Now more than ever, it is essential to document your recording work by putting it under an AFM contract. The music industry has undergone significant shifts over the past few decades, with its rules changing dramatically.

The days of major record labels and high-level managers controlling every aspect of an artist’s career are long gone. The creative use of social media provides PR opportunities that were unthinkable just a few years ago. The seemingly endless parade of unpredictable success stories of independent artists who break through the old barriers continue to throw the past business models to the curb.

Every musician knows that there is recording going on in the jurisdictions of every local in the AFM. The important fact every musician needs to know is the tangible value of documenting their work with an AFM recording contract. And they need to find ways to help employers and producers understand that it’s valuable for them too. For example, many people don’t know that an AFM contract makes the recording a “work for hire,” which protects the employer on several levels. The AFM continues to adjust our union recording agreements to align with new parameters as they emerge. Musicians who make the effort to bring those agreements into their world will realize the benefit of doing so.

One benefit is compensation for the use of studio tracks onstage. For years, it was simply deemed “illegal” to do so, as it would displace live musicians. As technology made syncing up recorded tracks with a live performance much easier, the use of studio tracks in concert became commonplace. As more artists began using tracks onstage to enhance their shows, we came up with a per show rate, based on touring Broadway musicals, that was reasonable and realistic.

We took this idea to the record labels and it was incorporated into the Sound Recording Labor Agreement (SRLA). Local 257 (Nashville, TN) has billed and collected nearly $1 million for musicians whose tracks were used onstage. We have had to explain to artists that the intellectual property they are using belongs to the label, and that the artist is responsible for payment to musicians. Someone has to say something to start the process. Don’t be afraid to speak up.

Another way to make sure your work is covered, even when you are recording at home, is to use the Single Song Overdub agreement. It is the only AFM recording agreement that is per song rather than by the hour and that also allows you the option to make your own pension contribution, if desired, via designation by the employer on the agreement. The scale, health and welfare, and pension are all built into the round number, and the Single Song worksheet shows you the breakdown.

After completing the work, send the overdub to the employer in a mix, but do not send them an isolated track until you have been paid. You can then file the contract and agreement with your local, and make the correct pension contribution for the amount received using the Single Song worksheet. This agreement can also be used in combination with a Local Limited Pressing agreement. The upgrade parameters are the same as for the Limited Pressing.

As the big budget days of the last century fade away, Low Budget Master is also on the rise as a win-win for players and employers. In exchange for a little bit of paperwork on the front end to get the project approved in advance of recording, the musicians get credit in the AFM Special Payments Fund for five years. Unlike demo and Limited Pressing sessions, the employer can pitch their music for film, television, and commercials without having to pay an upgrade. The back-end residual payments for employers to the Special Payments Fund are extremely affordable. For example, if an album sells 100,000 units, the back-end residual payment is less than $3,000. A sale of 500,000 units would trigger a residual of $31,000. These numbers are not dealbreakers, and create opportunities for musicians to be paid more than once when their work is used in new ways. That is the power of AFM contracts.

As we get ready to enter negotiations with the record labels for a new agreement, as we have done in our most recent TV and film negotiations, we will continue to look forward and address challenges as they emerge. This is nothing new, we have been dealing with technological advances that affect our work for more than a century. The value of music remains strong, and the AFM will continue to do all we can to ensure that musicians and their intellectual property are respected and valued. But it all starts with you, the players. Help us help you by asking your employers to do the right thing and put your work on an AFM contract. It can make a huge difference in your bottom line over time and into the future.

As each one of our Canadian national electronic media contracts have come up for renewal, we have made it a priority to incorporate generative artificial intelligence (GAI) language in the form of side letters to protect our musicians’ work. We take the position that music content produced for film, television, or digital media is covered work, whether or not that work uses GAI or consequently attracts corresponding payments and protections.

The AFM, in its negotiations with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), successfully bargained language that was modelled on that of SAG-AFTRA’s. We have taken the AMPTP contract’s model language, added a Canadian lens, and used this as the starting point for our Canadian contract negotiations. The language addresses the three Cs: credit, consent, and compensation.
In Canada, the Liberal government, led by Mark Carney, has incorporated a first by appointing Evan Salomon, Toronto Centre MP, as Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation, a clear indication of the importance of AI to this federal government.

