talk about that part. He had like three albums left.
So you had to pay seven figures to get out of the deal?
Yeah.
How quickly were you able to get another deal in place?
It happened simultaneously [with getting out of the previous deal]. It took a couple of weeks for us to figure out the paperwork. Again, it was a lot of money — we kept on going back and saying, “Can we pay you this amount of money and a part of the profit? Can we figure out a deal where we pay you as the guys make money from the new release, instead of coming up with this large sum of money [right now]?” They said no. They were like, “We want our money, and we want some of the profits.”
Once I knew that we had, in principle, a deal in place with Def Jam [to leave], I got on the phone with Jay-Z. I was like, “Look, this is what’s happening. We’ve been talking about doing X, Y, Z, together. There’s an opportunity here to do this album. What do you think?”
He hit me back right away, like, “You just made my day. Let’s figure it out. What do we need to get it done?” I went back to Pusha, and said, “Listen, Jay’s gonna give us a very artist-friendly deal, we get to own the masters, and they’ll put the marketing power of Roc Nation behind it. You guys are friends. It’s a great outcome.” We worked out the deal in less than 24 hours.
You had to pay Def Jam a lump sum to get out and also give a cut of what you make off the new record?
Yeah, we had to give them a cut also, which is insane. But the good thing about it is that Pusha is in control of his future. Now he has three deals in three different places. At the beginning of his solo career, we put out records independently with Mass Appeal; he owns those records. Then we did the deal with G.O.O.D. Music/Def Jam; when Kanye left Def Jam, we worked out an agreement with him where he gave Pusha his masters back on the G.O.O.D. Music side. And now we did this deal with Jay.
Pusha is having way more success creatively, financially and professionally, than he did at the peak of his career, which was when [Clipse’s] “Grindin’” came out. Smart and steady wins the race.
What appeals to you about taking the independent route?
I still think there’s a place for major record labels. But if you can get away with being at a place that understands the culture that you’re in a lot more, moves more nimbly, and you can get the same resources that you would from a major, why would you go to a major, especially with the way the deals are structured?
You can get everything and more from somebody that not only looks like you, but behaves like you, has the same mindset as you. You’re not dealing with layers and layers of corporate bureaucracy and nonsense. And all artists are not treated equally in the major record label system.
One thing you still hear about the majors is that, to the extent that radio matters, they have the muscle there, and they also have an international presence that’s hard to replicate.
Cap. I call cap. I’ve done it on a smaller scale and on the larger scale. All you need is a team. You can hire and you can outsource a great international team, a great radio team. For some artists it’s definitely more beneficial to be part of a major record label. But you don’t need to be on a major record label to find success.
Obviously Pusha T and Def Jam had a long relationship. Is it tough to see it end this way?
Pusha has been signed to Def Jam for almost 15 years. We’ve been there for a long time; we’ve seen different regimes come and go. But at the end of the day, if a relationship is not working, for whatever reason, it doesn’t make any sense to stay there, regardless of how much you might like it or might feel comfortable. And I don’t know if the amount of attention, focus and detail that we were looking for [on this album rollout] would have happened there anyway.
Is this the start of a potentially closer relationship between Victor Victor and Roc Nation?
I’d say so. There’s a lot going on, a lot of moving parts. But the focus right now is definitely this Clipse album.
Spotify has launched a new masterclass to help artists understand what artificial streaming is and how to prevent them from falling for scams related to it. Featuring Bryan Johnson, head of artist and industry partnerships, international at Spotify; Andreea Gleeson, CEO of TuneCore and member of the Music Fights Fraud Alliance; and David Martin, CEO of the Featured Artists Coalition, the executives also tell artists in the masterclass what to do if they’ve noticed abnormal and suspicious streaming activity has occurred on their accounts.
In recent years, artificial streaming (sometimes known as ‘streaming fraud’) has become a hot topic in the music business, but last year, the issue hit new heights when the first-ever U.S. streaming fraud case was brought against a man named Michael Smith in the Southern District of New York. According to the lawsuit, Smith allegedly stole more than $10 million in royalties across all streaming platforms by uploading AI-generated songs and driving up their stream counts with bots.
