Business
Page: 83
This story was published as part of Billboard’s music technology newsletter ‘Machine Learnings.’
Sign up for ‘Machine Learnings,’ and Billboard’s other newsletters, here.
Let’s get the news out of the way: on Monday (Nov. 24) Drake initiated legal action against Universal Music Group — the parent company of his record label — and Spotify over allegations that the two companies conspired to artificially inflate the popularity of Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us.” This, he says, was done through a variety of allegedly illegal promotional methods, like UMG — which also is the parent company to Kendrick’s label — accepting a royalty reduction in exchange for boosting streams; payola via independent radio promotions; and paid but undisclosed influencer campaigns. (For their part, Universal called these claims “offensive and untrue.”)
Longtime readers of Machine Learnings know that most of the topics presented in Drake’s case are ones we’ve covered extensively in this newsletter. I don’t take the issues of streaming fraud and shady digital marketing tactics lightly, and if these allegations are true, it would be a bombshell that one of the world’s biggest artists called out the world’s largest music company for partaking in it. (And trust me, I’d be all over reporting that!) But while Drake’s allegations could still hold some merit, this particular court document seems to be backed up with questionable evidence and — it seems — some level of misunderstanding about the way music promotion works today.
So let’s break it down. Here are a few key quotes from Monday’s court document, with commentary.
“In his memo to staff reflecting on the highlights of 2021, the CEO of UMG, Lucian Grainge, remarked on it being ‘harder than ever for artists to break through the noise: sixty thousand songs are added to Spotify every day.’”
Trending on Billboard
Maybe I’m splitting hairs by pointing this out, but I find this to be a strange way to begin laying out these allegations. Why are they citing highlights from 2021 when we get updates every year about how many songs are added to Spotify on a daily basis? It would have been far more effective to start by including the 2023 stat: 120,000 songs are uploaded to Spotify each day, according to Luminate. Or, if they want to keep the quote from Grainge in, why not tack that current number on to the end?
Throughout this document, it seems like Drake’s team is missing key, up-to-date information on the ways songs are released and marketed today. This is surprising, given Drake is one of the most successful artists in the world and one who often makes savvy marketing and business decisions. One of those marketing tactics that immediately comes to mind is when Drake graced the cover of a ton of Spotify playlists during the release of his album Scorpion in 2018 to raise awareness, and streams, for the project. It was so over the top that Billboard reported at the time that some fans were calling for Spotify to provide refunds because they were seeing too much Drake.
“On information and belief, UMG charged Spotify licensing rates 30 percent lower than its usual licensing rates for “Not Like Us” in exchange for Spotify affirmatively recommending the Song to users who are searching for other unrelated songs and artists. Neither UMG nor Spotify disclosed that Spotify had received compensation of any kind in exchange for recommending the Song.”
Rather than some nefarious back room deal, this sounds like Drake’s lawyers are referring to Spotify’s Discovery Mode feature, which is used by a wide array of labels and artists and is practically never disclosed. According to an article from Spotify’s support team, artists who want a song to receive an additional algorithmic boost on the platform can opt in to Discovery Mode which “doesn’t require an upfront budget” and instead takes a “30% commission… to recording royalties generated from all streams of selected songs in Discovery Mode contexts.”
When Spotify debuted this feature in November 2020, it immediately drew controversy. In June 2021, Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Hank Johnson Jr. (D-GA) sent a letter to Spotify’s CEO/founder Daniel Ek voicing worries that the feature “may set in motion a ‘race to the bottom’ in which artists and labels feel compelled to accept lower royalties as a necessary way to break through an extremely crowded and competitive music environment.”
Again, in March 2022, Reps. Yvette D. Clarke (D-NY), Judy Chu (D-CA) and Tony Cardenas (D-CA) — co-chairs of the Congressional Caucus on Multicultural Media — expressed concerns that Discovery Mode “lack[ed] transparency” for both artists and consumers. The representatives then asked the company to publish “on a monthly basis the name of every track enrolled in the program” and the agreed-upon discounted royalty rate for each, calling Discovery Mode “a serious risk for musicians.”
That said, it’s not clear if “Not Like Us” was part of Spotify’s Discovery Mode program, and historically, Universal Music Group has not been known to use the feature for any of its frontline releases — including any Kendrick Lamar or Drake songs.