The National Electronic Media Team recently concluded negotiations for renewal of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Radio Canada (CBC) General Production Agreement that included a GAI side letter. Although we started with our model GAI side letter language, it was quickly rejected by CBC. Ethical use of GAI was one of CBC’s concerns.

Their other desire was for flexibility on the use of GAI in producing future musical content. The negotiations came down to arguments over key words like “original.” We achieved measurable language that protects musicians’ work with a reaffirmation by the CBC to engage musicians when they create musical content. The expenditure guarantee is still in place. To be clear, CBC presently does not permit the use of GAI.

The National Electronic Media Team is now in negotiations with the Canadian Media Producers Association (CMPA) for a GAI side letter to the Independent Production Agreement (IPA).

We remind members of their AFM obligations to work only under AFM agreements for recording. Article 15, Section 1 (a) of AFM Bylaws state: “No AFM member shall take engagement or employment or become engaged or employed in the rendering of musical services of any kind (e.g., the making of soundtracks, “sidelining,” etc.) for any type of recorded product (audio and/or visual) unless the person, firm, or corporation providing the engagement or employment shall have previously entered into an appropriate written agreement with, or approved in writing by, the AFM.” In addition, we remind you that the cost of nonunion recording and use of waivers that include GAI are giving away your rights, including moral rights worldwide, and in perpetuity.

Many engagers exploit musicians by demanding they sign blanket waivers that take away all rights to downstream revenues your work may generate, no matter how your work is reused, or how much money that reuse generates. To be clear, we are not talking about self-produced recordings, or where there is no engager (Joint Venture Agreement applicable). Without an AFM agreement, your work could find its way into a commercial, TV show, or even be used to train AI. You will see no additional revenue beyond the onetime payment, and now in this GAI world, there is nothing to prevent you from being displaced in future live work without compensation.

Collective agreements and AFM recording contracts exist to protect your rights to compensation, consent, and control of your work. For further information on recording contracts for your projects, or to better understand a job offer that is accompanied with a request to sign a waiver of your rights, please reach out. The AFM is ready to assist, here in Canada through the Canadian office or your local’s office.

Hip-hop has long been a global economic force. Hip-hop and R&B accounted for over 25% of all US streams in 2024. According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), in 2022, hip-hop generated $15.9 billion from music streams and purchases alone. Yet, behind the impressive streaming numbers and sold-out tours lies a harsh reality: most hip-hop musicians are vulnerable to exploitation, financial instability, and lack of workplace protections.

According to data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and Canada’s Cultural Human Resources Council, there are conservatively over 44,000 hip-hop and R&B musicians working across North America. However, this number is likely a significant undercount. Due to the somewhat informal nature of the music business—particularly with independent musicians—many hip-hop artists may not report their music income through traditional channels.

Union participation remains alarmingly low. Fewer than 12% of these musicians are unionized—a percentage far below other genres, especially classical, where unionization is the norm. This gap leads to one conclusion. Hip-hop musicians need to be part of our union.

While superstar artists like Drake, Cardi B, or Kendrick Lamar earn millions, they represent a tiny fraction of the field. Most hip-hop artists earn under $30,000 annually, after expenses, struggling to sustain themselves in an industry where streaming—an over $46 billion global industry—pays them mere fractions of a cent per stream.

Independent artists find it nearly impossible to break even, let alone build a career. The rise of so-called “360 deals”—where labels take a cut of an artist’s earnings from all income streams (touring, merch, endorsements, etc.)—has made matters worse. Artists like Lupe Fiasco and Chamillionaire have been vocal critics of these exploitative arrangements.

The major centers of hip-hop—Atlanta, Los Angeles, New York, and Toronto—are also hotspots for labor abuses. These cities have become ground zero for both artistic innovation and systemic exploitation. Attempts to organize hip-hop musicians have emerged over the years. The AFM and SAG-AFTRA have made outreach efforts, though progress is slow.

Some locals are leading the way. Local 10-208 (Chicago, IL), for instance, recently launched organizing drives in the hip-hop space. This model should be expanded across the Federation. Notably, some hip-hop figures are already part of the union family. Questlove, a member of Local 802 (New York City), is a longtime advocate for the fair treatment of musicians.

Union campaigns—such as the historic wins in motion picture and television scoring and the recent ratification of the Live TV Agreement with new grievance and arbitration provisions—prove that organizing can deliver real, tangible gains. If extended to the hip-hop community, such efforts could mean better streaming royalty rates, legal protections from predatory contracts, and vital financial literacy education for artists.