Trending on Billboard
A lot of artificial streaming instances, however, are not so extreme — or deliberate. It’s an issue that can impact even well-meaning independent artists, looking earnestly for marketing and promotion help. Whether it’s a digital marketer on Fiverr promising to get an artist on a playlist, or a savvy promoter DMing an artist on Instagram, promising a certain number of streams, many artists, particularly those without representation, fall for a scheme which, as Gleeson puts it, “is too good to be true.”
“It undermines the fair playing field that streaming represents,” says Johnson in the masterclass. “If left unchecked, artificial streams can dilute the royalty pool and shift money away from artists who are genuinely trying to release music and build an audience, and it can divert that money to bad actors looking to take advantage of system.”
As Johnson explains in the masterclass, whether the artificial streaming scheme was done wittingly or not, there can be real consequences. If an artist is caught with suspicious streaming activity, the track can no longer earn royalties, future streams do not count toward public metrics, future streams do not positively influence recommendation algorithms, and the activity is reported to the distributor or label. In a worst-case scenario, the song can also be removed from Spotify playlists, or the platform overall, and the artists’ label or distributor will be charged a fine.
“This is something we take seriously at every level, all around the world, and our efforts are working. Less than 1% of all streams on Spotify are determined to be artificial,” says Johnson.
Johnson, along with Gleeson, spoke to Billboard to explain why they teamed up on this masterclass, and what they hope artists take away from it.
“Our tactics are working, but this is not the time for us to pause. We have to keep going, because this is a moving target. We have to keep investing, keep educating, and keep trying to minimize the impact of artificial streaming,” says Johnson.
Why did you decide to do this masterclass now?
We have an existing video on artificial streaming from a few years ago, but we think this is a great way to update what we’ve done previously. This moves so quickly, and we will keep building on this and updating it. This masterclass now includes information that wasn’t around a few years ago. Why now? We found it’s very clear on our socials that people want to know about artificial streaming. We’ve read through a lot of comments, talked to industry partners and tried to figure out what information people want to see from this. And how can we do this in a way that will deter people from falling for this in the first place?
If artists only took one thing away from this video, what would you want them to have learned?
Gleeson: The big thing that that we really stress is that artists should know who they’re working with. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. So do your education up front with the marketing programs that you are utilizing. If a company is guaranteeing playlist placements or a certain number of streams or it sounds just way too good to be true, it probably is. If I can add a second thing it would be: start to open up a proactive discussion with your distributor or your label to make them aware if you see anything abnormal happen to your account. This can help you reduce any penalties, like the risk of your music getting taken down. Spotify also now has a way to submit information if you think there’s abnormal activity on your account. Reporting it is really important.
Bryan, often in these conversations about artificial streaming, it’s hard to know where the buck should stop. Is it the distributors fault? The user’s fault? The streaming service’s? How are you approaching it at Spotify?
Johnson: I think it’s an industry responsibility. There’s an industry body called Music Fights Fraud Alliance, which is a collection of digital services, like Spotify, and rights holders, like distributors and labels. And it’s an opportunity for the industry to come together and rally around the same topic and share information, share intel. And it’s been highly effective — super, super productive. We have a responsibility. We are the leading streaming service globally. We are across 184 markets with a huge audience, and we are a significant partner to the music industry. So it’s important that we come to the table, and we’re part of this conversation.
Scammers evolve quickly over time. It’s often said that there’s a danger in educating the public too much about artificial streaming, for fear that it will help the scammers evolve and better their efforts. How did you guys approach that challenge with this master class?
Gleeson: It’s always a work in progress to figure out the right balance of education and secrecy. You want to be specific to help educate, but you don’t want to give someone a playbook of how to do the fraud either.
From your vantage point, what are some of the measures that have been have implemented over the last few years that have shown really strong results in decreasing artificial streams? What has been the most effective?
Gleeson: We’ve tried to take down some of the playlists where this is happening. That can be a little bit of Whack-a-Mole, but that has been really effective. What we’ve observed also is the [streaming services] that focus on the reporting tools for artists and preventative tools have much lower abnormal stream levels than other [streaming services]. And it makes sense, right? If you’re a bad actor, you’re going to go to the path of least resistance. If a [streaming service] hasn’t invested yet in a robust reporting system, you can do your scam there and achieve more with less effort.
