Your music helped build the AI economy, and still does.
Now it's time to earn from it.
Machines learned to make music
by listening to yours.
That did not stop when the models shipped. It happens every day now, at a level this business has never had to read before.
Projected share of music creators' revenues at risk from generative AI by 2028, around €10bn cumulative.
CISAC / PMP Strategy, 2024Around 90,000 fully AI-generated tracks arrive at one major streaming service every day. Faint needles are last year and last quarter.
Deezer, July 2026European enforcement of the AI Act's rules for general-purpose models has begun. Who trained on what is becoming a matter of record.
European Commission, August 2026Readings compiled from published industry research. Meter faces are illustrative.
Protection on its own is a cost. Income on its own is a giveaway. You need all three channels up.
A permission that can be proved, and a refusal that actually holds.
One when your rights are licensed. One for as long as they are used.
We sit underneath you as infrastructure, not above you as a middleman.
Two lines on the same agreement. The fee renews once a year, the share pays every month, and both land through the channels you already use.
Schematic session view over 24 months. The fee repeats annually, the share runs monthly. Amounts and periods follow the agreement.
Money on the table before anything is cleared, and again at every renewal. The fee is a recurring position in your books, not a one-off cheque.
Between the annual fees, the share runs every month for as long as your music stays in use. Together they turn AI from an event into a line in the quarterly report.
| Title | Time | Licensee · model | Line | Master | Publishing | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Midnight Skyline | 4:12 | Aurora Audioaurora-m2 · training | annual fee | 1,768.00 | 1,632.00 | € 3,400.00 |
| A1 | Midnight Skyline | 4:12 | Northwind AInw-sound-1 · output | monthly share | 624.00 | 576.00 | € 1,200.00 |
| A2 | Desert Bloom | 3:38 | Aurora Audioaurora-m2 · training | annual fee | 1,404.00 | 1,296.00 | € 2,700.00 |
| B1 | Neon Rain | 5:04 | Vela Labsvela-3 · prompt | monthly share | 936.00 | 864.00 | € 1,800.00 |
| B2 | Further titles | — | 4 licenseessee detail report | mixed | 468.00 | 432.00 | € 900.00 |
| Period total | 5,200.00 | 4,800.00 | € 10,000.00 |
Unauthorised use is why most rights holders came to this subject in the first place. So the same agreement that pays you also has to hold up when somebody helps themselves.
What a rights holder needs in order to enforce anything at all: a permission that can be evidenced, a refusal that binds, a record of use, and standing. Set out below in the order a dispute actually tests them.
Permission is granted per work, per use and per context, with the grant, its scope and its date retained. Two years later the question of what was agreed is a lookup, not an argument.
A refusal is expressed in machine-readable form and travels with the recording and its identifiers, so it is effective where a notice on a website never reaches. Withdrawal takes effect prospectively and is logged.
Each figure is supported by a record identifying the works concerned and the extent of use, reproducible from the same inputs. Suspicion does not survive a defence. A record does.
Claims are pursued alongside collecting societies and industry bodies rather than alone, and in a European framework in which the obligations of model providers are already in force.
Overview of the position we build to.
It is not legal advice, and it is not a substitute for your own counsel.
We are a member of AFEM, the Association For Electronic Music. Your position is carried by an industry body with members across more than forty countries, not by one catalogue arguing on its own.
Your artists are asking what you are doing about AI. You hold the contracts and the payment rail, but you have no product to put in front of them.
The big rights holders signed with legal departments behind them. On your own you negotiate against that, and you still have to explain the result to your artists.
In almost every AI deal made public so far, the recording side moved first and the song came second. Writers end up paid last and paid least.
Style is not protected the way a recording is. Your voice can be cloned, and people type your name into prompt boxes every day without anyone asking you.
You are the gate for anything involving your artist's name, voice and catalogue. Saying no to everything costs them money. Saying yes to the wrong thing costs more.
The buyers who license production music are the first to try generative tools. At the same time your rights position is the cleanest in the industry, because both layers sit in one hand.
Every multiple in this sector assumes catalogue income is stable and long-lived. Investors and lenders have started asking about AI exposure, and very few holders can answer with data.
An unauthorised clone does not cost you a licence fee. It damages the thing the whole estate rests on, and the legal position changes from country to country.
Also on the list: sync agencies, rights administrators, session musicians and performer collectives, audio branding agencies, podcast networks, and archives and ethnomusicological collections.
Independent labels, collecting societies, digital distribution. We have delivered to DSPs, matched splits and run payouts in a lot of territories, long before any of this was called AI.
AI is not a new industry bolted on the side. It is a new node in a chain that already has rules, identifiers and payout rails.
Which is why this page talks about splits, co-writers and neighbouring rights instead of “content”.
Built in Europe · working with AFEM and rights societies
What you control, and what you want out of this market. Half an hour, nothing to prepare.
What your rights are worth in the AI market, and where they are already exposed.
Which works, which uses, which partners. Opt-in, opt-out, exclusivity, withdrawal.
Fee agreed, share running, money arriving where your royalties already arrive.
Start with the review. Decide about licensing afterwards.
Request a catalogue review →No. Past use is a claim, not a write-off, but a claim needs something behind it. We establish which of your works shaped a model and to what extent, so you walk into the conversation with a number rather than a suspicion.
It depends on your catalogue, the partners and the terms. Anyone quoting you a rate before looking at your repertoire is guessing. What we can give you first is a review of what your rights are worth in this market, before anything is signed.
Then you need an independent number more, not less. Without one you are negotiating over a figure the other side calculated. We are happy to work only as your verification layer on deals you bring yourself.
Then the refusal is the job. Documented, machine-readable and enforceable, with the record to back it up if somebody ignores it. Control means both directions, and no is a legitimate use of it.
No, it supports it. Your society keeps the mandate and the payout. What has been missing is a usage figure for AI, because generated output reports nothing. Several of our partnerships are with societies for exactly that reason.
Never. No transfer of copyright, no work-for-hire, no assignment of voice or likeness. You grant specific, revocable permissions, and you can set exclusivity and volume limits if you do not want your catalogue used at scale.
Licensed catalogue, cleared rights and reporting that stands up — the other side of the same table.
Tell us what you control and we'll tell you what it's worth. No licence, no commitment.
info@allrights-aixchange.com · Conversations with rights holders are confidential