“UMG, directly or through Interscope, also conspired with and paid currently unknown parties to use ‘bots’ to artificially inflate the spread of ‘Not Like Us’ and deceive consumers into believing the Song was more popular than it was in reality… One individual unknown to Petitioner revealed publicly on a popular podcast that Mr. Kendrick Lamar Duckworth’s ‘label’ (i.e., Interscope) paid him via third parties to use ‘bots’ to achieve 30,000,000 streams on Spotify in the first days of the release of ‘Not Like Us’”
If this is true, this is streaming fraud and would be a serious offense. Just a few months ago, a man named Michael Anthony Smith was indicted by federal prosecutors on charges of wire fraud, wire fraud conspiracy and money laundering conspiracy for allegedly using bots to boost the streams of his catalog and to help him siphon $10 million out of the royalty pool.
But the evidence here is sketchy. Drake’s lawyers admit that the “individual” who was allegedly solicited to artificially drive up Kendrick’s streams is “unknown to [Drake]” but that this anonymous person went on DJ Akademiks’ podcast to talk about this alleged scheme. DJ Akademiks is a podcaster who is known to be close with Drake, and he has played a significant role in backing up Drake during the beef earlier this year. Even if this ended up being true, which seems like a stretch, it feels quite biased.
“While historically payola has been thought of in terms of paying radio stations to play songs, in February 2020, the Federal Trade Commission released guidance stating that ‘by paying an influencer to pretend that their endorsement or review is untainted by a financial relationship, this is illegal payola.’ On information and belief, UMG employed a similar scheme by paying social media influencers to promote and endorse the Song and Video. For example, Petitioner understands that UMG paid the popular NFR Podcast — which has nearly 300,000 subscribers on YouTube and over 330,000 followers on X — to promote ‘Not Like Us’”
Drake’s team is citing a quote from February 2020 by the FTC that has been removed from the agency’s website. I do not know if that means it is no longer their current rule, or if there was another reason.
What I do know is that just a few months ago, I wrote a story on the topic of influencers receiving undisclosed payments to play songs in the background of TikTok videos. I went into the reporting believing, as Drake’s team seems to, that this was definitely against FTC guidelines, but the FTC told me that wasn’t necessarily the case.
“While we can’t comment on any particular example, that practice seems somewhat analogous to a product placement,” the FTC told me. “When there are songs playing in the backgrounds of videos, there are no objective claims made about the songs. The video creator may be communicating implicitly that they like the song, but viewers can judge the song themselves when they listen to it playing in the video. For these reasons, it may not be necessary for a video to disclose that the content creator was compensated for using a particular song in the background in the video.”
Some of the examples from NFR that Drake cites here are not exactly the same type of pay-to-play content I researched for my story, but I could see these examples being acceptable by the FTC based on what they told me. One example of UMG’s alleged influencer payola cited by Drake’s lawyers was a tweet by NFR that says that Kendrick Lamar’s new music video was released. Another was NFR saying “Kids rapping Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us’ word for word at a birthday party.” Another: “Kendrick Lamar’s ‘Not Like Us’ becomes the FASTEST rap song to reach 300M Spotify streams.”
All three of these examples are objective statements about one of the biggest artists in the world. Referring back to the statement I got from the FTC, “There are no objective claims made about the songs…viewers can judge the songs themselves.” (I say all this while also acknowledging that some of the other examples listed might be in more of a gray area with the FTC).
The practice of paying influencers to post about new songs is nothing new, and one major label marketer told me he estimated “75% of popular songs on TikTok started with a creator marketing campaign.” According to digital marketing experts, influencer campaigns have been the go-to marketing strategy at every major label since TikTok took off in 2020. With that in mind, it is hard for me to imagine that Drake’s team has never run a similar campaign for any of his own viral hits, which would undermine his entire argument.
“Streaming and licensing is a zero-sum game. Every time a song ‘breaks through,’ it means another artist does not. UMG’s choice to saturate the music market with ‘Not Like Us’ comes at the expense of its other artists, like Drake. As Drake is Petitioner’s sole owner, and Petitioner owns the copyright to Drake’s entire catalogue, Petitioner suffered economic harm as a result of UMG’s scheme.”
I find this to be a strange claim — that if Kendrick’s song streams well it directly takes away from Drake or other artists. It feels like a stretch to blame Kendrick for other artists not succeeding with their songs at the same time. I imagine Drake faced more “economic harm” from the reputational damage this song did to him (by calling him a “pedophile”) than it did by being a “zero-sum” streaming game. Plus, with UMG the parent company distributing both artists — and thus making money from their success — it makes no business sense for them to be deliberately harming his career and prospects.
