What "Licensed" Actually Licenses

Inside BMG's deal with Suno

BMG's deal with Suno settles past use and asks artists to opt in. The financial terms have not been announced.

Words: Daisha L, Fashion & Technology · Photographs: The Content Campus

Matt Evans, 35, plays brass in Pasadena. When he spoke to the Los Angeles Times, his point was about a decision: if reuse is "not negotiated in a contract, then I never got to make a choice to receive additional compensation."

The deals now being signed between music companies and AI platforms are pitched as a version of that choice. The Times summed up their shared promise in one line: "Artists signed to the participating labels can opt in and will be credited and paid."

The newest of those deals involves Suno, the AI music company that Universal, Sony and Warner sued in 2024. On Aug. 12, BMG and Suno announced what BMG's release calls "a global alliance" covering BMG's recorded and music publishing repertoire. Billboard reports that the deal allows BMG's works "to be used to create derivative works on the platform." Suno says it is part of the launch of its first music model developed with the music industry. According to the Times, Suno is valued at $5.4 billion, and it released its first models built with licensed music from Warner Music Group, BMG and Believe.

Two words in that promise carry most of the weight: "licensed" and "participating." In the companies' own announcements, they describe two separate permissions. The first comes from a company and the second from an artist. One has been signed. The other still has to be asked for.

Start with what BMG licensed. A song usually carries two copyrights, the Times explains: one for the composition, typically held by songwriters and their publishers, and one for the sound recording, typically owned by the label. BMG's repertoire covers both sides, so its deal reaches both. Billboard splits the use into two parts. Inputs are training, the stage where music goes into the model. Outputs are the derivative works that Suno users make with it.

The deal looks backward as well as forward. BMG says it settles "prior use of BMG recordings and publishing works," and Variety reports that it covers "the use of any BMG songs to train Suno's past models." BMG was not one of the companies in court. Music Ally notes that BMG "isn't one of the music companies suing Suno for past infringement, but its deal does backdate the financial benefits." The companies that did sue have taken different paths. Warner settled with Suno and signed a licensing deal, the Times reports. Sony and Universal, the paper reported, have filed a new lawsuit alleging that Suno's latest model still infringes their copyrighted works.

So the label has signed. The artist is the second permission. Billboard reports that BMG artists and songwriters "must opt in before their music can be used" for either training or user-made tracks. BMG's release says those "who choose to participate have their rights protected and are compensated." Suno's announcement is worded differently: it speaks of "new economic opportunities for artists and songwriters that opt-in to them." Music Ally reports that Suno's new model "will only have the parts of their catalogues where the artists and songwriters have opted in," and that persuading BMG's artists to take part is the next challenge.

Celine Joshua, BMG's executive vice president of global marketing and streaming, said the agreement "establishes strong protections, clear economics, and new creative possibilities for artists and their fans." Music Ally says "the details of those terms have not been announced." Across all of the label deals, the Times reports, none of the AI companies has disclosed what artists will be paid, how many artists have opted in, or how much input individual musicians have over whether their work is used.

That last gap is the one Drew Silverstein, senior advisor for AI at BandLab Technologies, put plainly to the Times: "A label making a deal and an individual artist having a choice are not necessarily the same thing." Suno's own chief product officer, Jack Brody, made a related point while discussing Warner's agreement, saying labels "ultimately have their contracts in place that will have some say in what an artist can and can't do." The Times reports that whether an artist can opt out depends on who owns the rights. It also reports that it is not always clear whether opting out keeps recordings out of AI training or only out of fan-facing features.

Players like Evans sit further from the table. In June, the American Federation of Musicians sued Universal and Warner, alleging that the labels licensed recordings its members played on to Suno and Udio without paying those musicians or telling the union which recordings were involved. The Times reports that the labels have moved to dismiss. Other musicians have gone to court over identity rather than recordings: a proposed class action by Jason Isbell and others alleges that Suno lets users generate songs evoking specific artists' identities without consent, which Suno disputes. In Germany, a Munich court found for the collection society GEMA against Suno, and Suno told Music Business Worldwide it is "evaluating all available options, including an appeal."

For a working musician, that leaves questions the public announcements do not yet answer. Which of the two copyrights in your songs do you hold, and who controls the other? Is your label or publisher one of the companies with a Suno deal? Has anyone asked you to opt in, and through what process? Would opting out cover training, or only what fans can make? What does compensation mean in figures? The BMG and Suno announcements, linked below, are the official record of what has been said.

Evans spoke about a choice he never got to make. BMG's announcement says its artists who choose to participate are compensated. The terms have not been announced.