Critics sometimes claim unionization stifles an artist’s independence and creative spirit. But history demonstrates otherwise. Musicians working in theater, recording sessions, and classical music have all benefitted from collective bargaining without sacrificing their artistry. The freedom to create and the right to fair compensation are not mutually exclusive.

Ultimately, hip-hop’s cultural and economic success is built on the backs of thousands of underpaid and unprotected musicians. The AFM could be the structural support this community desperately needs—a safeguard for its artists, and a pathway toward long-term sustainability in an industry that too often chews up and spits out its talent.

The technological challenges musicians face are not new. We can go back to Edison’s invention of the phonograph, which at the time, fundamentally altered the relationship between listeners and music. Audiences could now listen to recorded music on a physical medium, at any time, without having to go to a venue where musicians were playing. Musical performance was no longer an ephemeral art form. Later, radio, television, and the internet followed, with their share of challenges, to which artist unions and collective rights management societies eventually responded as best they could.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) to create music represents a significantly more disruptive shift than the introduction of the phonograph and electronic media. This transformation extends beyond altering the relationship between listeners and music; it fundamentally changes the nature of music creation itself.

You can now “create” a work from A to Z without owning a musical instrument, without hiring musicians or lyricists. While recreational use may have limited consequences, it is important to consider the significant potential impact of this technology on the profession of musicians and the music industry overall.

AI tools can offer new opportunities but they raise crucial questions about intellectual property. AI is redefining the challenges of creativity and musical performance.

“... Dive into our professional editing tools, your next song is just one step away.” This is an excerpt from the Suno.AI website. Suno is just one of an entire range of AI-based online authoring tools (Meta’s MusicGen, Google’s Music LM, FlexClip, AIVA, etc.) Some of these are aimed at trained musicians, but others can be used by people with no musical experience.

What these tools have in common is the ability to generate so-called “original” and “royalty-free” compositions by analyzing millions of existing tracks. In short, it’s a form of legalized plagiarism. Obviously, such tools will never replace a Paul McCartney or a Stevie Wonder, but AI can be used to generate background music for films, documentaries, or jingles—background music ... without paying any artist.

The challenge for artists’ unions is to limit as far as possible the use of such tools in collective agreements negotiated with media content producers. For example, the collective bargaining agreement between the AFM and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) “incorporates new protections against the encroachment of generative artificial intelligence (AI), providing compensation for musicians when their performances are used in conjunction with AI tools, and ensuring that human creativity remains at the heart of the industry” (AFM press release, April 2024). We must also highlight hard-fought efforts of our colleagues at SAG-AFTRA to protect the acting profession against the use of digital replicas of actors (voice and image).

Copyright is in dire need of new protective legislation. Composers receive no royalties for the re-use of their music by AI algorithms. The absence of transparency and source traceability is concerning, though upcoming European regulations aim to address this.

A study by the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) predicts a 24% drop in composers’ revenues by 2028 due to AI-generated music potentially replacing certain types of creation. It’s reasonable to expect a drop in income for performing musicians, too.

Another troubling aspect is the distribution of AI-generated music on streaming platforms. The French streaming service Deezer has set a good example by implementing controls to detect the presence of AI-generated tracks. Its detection software has identified a growing presence of AI-generated music (10% to date and rising).

Unlike Deezer, other major platforms, such as Spotify, do not seem interested in the incursion of fake original music into their platforms. There are even fears that Spotify and others will become producers of AI-generated music content, so as not to have to pay copyright fees.

We must be vigilant and continue to make our elected representatives aware of the dangers of unaccountable use of AI. The fight to protect us from the harmful consequences of AI has only just begun, and the AFM will remain an important player in this field.

L’intelligence artificielle et nous

par Luc Fortin, membre du conseil exécutif international (IEB) de l’AFM et de la section locale 406 (Montréal, Qué.)

Les enjeux technologiques auxquels ont fait face les musiciens ne datent pas d’hier. On peut remonter à l’invention du phonographe d’Edison qui, à l’époque, a fondamentalement modifié le rapport entre les auditeurs et la musique. Le public pouvait désormais écouter de la musique enregistrée sur un support physique, à tout moment, sans avoir à se déplacer dans un lieu où des musiciens jouaient. La performance musicale n’était désormais plus un art éphémère. Plus tard, la radio, la télévision, l’internet, suivirent avec leur lot de défis auxquels les syndicats d’artistes et sociétés de gestion collective de droits ont fini par répondre du mieux qu’ils le pouvaient.