This zero-sum claim seems to be what he’s getting at in his second legal filing, released Tuesday (Nov. 26). In it, he claims UMG should have stopped Kendrick from releasing a song with “false” claims that defamed his character.
“UMG … could have refused to release or distribute the song or required the offending material to be edited and/or removed,” Drake’s lawyers write in the court document. “But UMG chose to do the opposite. UMG designed, financed and then executed a plan to turn ‘Not Like Us’ into a viral mega-hit with the intent of using the spectacle of harm to Drake and his businesses to drive consumer hysteria and, of course, massive revenues. That plan succeeded, likely beyond UMG’s wildest expectations.”
By saying this, Drake is essentially advocating for labels to censor their artists, which is a very slippery slope — I’d wager most people would find it troublesome if a billion-dollar corporation started preemptively censoring art. Not to mention, Drake has levied plenty of his own unsubstantiated claims against Kendrick this year, most notably on also-UMG-released diss track “Family Matters.”
The hip-hop industry has fought for years to remind the judicial system in the U.S. that not everything a rapper says in a song is a cold hard fact, and it should not be used as evidence against a rapper in a criminal sense. As top music attorney Dina Lapolt once put it to Variety, “[these] attempts to put all rap lyrics into the categories of historical fact and fiction [are] failing to understand that hip-hop, like most art, is more complex than that… lyrics are not to be taken literally.”
HYBE’s BigHit Music record label named current general manager Seon Jeong Shin to be the next president, following approval at a shareholders meeting and board of directors resolution on Tuesday (Nov. 26). Shin, who was named to Billboard’s 2022 40 Under 40 list for helping develop HYBE’s artist training system, played a role in the […]
On Oct. 22, Burning Man CEO Marian Goodell published an urgent message to the global Burner community. The gist? The organization needs to raise a whopping $20 million in charitable donations by the end of the year — or it may need to raise ticket prices for future events.
“We are well past the point where ticket revenues from Black Rock City are able to support our year-round cultural work,” Goodell wrote, explaining that Burning Man Project — the nonprofit behind the annual gathering in Nevada’s Black Rock Desert and other Burning Man-related initiatives — experienced a significant revenue shortfall this year.
Goodell explained that the primary reason behind this shortfall was that Burning Man’s highest-priced tickets for the 2024 festival had not sold “as planned.” Each year since 2016, before the main sale begins, roughly 4,000 Burning Man tickets go on sale for much more than main sale tickets — this year selling at $1,500 and $2,500. These tickets, which are typically purchased by people who have cash to spare and don’t want to risk not getting a ticket during the main sale, usually bring in approximately $7 million — and nearly $10 million in 2023. But a spokesperson for Burning Man Project says that in 2024, higher-priced ticket sales totaled $3.4 million, down nearly $6 million from the prior year.
Trending on Billboard
“This $5.7M shortfall, combined with a $3M dip in receipts from main-sale tickets and vehicle passes, means that our year-end charitable donation target has essentially doubled to nearly $20M,” Goodell wrote.
The financial issue was compounded when Burning Man 2024 failed to sell out, with organizers pointing to the generally soft 2024 festival market and the fact that after two difficult years — temperatures reached a grueling 103 at Burning Man 2022 while rain created issues in 2023 — many people opted to stay home. Goodell says all ticket tiers saw decreased sales in 2024 and estimated that attendance was down by roughly 4,000 this year, bringing total attendance to approximately 70,000.
“The drop in the population, but particularly around the higher price tickets, simply pushed us into a spot that I knew we were going to be in,” Goodell says, explaining that she and the team had seen this financial turning point coming for several years as production costs increased.
Burning Man typically relies on $10 million in charitable donations every year, with a varying number of full-time staff dedicated to philanthropy, depending on current projects and time of year. Now, given the doubled demand for donations in 2024, the organization has launched a new fundraising model through which people can subscribe to make a monthly donation, with one-off donations also being accepted.
Goodell declines to give a number for how much money has been raised over the last month but says engagement with the new model has been high and that Burning Man is “at a record for recurring gifts.” The organization is also seeing new donors “coming in at decent amounts,” she says.
Still, not everyone in the community has been enthusiastic about the request. The comments on Goodell’s post and social media have veered toward critique, with some accusing her and the organization of mismanaging funds, despite Burning Man sharing information and tax filings about the tax-exempt organization’s annual revenue and expenses for the last decade. For 2023, Burning Man cited $63.6 million in total expenses, with $43.8 million of that spent on Black Rock City and the rest spent on art, civic engagement, administration and fundraising efforts.
