AFM opposes UMG and Warner bids to dismiss AI-licensing pay claims — no ruling yet

Opposition filed 4 September. No ruling yet

On 4 September 2026 the AFM filed its opposition to the defendants’ motions to dismiss in S.D.N.Y. (No. 1:26-cv-04760-ER, Judge Edgardo Ramos). The remaining defendants are Universal Music Group, Inc., Warner Records, Inc., and Atlantic Recording Corp. AFM dropped Warner Music Group Corp. in August after the parent argued it was not a proper party.

Music Business Worldwide (10 September) and RouteNote (14 September) reported the brief. Replies were due 11 September. CourtListener lists 11 September reply memoranda as the last known filings and was last updated at 21:08 that day. Public sources do not show an order granting dismissal or an order to pay.

The fight is SRLA Article 21(a) “new use”

The fight is the “new use” clause in Article 21(a) of the Sound Recording Labor Agreement. AFM says the signatory companies licensed covered recordings to Suno and Udio without paying the musicians or giving the notice the contract requires. The brief says members’ recordings were “fed into AI systems for commercial exploitation.” The amended complaint is dated 24 July.

The labels’ reading, as MBW and the AFM brief describe it: Article 21(a) sets no rate of its own and imports one from a separate AFM agreement governing the new use. No AI agreement exists, they argue, so no payment is owed. UMG moved on 5 August; Warner Records and Atlantic on 14 August.

AFM’s answer is that the clause is “reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation,” and that its own reading is plausible—enough, it says, to survive dismissal. The brief says it is not asking the court to rewrite the SRLA, but to enforce the payment and notice regime written for uses the SRLA does not cover.

2024 copyright rhetoric, settlement proceeds, the judge’s question

AFM quotes the labels’ 24 June 2024 copyright complaints against Suno and Udio: AI-created sounds would dilute artist royalty pools and risk overrunning the market for human-made recordings. The union alleges that after late-2025 settlements the labels took compensation and ongoing licensing revenue, while AFM musicians did not share those proceeds. That is an allegation, not a finding.

MBW’s settlement map does not line up one-for-one with that claim. It reports Warner settled with Udio in November 2025 and days later with Suno; Universal settled and licensed with Udio in October 2025 and has not settled with Suno. At the 21 July pre-motion conference, Judge Ramos asked why the labels should not pay the authors if they are benefiting from AI licenses, the brief and MBW quote. That is a question, not a holding. Sony Music is not a party.

Next SRLA talks, and the layer makers should split

MBW and RouteNote report that the next SRLA talks put AI at the center. The brief also argues sampling can supply a rate and that notice stands alone. None of that is a court conclusion.

For production, split the layers. “Licensed AI” is a label-to-model-company contract. Session-musician pay under the CBA is a separate fight, still at dismissal briefing. Having made a track on a rightsholder-partnered model does not pre-decide this case.

• What exists now is briefing. No dismissal, no payment order
• Track major-label AI licenses separately from performer CBA pay and notice
• Sony is not a party. This is not legal advice

Where Kominami sits

This note does not change Kominami’s site license. It is a public-record summary, not legal advice. Public sources do not support treating “a major licensed it” as proof that session-musician pay is settled.