Avec l’intelligence artificielle appliquée à la création de musique on est devant un changement nettement plus disruptif que l’apparition du phonographe et des médias électroniques. Ce n’est plus le rapport entre l’auditeur et la musique qui est bouleversé, mais le rapport à la création musicale. On peut maintenant « créer » une œuvre de A à Z sans posséder un instrument de musique, sans engager de musiciens ou de parolier. Si ce n’était que pour un simple usage récréatif les conséquences seraient limitées, mais on se rend compte de plus en plus de l’impact potentiel énorme de cette technologie sur le métier de musicien et l’industrie de la musique en général.

Les outils de l’IA peuvent offrir de nouvelles opportunités, mais posent des questions cruciales sur la propriété intellectuelle. L’IA redéfinit les enjeux de la créativité et de la performance musicale.

« … Plongez dans nos outils d’édition professionnels, votre prochain morceau n’est plus qu’à un pas. » (Extrait du site web de Suno.AI). Suno n’est qu’un exemple parmi toute la panoplie d’outils de création en ligne par IA (MusicGen de Meta, Music LM de Google, FlexClip, AIVA, etc.) Certains de ces logiciels s’adressent à des musiciens formés, mais d’autres peuvent être utilisés par des gens qui n’ont pas de formation musicale. Ces outils ont en commun la possibilité de générer des compositions dites « originales » et « libres de droits » en analysant des millions de morceaux existants. Bref, c’est une forme de plagiat légalisé. Évidemment, de tels outils ne remplaceront jamais un Paul McCartney ou un Stevie Wonder mais … l’IA peut être utilisée pour générer de la musique de fond pour films ou documentaires, ou des jingles, de la musique d’ambiance … sans rémunérer le moindre artiste.

Le défi pour les syndicats d’artistes consiste à limiter le plus possible l’utilisation de tels outils dans les ententes collectives négociées avec les producteurs de contenus médiatiques. Par exemple, l’entente entre l’AFM et l’Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) « intègre de nouvelles protections contre l’empiètement de l’intelligence artificielle générative (IAG), prévoyant une compensation pour les musiciens lorsque leurs performances sont utilisées en conjonction avec des outils d’IA, et garantissant que la créativité humaine reste au cœur de l’industrie » (communiqué de l’AFM, avril 2024). Il faut souligner aussi le dur combat de nos collègues de SAG-AFTRA pour enfin protéger le métier d’acteur et contre l’utilisation de répliques numériques d’acteurs (voix et image).

Le droit d’auteur a vivement besoin de nouvelles lois protectrices. Les compositeurs ne touchent pas de redevances pour la réutilisation de leur musique par les algorithmes d’IA. Le manque complet de transparence et de traçabilité des sources soulève beaucoup de préoccupations, bien que des règlements européens soient en préparation pour y remédier. Une étude de la CISAC (Confédération internationale des sociétés d’auteurs et compositeurs) prévoit une baisse de 24 % des revenus des compositeurs d’ici 2028 en raison de la musique générée par IA qui pourrait remplacer certains types de création. On peut raisonnablement prévoir aussi une baisse de revenus des musiciens interprètes.

Un autre aspect troublant consiste en la diffusion d’œuvres musicales générées par l’IA sur les plateformes de diffusion continue. Deezer a donné le bon exemple en mettant en place des contrôles pour repérer la présence de morceaux générés par l’IA. Son logiciel de détection a révélé une présence croissante de musique générée par l’IA (10 % à ce jour, et c’est en augmentation constante). Contrairement à Deezer, d’autres grandes plateformes comme Spotify ne semblent pas intéressées par l’incursion dans leurs plateformes de fausses œuvres musicales et on craint même que Spotify et autres vont devenir productrices de contenu musical par intelligence artificielle pour ne plus avoir à payer les droits d’auteurs.

Il faut être vigilant et nous devrons continuer à sensibiliser nos élus aux dangers de l’utilisation non responsable de l’IA. La lutte pour nous protéger des conséquences néfastes de l’IA ne fait que commencer et l’AFM restera un intervenant important en cette matière.