“I like reading Reddit because it’s really mean,” Goodell says with a laugh about the comments on her announcement, all of which she’s read. “I really process it all as people having an incredible amount of passion. If they didn’t, we wouldn’t be Burning Man.”
Some commenters have accused the organization of spending unnecessary money on Burning Man Project-related projects including the disaster relief volunteer group Burners Without Borders and programming at Fly Ranch, a 3,800-acre property near the Black Rock City site that the organization bought for $6.5 million in 2021. But Goodell says there is “absolutely” a misperception that these projects use more money than they do, adding that the initiatives are largely funded and run by groups of independent Burners and that their cost accounts for less than 4% of the organization’s total programming dollars. “So even if you get rid of them,” she says, “you still haven’t solved the budget problem whatsoever.”
The general consensus from commenters is that they want the focus of the organization’s expenditures to be on Black Rock City itself. To that end, says Goodell, the amount of money raised through the end of the year will determine the price of Burning Man 2025 tickets. As she explains, the price of many Burning Man tickets is subsidized by tickets that sell at a higher price. These higher-priced sales have made it possible for Burning Man to sell main sale tickets at $575 since 2022, an increase from $475 in 2019. (Burning Man didn’t officially happen in 2020 or 2021 due to the pandemic.) Without this subsidy, Burning Man estimates those $575 tickets would be priced at $749.
“If we don’t set ourselves up right, we’re going to have to raise ticket prices,” Goodell says, “[especially because] we don’t have the sponsorships that the other festivals do. And I’d like to lower ticket prices.”
With respect to prices for the 2025 event, a Burning Man Project spokesperson tells Billboard that current fundraising “will inform operational decisions including pricing for Black Rock City 2025. Philanthropy, which is key to subsidizing ticket prices, helps us avoid a situation where the cost of a ticket prevents a community member or new Burner from coming to Black Rock City.”
To save money, the organization has looked at, Goodell says, “all the ways we can be working better with resources” by reviewing all expenditures from Black Rock City electricity use to medical facilities to the number of toilets rented. She adds that the landlords of Burning Man Project’s San Francisco office have “been really flexible” in adjusting their rental agreement to provide them with “a little relief.”
With many tech billionaires, movie stars and other one-percenters all trekking to Burning Man every August, there’s also presumably a short list of rich Burners who could solve the current financial shortfall by donating a million or two. But Goodell says that’s not the point.
“Just going to major donors right now without having an outside world narrative doesn’t make any sense,” she says. “It’s not like the pandemic where we’re short, so we call up a couple people… We need to build a narrative and a conversation about what we’re doing for the long term. That’s why we’re creating this public conversation, which is not something we’ve typically done.”
The idea, Goodell says, is that creating widespread community engagement via information sharing and the subscription model will help set up Burning Man for the long run. In making this point, she emphasizes that many cultural institutions — ballets, operas, museums, etc. — rely on patrons who believe in the cause and underwrite costs. As she puts it, “I want to get through this moment [to a place] where people get excited and feel good about the philanthropic nature of Burning Man culture.”
Raising this money is especially crucial given that Burning Man has a strict no-sponsorships policy that’s part of its “decommodification” principle — one of 10 principles that guide and shape the event. Burning Man doesn’t have a merch stand or sell t-shirts or posters on its website; the only thing one can buy onsite is ice. (This cash transaction-free setting of course strongly contrasts with the typically high price of attending the event in the first place.)
“We’re deliberately creating an environment that brings people together so that they can collaborate, create art and do it without interference from transactions or from commerce,” Goodell says. “We’re going to keep protecting that.” She adds that this decommodification principle is so entrenched that when Ben & Jerry’s cofounder Ben Cohen came to Burning Man and drove around giving away ice cream, he used an unmarked truck and cups without a logo.
“[People from] Coachella, from Outside Lands, Bonnaroo, Glastonbury, they’ve all come to Burning Man, and they’re all like, ‘You’re crazy. You don’t have sponsorships? How the f— do you guys do it?’” says Goodell. She adds that the producers of one California festival with corporate sponsorships told her their event gets 25-30% of its total income from, as she puts it, “forms of commerce that Burning Man has banned.”