Johnson: We launched the very effective tool around a year ago, and it’s essentially a form that artists can go to, and they can tell us if they’ve seen abnormal activity, like in their Spotify For Artists data, and if they think they’ve been added to some sort of suspicious playlist. This born out of their feedback. We were getting requests online for a way in which they could let us know directly. Yes, they let their label and distributor know, but they also wanted to let Spotify know directly, and it’s super useful for us. We’re able to use that information effectively to stop artificial activity. So I think that playlist reporter form has been, has been really useful.
Taylor Swift’s many fans celebrated the pop superstar finally purchasing the masters of her Big Machine albums (the first six studio albums in her discography) by throwing a consumption party, flooding digital services to download more of her albums and stream more of her songs.
In the aftermath of her 11:30am ET announcement on Friday (May 30), early data reveals that the U.S. activity around her complete catalog — both the six albums released by Big Machine and her subsequent albums and re-recordings on Republic — jumped to averaging nearly 35,000 album consumption units for that day and Saturday, May 31, a 55.1% increase, from the average daily activity in the prior 12-day period, when her catalog average 20,000 units, according to preliminary data from Luminate. In fact, Saturday’s numbers were even bigger than Friday’s performance for the overall Swift catalog as the celebration apparently picked up steam among the Swifties.
Within her album consumption units, the biggest gainer was album downloads, which, according to early reports, jumped from averaging slightly over 100 units a day to over 5,000 copies. That two-day average is a whopping 3,520.6% improvement over the preceding 12-day average unit count. Meanwhile, physical albums improved to averaging just over 4,000 copies for the two days, which is 153.2% greater than the less than 2,000 copies her catalog averaged in the prior period. Overall, surging album sales — digital and physical — accounted for nearly 54% of Swift’s catalog’s album consumption unit increase.
Trending on Billboard
Over at the streaming services, Swift’s catalog on Friday and Saturday (May 30-31) averaged 32.91 million streams, a 35.6% increase over the 24.26 million streams her music accumulated as an average over the 12 days preceding the May 30 announcement.
Likewise, radio rewarded Swift fans by adding a few spins, or a 2.2% increase, to the 3,000-or-so daily plays her song catalog received in each of the 12 days before May 30.
Billboard will continue to track how Swift’s catalog performs in the coming days, as well as look at what albums are benefiting the most as more account reports are filed to Luminate.
Hawaiian singer-songwriter Maoli signed with WME for global representation in all areas. According to a press release, Maoli has racked up more than half a billion streams globally across nine independent album releases. He’s managed by Jason Gibbs, Shawn Dailey and Emilie Glover at Red Light. Maoli is currently on a tour of the U.S. […]
AI music company Suno has debuted a number of new features, allowing users to have more control over the creation and customization of their songs. The company has been known as a powerful generative tool that can make realistic songs at the click of the button with just a few simple prompts, but now, it is embracing more of a collaborative approach between the user and its AI technology.
Now, users can upload up to eight minutes of audio, whether its a hummed melody or a mostly-completed track, and then use Suno to remix it or expand it. Through their new Song Editor features, users can replace lyrics and reimagine sections of songs, as desired. Offering what it calls the “creative slider” users can rework a song into a new genre by using simple toggles that can up a song’s “weirdness” “style strength” or “audio strength.”
The company has also integrated a stem extraction tool to split a Suno-generated song into 12 clean stems, which can then be exported to a user’s preferred DAW.
Trending on Billboard
Suno CEO/founder Mikey Shulman says of the new features: “We envision Suno as a core part of musical creativity, for everyone from novices to Grammy winners. Our new tools offer powerful ways to explore new sonic ideas, remix, and iterate. Our upgraded editing suite gives artists more control than ever over their music.
We’re also working to better integrate Suno into the music production process. For example, Suno’s new stem extraction feature allows artists to more easily bring what they do with Suno into their favorite DAW, and vice versa. We’re excited to keep building tools like these to augment the creativity of musicians and expand access to serious music making.”
The announcement comes just a couple days after news broke that Suno, and its competitor Udio, are in talks with the major music companies — Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group — about licensing their copyrights for AI training. This may include the majors receiving some equity in the two AI music firms, as they have done in previous licensing agreements with new tech companies, like Spotify.
