Almost all of the music has entered the AI model

A growing concern has emerged among Icelandic musicians and their international counterparts regarding the increasing use of artificial intelligence in music production. The Icelandic Association of Musicians (FÍH) and its Nordic sister organizations have issued a statement expressing serious worries about the collaboration between record labels and technology companies, including streaming platforms such as Spotify, in utilizing AI tools for training models and generating finished music. This issue has sparked significant debate within the music industry, particularly concerning the rights of artists whose work forms the foundation of these technologies.

The statement highlights how record labels have begun allowing the use of their music libraries for AI training and composition without seeking consent from the original artists who created the sounds and samples used. Universal Music Group (UMG), one of the world's largest record labels, is specifically named in the statement as having entered into agreements with AI firms such as Udio and Spotify. These partnerships reportedly involve new licensing terms that expand access to music data, which FÍH claims were never included in the original contracts signed with artists. The organization argues that these developments undermine the rights of musicians, especially those who contribute to recordings anonymously.

The situation raises particular concerns about the rights of session musicians—those who perform on recordings but are not credited by name. According to FÍH, these artists typically do not sign written agreements with record labels, meaning they lack formal legal protections over their contributions. As a result, labels can potentially exploit their work without proper authorization when developing AI systems designed to generate music. The statement explicitly rejects all attempts by record labels to seek permissions from unnamed session musicians related to AI applications, emphasizing that such efforts are not valid under current legal frameworks.

Supporting this stance, several international organizations have also voiced their concerns. The International Federation of Independent Record Companies (FIM), the International Artists' Organization (IAO), and the Icelandic Artists' Union (BÍL) have endorsed FÍH’s position. They argue that music is more than just data—it represents human expression, creativity, and cultural value. These groups stress that future developments in AI-driven music should be built upon transparent agreements that ensure fair compensation, respect, and recognition for artistic contributions.

In response to these concerns, FÍH and its Nordic partners call for direct involvement of artists in negotiations involving AI technologies. They advocate for a future where AI-generated music is developed through consensual agreements that uphold the rights, interests, and dignity of creators. The organizations emphasize the need for dialogue between record labels, tech companies, and independent artists to establish ethical standards and legal safeguards that protect intellectual property and creative integrity.

As the use of AI in music continues to evolve, the implications for artists remain uncertain. While some see potential benefits in AI-assisted composition and production, others fear that it could devalue traditional musical craftsmanship and diminish opportunities for human creators. The ongoing discussions reflect broader tensions within the industry about how technological advancements should be integrated while preserving the rights and livelihoods of those who make music. With major stakeholders now publicly addressing these issues, the coming months will likely bring further clarification on how the industry plans to navigate this complex landscape.