While the current financial situation is creating questions about the viability of Burning Man 2025 and beyond, Goodell says that the event “has to happen, and it will happen, because that’s who we are.” In true Burner spirit, she speaks of the current need as an opportunity to set Burning Man up for the future: to create more art, to bring a more diverse group of participants to the event and to spread Burning Man culture around the world.
“There are definitely some skeptics out there,” she says. “But what we’re hearing is the majority understand that we’re a nonprofit and that we’re depending on financial support to accomplish the mission.”
When Brookfield Asset Management invested $2 billion in Primary Wave roughly two years ago, a representative from the Canadian fund predicted that just as there has been a wave of comic book superhero movies, there would a wave of musician biopics.
“Music is going to be like the Marvel and DC comic catalogs,” Angelo Ruffino, who was then the managing partner at Brookfield behind the Primary Wave investment, said in October 2022. “There are just so many ways to monetize music that I think are in the early innings.”
Hollywood has churned out superhero films, from Batman to Black Panther, but the genre has been drawing smaller audiences of late. With a flurry of music biopics set for release in the next few years — including feature films about Bob Dylan, Michael Jackson, Bruce Springsteen, Queen Latifah, four films about each member of The Beatles, and maybe one about The Bee Gees — have we reached peak biopic?
Trending on Billboard
The top post on Reddit’s subreddit page about Dylan as of this writing is titled, “On not being interested in A Complete Unknown,” and it is far from the only gripe about dramatizations of currently touring musicians on the Internet.
However many factors are contributing to a packed pipeline of musician biopics, and consumer demand just one. By that measure, many recent music biopics have been hits. About half of the 25 highest grossing music biopics of all time, according to boxofficemojo.com, were released since 2014, with Bohemian Rhapsody about Queen at No. 1 with $216.4 million, Straight Outta Compton about N.W.A. at No. 2 with $161.2 million and Elvis at No. 3 with $151 million all in gross revenue in the United States.
Natalia Nastaskin, chief content officer at Primary Wave, which as involved with the 2022 release “Whitney Houston: I Wanna Dance With Somebody”—No. 24 in the top 25 grossing biopics—says demand remains high. But the years it can take to land the starring actors, directors and producers essential to making a hit movie may mean these films continue to trickle out over the coming years.
“I do think we are going to see more of these biopics because we are always fascinated by the stories of our rock stars and the behind-the-scenes story of their lives,” Nastaskin tells Billboard. “How many more biopics will we see? Really hitting that cultural zeitgeist may take several years.”
Primary Wave is currently involved in biopics about Boyz II Men and Boy George—both in production.
Another factor that has the potential to disrupt the normal line between demand and supply are the different ways Hollywood and the music industry make money off these films. Hollywood defines a successful movie by the revenue it grosses; the music industry is more interested in how it drives moviegoers to stream the music, buy merch and the tangential licensing opportunities delivered by the music’s resurging relevance.
By those definitions, Elvis was a smash. All of the activity that the Baz Luhrmann biopic drove for Elvis’s music and brand boosted the Presley estate’s estimated value to around $1 billion 2022 from an estimated $400 million to $600 million in 2020.
It may take years to measure the impact of Timothée Chalamet’s portrayal of Bob Dylan on his catalog, at least until 2025, which is when the Michael Jackson biopic is slated for release. With The Beatles films expected in 2027, there seems like no shortage of musician biopics to come.
Drake has launched a second bombshell legal action against Universal Music Group over Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us,” accusing the music giant of defamation and claiming it could have halted the release of a song “falsely accusing him of being a sex offender.”
A day after filing an action in New York accusing UMG of illegally boosting Lamar’s track with payments to Spotify, Drake’s company leveled similar claims in Texas court regarding radio giant iHeartRadio. The new filing, filed late Monday and made public on Tuesday, claims UMG “funneled payments” to iHeart as part of a “pay-to-play scheme” to promote the song on radio.
But the filing also offers key new details about Drake’s grievances toward UMG, the label where he has spent his entire career. In it, he says UMG knew that Kendrick’s song “falsely” accused him of being a “certified pedophile” and “predator” but chose to release it anyway.
Trending on Billboard
“UMG … could have refused to release or distribute the song or required the offending material to be edited and/or removed,” Drake’s lawyers write. “But UMG chose to do the opposite. UMG designed, financed and then executed a plan to turn ‘Not Like Us’ into a viral mega-hit with the intent of using the spectacle of harm to Drake and his businesses to drive consumer hysteria and, of course, massive revenues. That plan succeeded, likely beyond UMG’s wildest expectations.”