Last summer, Sony, Universal and Warner came together to sue Suno and Udio for copyright infringement of their sound recordings “at an almost unimaginable scale” to train their AI music models. If these licensing deals were to go through, it would likely lead to a settlement of the lawsuits.
GYRO Group has appointed music executive Matthew Rogers as its new chief commercial officer (CCO), marking a major leadership move for the Australian-owned digital music distribution and artist services company.
Rogers, who spent 14 years as chief operating officer at UNIFIED Music Group, brings a wealth of experience in scaling independent music businesses globally. In his new role, he will be instrumental in driving the growth of DistroDirect, GYRO Group’s hyper-local boutique distribution and catalogue management system, which now powers over 500 micro-distributors across 40 markets on six continents.
“We are incredibly excited to welcome Mat to the GYRO Group family,” said CEO Andy Irvine.
Trending on Billboard
“His extensive experience in driving growth and his deep understanding of the independent music landscape will be invaluable as we embark on the next phase of development for DistroDirect and the wider group. Mat’s strategic insights, global networks and commercial acumen will be crucial in achieving our ambitious goals.”
The appointment follows a significant track record: During his time at UNIFIED, Rogers oversaw the company’s transformation from a seven-person Australian operation into a 100-person international enterprise with offices across Australia, North America and Europe. He played a key role in building the heavy music label UNFD and developing STL Tones into a major player in music software and plugins.
Rogers was also pivotal in UNIFIED’s early response to the landmark Raising Their Voices report in 2022, helping to implement progressive strategies around mental wellbeing, workplace safety and industry culture.
He has served over seven years on the board of the Australian Independent Record Labels Association (AIR), as well as four years on the board of the Worldwide Independent Network (WIN), including two years as vice president.
“The move marks a homecoming for Rogers, who returns to a Brisbane-based company nearly 20 years after relocating interstate,” said CMO and co-founder Vivienne Mellish. “GYRO Group is proudly headquartered in Queensland, creating global opportunities for independent artists so we’re absolutely pumped to welcome Mat back to where it all started for him. His track record speaks for itself, and we are confident that his leadership will further strengthen our commercial strategies and market presence. We are thrilled to have his expertise on board.”
“I am thrilled to be joining the dynamic team at GYRO Group at such a pivotal time,” added Rogers. “Having witnessed the company’s impressive growth and commitment to the independent music community, I am eager to contribute my experience to further develop DistroDirect and support GYRO Group’s ambitious international expansion plans. Joining a Queensland-based company after many years interstate feels like a natural and exciting next step.”
With offices across Australia, the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Brazil, the Philippines and India, GYRO Group now represents several brands including GYROstream, DistroDirect, GROUP SPEED and Soothe Sounds. Independent artists using GYRO services have secured ARIA wins, Grammy nominations, No. 1 records and global chart placements. Notable names on their roster include Dom Dolla, ONEFOUR, WILLOW, The Amity Affliction, Lithe, Emma Memma and more.
TikTok launched a new tool on Tuesday (June 3) to help artists understand the way their music percolates through the app’s ecosystem. TikTok for Artists will provide acts with daily information about how their songs are used and which tracks are driving the most engagement. On top of that, the dashboard furnishes artists with information […]
A Honduras-based hotel owner says he’s reviving the Fyre Festival brand alongside Billy McFarland as a pop-up experience at his island resort, marking the latest twist in a bizarre saga.
Heath Miller, a former New York concert promoter and one-time manager of Webster Hall in Manhattan, says he reached an agreement with McFarland to stage a 300-to-400-person Fyre Resort Pop-Up at his hotel, Coral Villa Utila, located on the island of Utila, one of Honduras’ famed Bay Islands in the Caribbean. The event will run from Sept. 3-10.
Tickets are cheap: Just book a room at Miller’s 25-room resort, and a pass for Fyre is included. Rooms start at $198 per night for singles, $329 for couples, $399 for triples and $449 for the hotel’s four-bed room.
Trending on Billboard
Miller is quick to point out that the September event is not being billed as Fyre Festival II, adding that tickets from that event won’t get you access to the Fyre Resort Pop-Up, which he says will be more low key than what had been planned for Fyre’s comeback festival in Playa Del Carmen, Mexico. There will be live entertainment, although Miller notes that he hasn’t secured any talent yet and says the festival won’t have a large budget or a splashy lineup.
