News
Indie publishers call for songs to be valued at least equally with recordings in generative-AI licenses (revenue split and commercial licenses for BGM makers). Joint principles, not signed deals
On 30 September 2026 Brussels-based IMPF and London-based IMPEL published a joint generative-AI licensing framework. Core line: absent other salient factors, the song should be valued at least equally with the recording. Principles and a call for CMO/licensor support, not concluded individual licenses.
What happened
On 30 September 2026 IMPF (Independent Music Publishers International Forum, Brussels) and IMPEL (independent publishers’ digital-rights body, London) published a joint generative-AI licensing framework. They call on CMOs and other licensors to support it. The text is a set of principles, not a signed individual license.
What changed
The two bodies had issued AI positions separately. This joint statement lists seven principles, with the core line that, absent other salient factors, the song must be valued at least equally with the recording. It also asks for a split between past use, training, outputs and future use; specific licence scope; downstream royalties for songs used in training; and attribution-technology pilots (three companies, unnamed in this statement).
Whose work this affects
This is a revenue-split and commercial-license negotiation note. Indie publishers now have a written axis: song share at least level with the recording, absent other salient factors. For YouTube/game BGM jobs, check per title whether publishing and master sit with different parties. This release does not fix contract terms.
Do this today
On each live generation job, write one line on the contract/pre-clearance sheet naming the song (publishing) and recording (master) rightsholders and whether a split is stated.
Sources
Primary: IMPF (30 September 2026). Full press text: Record of the Day. Secondary: Music Business Worldwide and Music Ally. Clickable URLs at the end.
Source: IMPF / IMPEL