Like the New York filing on Monday, the new petition isn’t quite a lawsuit. Instead, it’s so-called pre-action filing aimed taking depositions from key figures at UMG and iHeart in order to obtain more information that might support Drake’s accusations in a future lawsuit.
In seeking that information, Drake’s lawyers say they already have enough evidence to pursue a “claim for defamation” against UMG, but that they might also tack on claims of civil fraud and racketeering based on what they discover from the depositions.
UMG and iHeartRadio did not immediately return requests for comment on the new filing. Lamar is not named as a respondent in the filing and is not legally accused of any wrongdoing.
Universal Music Group responded to yesterday’s filing with a statement provided to Billboard. “The suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue,” the company said. “We employ the highest ethical practices in our marketing and promotional campaigns. No amount of contrived and absurd legal arguments in this pre-action submission can mask the fact that fans choose the music they want to hear.”
Like Monday’s bombshell petition, the new filing in Texas is another remarkable escalation in the high-profile beef between the two stars, which saw Drake and Lamar exchange stinging diss tracks over a period of months earlier this year. Such beefs happen frequently in the world of hip-hop, but few thought either side would file legal actions over the insults.
It also represents a deepening of the rift between Drake and UMG, where the star has spent his entire career — first through signing a deal with Lil Wayne’s Young Money imprint, which was distributed by Republic Records, then by signing directly to Republic. Lamar, too, has spent his entire career associated with UMG and is currently signed to a licensing deal with Interscope.
In Tuesday’s new petition, Drake essentially accused the music giant of using illegal means to unfairly prioritize one of its artists over the other.
“Before it approved the release of the song, UMG knew that the song itself, as well as its accompanying album art and music video, attacked the character of another one of UMG’s most prominent artists, Drake, by falsely accusing him of being a sex offender, engaging in pedophilic acts, harboring sex offenders and committing other criminal sexual acts,” his lawyers write.
Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.) introduced the Transparency and Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence Networks (TRAIN) Act on Monday in the latest effort to shield songwriters, musicians and other creators from the unauthorized use of their works in training generative AI models.
If successful, the legislation would grant copyright holders access to training records, enabling them to verify if their creations were used — a process similar to methods combating internet piracy.
Trending on Billboard
“This is simple: if your work is used to train A.I., there should be a way for you, the copyright holder, to determine that it’s been used by a training model, and you should get compensated if it was,” said Welch. “We need to give America’s musicians, artists, and creators a tool to find out when A.I. companies are using their work to train models without artists’ permission.”
Creative industry leaders have long voiced concerns about the opaque practices of AI companies regarding the use of copyrighted materials. Many of these startups and firms do not disclose their training methods, leaving creators unable to determine whether their works have been incorporated into AI systems. The TRAIN Act directly addresses this so-called “black box” problem, aiming to introduce transparency and accountability into the AI training process.
Welch’s bill is just the latest development in the battle between rights holders and generative AI. In May, Sony Music released a statement warning more than 700 AI companies not to scrape the company’s copyrighted data, while Warner Music released a similar statement in July. That same month in the U.S. Senate, an anti-AI deepfakes bill dubbed the No FAKES Act was introduced by a bipartisan group of senators. In October, thousands of musicians, composers, international organizations and labels — including all three majors — signed a statement opposing AI companies and developers using their work without a license for training generative AI systems.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing earlier this month, U.S. Copyright Director Shira Perlmutter emphasized the importance of transparency to protect copyrighted materials, saying that without insight into how AI systems are trained, creators are left in the dark about potential misuse of their work, undermining their rights and earnings.
Sen. Welch has been active in promoting consumer protections and safety around emerging technologies, including AI. His previous initiatives include the AI CONSENT Act, which mandates that online platforms obtain informed consent from users before utilizing their data for AI training, and the Digital Platform Commission Act, which proposes the establishment of a federal regulatory agency for digital platforms.
The TRAIN Act left the station with immediate widespread support from creative organizations, including the RIAA, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, SoundExchange and the American Federation of Musicians, among others.
Several music industry leaders praised the TRAIN Act for its potential to balance innovation with an eye on respecting creators’ rights. Mitch Glazier, RIAA chairman & CEO, highlighted its role in ensuring creators can pursue legal recourse when their works are used without permission. Todd Dupler, the Recording Academy’s chief advocacy and public policy officer, and Mike O’Neill, the CEO of BMI, echoed these sentiments, stressing the bill’s importance in preventing misuse and enabling creators to hold AI companies accountable.