“This event isn’t for an artist looking for a $100,000 fee,” he says. “Honestly, for me, this is a promotional vehicle for my hotel and it plays into my grand plan — I’m working on writing a book on my music career, and the book was supposed to end last June [with a story about] Jack Antonoff in Asbury Park. But instead, I guess Fyre is going to be the final chapter of the book.”
In Miller’s estimation, the controversy around the disastrous 2018 festival — which garnered international headlines when ticketholders arrived on a Bahamian island to find that the promised luxury event had not been realized — may ultimately be the biggest draw.
“Fyre Festival is a tainted brand that obviously has a horrible reputation, but at the end of the day, this brand can create press and awareness better than Coachella can,” he says.
Miller has been managing the hotel since 2019 for his late father, who bought the island resort in the 1990s. He says his idea for the Fyre pop-up is partially inspired by Sixthman, the concert and cruise ships company owned by Norwegian Cruise Lines that stages music-themed cruises for artists like Lindsay Stirling, Joe Bonamassa and comedian Nate Bargatze.
“Originally, I wanted to do fan club and events here,” on Utila, says Miller, who hoped to match music with scuba diving and water excursions. He adds, “Fans want to engage with the artist in unique and different ways and see them play in unique settings,” noting that the Fyre pop-up presented a rare opportunity to build proof of concept.
Under the terms of their agreement, McFarland maintains full ownership of Fyre, and Miller will serve as venue manager and site host.
Miller says he’s already secured permits and local approval for the Fyre Resort Pop-Up and said he hopes the famed festival brand creates some positive buzz for Utila. The island is popular year-round with scuba divers and snorkelers who visit the island to swim with sharks and explore the 600-mile-long Mesoamerican Barrier Reef, but it isn’t as well-known as other Caribbean destinations like Barbados, St. Lucia, and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
Miller adds he’s well aware of McFarland’s past failures with Fyre Festival, most famously with the disastrous first edition in 2018, which left hundreds of fans temporarily trapped on Grand Exuma island. McFarland masterminded the event, according to the FBI, convincing fans to shell out thousands for luxury accommodations that turned out to be emergency tents and gourmet meals that were little more than cheese sandwiches.
McFarland went to prison after admitting to stealing $26 million from investors for the event and has been working to repay them since being released from prison in 2022 after serving four years of his six-year sentence. While serving in solitary confinement, McFarland came up with the idea for a sequel to Fyre, which he had hoped would repair his image, and bounced around different sites in the Bahamas and Mexico before landing on Playa del Carmen near Cancun. McFarland ultimately hired Mexican firm Lost Nights to produce the event and staged a press conference on March 27 with local officials to highlight it.
However, things went south in April when city leaders from Playa del Carmen announced that no permits for Fyre Festival had been issued in the seaside town. McFarland responded by releasing images of permits that he said proved Fyre was happening, but he later pulled the plug on the event and refunded ticket holders. On April 24, McFarland announced he was selling Fyre’s assets and intellectual property and had reached an agreement with a streaming service to license the name.
Miller says McFarland retains the name for Fyre and has a core team of a half-dozen individuals working with him, including his long-time partner, Michael Falb.
“I’m well aware of Billy’s past and I think it’s important that we are transparent about what happened. I personally met with the mayor of Utila when securing the permits for this event and even showed him the documentaries about Fyre Festival,” Miller said of the films FYRE: The Greatest Party That Never Happened and Fyre Fraud, both of which were released in 2019 and chronicled the festival’s rise and fall.
“Billy has issues and one of his biggest flaws is that he tends to trust people more than he should,” Miller says, noting that McFarland reminds him of himself when he was a young promoter working New York’s nightlife circuit as an independent concert promoter, both for himself and for John Scher’s Metropolitan Concerts and later Webster Hall. Miller notes he worked with McFarland prior to Fyre Festival, when McFarland was running millennial VIP company Magnises.
“He never stiffed me on a bill — we always got paid what we were owed,” Miller says. “I look at Billy’s mistakes and I ask myself what I would have done if I was controlling millions of dollars for a huge party. I don’t know. What I can tell you about Billy is that he a big kid at heart that really just wants to throw the world’s greatest party.”
To buy tickets and learn more visit fyrehotels.com.