David Israelite, president & CEO of the National Music Publishers’ Association, pointed to the TRAIN Act as a vital measure to close regulatory gaps and ensure transparency in AI practices, while John Josephson, chairman and CEO of SESAC Music Group, praised its dual approach of promoting responsible innovation while protecting creators.
Additional endorsements came from SoundExchange CEO Michael Huppe, who stressed the need for creators to understand how their works are being utilized in AI systems, Elizabeth Matthews, CEO of ASCAP, who stressed the need for artists to be fairly compensated, and Ashley Irwin, president of the Society of Composers & Lyricists, who emphasized the bill’s role in safeguarding the rights of composers and songwriters.
Select Music Industry Reactions to the TRAIN Act:
Mitch Glazier, RIAA: “Senator Welch’s carefully calibrated bill will bring much needed transparency to AI, ensuring artists and rightsholders have fair access to the courts when their work is copied for training without authorization or consent. RIAA applauds Senator Welch’s leadership and urges the Senate to enact this important, narrow measure into law.”
David Israelite, NMPA: “We greatly appreciate Senator Welch’s leadership on addressing the complete lack of regulation and transparency surrounding songwriters’ and other creators’ works being used to train generative AI models. The TRAIN Act proposes an administrative subpoena process that enables rightsholders to hold AI companies accountable. The process necessitates precise record-keeping standards from AI developers and gives rightsholders the ability to see whether their copyrighted works have been used without authorization. We strongly support the bill which prioritizes creators who continue to be exploited by unjust AI practices.”
Elizabeth Matthews, ASCAP: “The future of America’s vibrant creative economy depends upon laws that protect the rights of human creators. By requiring transparency about when and how copyrighted works are used to train generative AI models, the TRAIN Act paves the way for creators to be fairly compensated for the use of their work. On behalf of ASCAP’s more than one million songwriters, composer and music publisher members, we applaud Senator Welch for his leadership.”
Mike O’Neill, BMI: “Some AI companies are using creators’ copyrighted works without their permission or compensation to ‘train’ their systems, but there is currently no way for creators to confirm that use or require companies to disclose it. The TRAIN Act will provide a legal avenue for music creators to compel these companies to disclose those actions, which will be a step in the right direction towards greater transparency and accountability. BMI thanks Senator Welch for introducing this important legislation.”
John Josephson, SESAC: “SESAC applauds the TRAIN Act, which clears an efficient path to court for songwriters whose work is used by AI developers without authorization or consent. Senator Welch’s narrow approach will promote responsible innovation and AI while protecting the creative community from unlawful scraping and infringement of their work.”
Michael Huppe, SoundExchange: ”As artificial intelligence companies continue to train their generative AI models on copyrighted works, it is imperative that music creators and copyright owners have the ability to know where and how their works are being used. The Transparency and Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence Networks (TRAIN) Act would provide creators with an important and necessary tool as they fight to ensure their works are not exploited without the proper consent, credit, or compensation.”
Todd Dupler, The Recording Academy: “The TRAIN Act would empower creators with an important tool to ensure transparency and prevent the misuse of their copyrighted works. The Recording Academy® applauds Sen. Welch for his leadership and commitment to protecting human creators and creativity.”
Gamma., Kakao Entertainment and SM Entertainment have formed a strategic global alliance to launch British boy band dearALICE, the companies jointly announced on Tuesday (Nov. 26). The pact will include global distribution in the U.S., U.K. and Korea/APAC, along with label services across A&R, production, marketing, promotion, brand sponsorships and global business development.
dearALICE’s formation was documented in the six-part BBC One series Made in Korea: The K-Pop Experience, which was produced by Kakao, SM and British production company Moon&Back Media (The X Factor, Britain’s Got Talent). The show followed the group’s five U.K. members — Blaise Noon, Dexter Greenwood, James Sharp, Oliver (Olly) Quinn and Reese Carter — as they embarked on a 100-day K-pop-style training regimen at SM. An original soundtrack album from the show was also released.
The parties came together in L.A. to finalize the agreement. Those in attendance included Larry Jackson, co-founder/CEO at gamma.; Joseph Chang, co-CEO at Kakao Entertainment and CEO at SM & Kakao Entertainment America; Jung Min Choi, chief growth officer at SM Entertainment; Kevin Nishimura, COO at SM & Kakao Entertainment; Ben Cook, president of UK & Europe at gamma.; Russ Lindsay, co-founder at Moon&Back Media; and all five dearALICE members.
Trending on Billboard
dearALICE is slated to release its official debut single by the end of this year.
“I have found that it is a superpower in life to embrace the truth of ‘I know what I don’t know.’ I have always been intrigued by the music and culture coming out of South Korea, and to now partner with Kakao Entertainment and SM Entertainment on dearALICE affords gamma. an opportunity to learn from THE BEST in that culture,” said Jackson in a statement. “We are already finding a special creative kinship with Joseph, Kevin and their teams. Our ideations are very much aligned albeit informed by different life experiences, from disparate corners of the globe.”
Jackson continued, “The cleverness of creating this show, it premiering on the BBC in the U.K., and bringing this extremely talented group to the world by way of it, was their idea, and we are thrilled to be a part of it. Kakao Entertainment and SM have always been purveyors of true, patient artist development in Korea, and I have deeply respected their approach from afar. Expect to hear a lot from dearALICE in 2025.”
“Our partnership with gamma. represents an exciting step in our ongoing strategy for the successful launch of dearALICE,” said Chang. “Collaborating with a label of gamma.’s stature, known for its deep industry expertise and innovative approach, allows us to accelerate our efforts in bringing forward dearALICE to audiences worldwide. dearALICE stands out as a truly distinctive project for our company, blending British roots with the global reach and creative influences of Kakao Entertainment and SM Entertainment. We believe this collaboration will unlock new opportunities for the group to thrive internationally, while also showcasing their groundbreaking artistry to music fans across the globe.”
Added Lindsay, “What an amazing twelve months it’s been for the boys! From being cast in December last year, to experiencing a unique and unforgettable 100 days of K-pop training with SM Entertainment in Korea, then premiering a 6-part Saturday night BBC One TV series in the summer, followed by the Made in Korea: The K-Pop Experience Original TV Soundtrack EP release and a superb live performance on the UK’s highest-rated entertainment show, BBC One’s Strictly Come Dancing! It’s a testament to their incredible hard work and passion that sees them sign a major global recording and distribution deal with gamma., joining a stable with some of the world’s most talented artists and music executives.”
Guitar manufacturer Gibson has issued a cease-and-desist against the branding agency behind a line of guitars endorsed by President-elect Donald Trump, alleging the design infringes the company’s trademarks, Billboard has confirmed. The cease-and-desist against 16 Creative alleges the guitar line infringes on its trademark for the “iconic Les Paul body shape,” a Gibson spokesperson tells […]
Universal Music Group (UMG) has responded to allegations by UMG artist Drake that it conspired with Spotify to artificially boost the popularity of Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” in a blockbuster legal filing on Monday (Nov. 25). “The suggestion that UMG would do anything to undermine any of its artists is offensive and untrue,” to […]
Drake has initiated legal action against Universal Music Group and Spotify over allegations that the two companies conspired to artificially inflate the popularity of Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us.”
In a filing Monday (Nov. 25) in Manhattan court, Drake’s Frozen Moments LLC accused UMG of launching an illegal “scheme” involving bots, payola and other methods to pump up Lamar’s song — a track that savagely attacked Drake amid an ongoing feud between the two stars.
“UMG did not rely on chance, or even ordinary business practices,” attorneys for Drake’s company write. “It instead launched a campaign to manipulate and saturate the streaming services and airwaves.”
Trending on Billboard
Drake’s attorneys accuse UMG of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the federal “RICO” statute often used in criminal cases against organized crime. They also allege deceptive business practices and false advertising under New York state law.
The court filings are a remarkable twist in the high-profile beef between the two stars, which saw Drake and Kendrick exchange stinging diss tracks over a period of months earlier this year. That such a dispute would spill into business litigation seemed almost unthinkable in the world of hip-hop.
It also represents a stunning rift between Drake and UMG, where the star has spent his entire career, first through signing a deal with Lil Wayne’s Young Money imprint, which was distributed by Republic Records, and then signing directly to Republic.
Lamar, meanwhile, has also spent his entire career associated with UMG, first through the TDE imprint, which was distributed by Interscope, and more recently through his own company pgLang, which he licenses through Interscope.
In technical terms, Monday’s filing is not yet a full lawsuit, but a so-called “pre-action” petition — a procedure under New York law that aims to secure information before filing a lawsuit. Spotify declined to comment. UMG did not immediately return a request for comment.
This is a developing story, and will be updated as more information becomes available.