Brian Eno questions who controls AI as musicians take record labels to court

Brian Eno has questioned whether artificial intelligence is in the right hands, as a separate legal battle raises questions about whether session musicians should receive additional compensation when record labels license recordings to AI companies.

The influential musician and producer told the Associated Press on October 13 that he was fascinated by AI’s creative possibilities but concerned about the commercial interests of the people controlling its development. He argued that technology companies were competing to make money rather than prioritising what would benefit society.

His comments come as the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) challenges record labels over licensing arrangements involving AI music platforms Suno and Udio, putting performers’ contractual rights under scrutiny.

Why are musicians challenging AI music deals?

The AFM filed its lawsuit in June, alleging that record companies had licensed recordings featuring union musicians to AI platforms without providing the compensation or notification required under their labour agreement.

The dispute centres on whether licensing recordings for AI-related uses qualifies as a new use under the Sound Recording Labor Agreement, potentially triggering obligations to notify the union and pay musicians. The labels dispute the union’s interpretation and have sought to have the case dismissed. The AFM has opposed their efforts.

The union’s argument is particularly significant because the labels have negotiated their own commercial arrangements with AI companies. The question is whether those agreements also trigger separate obligations to the musicians who performed on the recordings.

The allegations have not been proven in court, and the dispute concerns contractual rights rather than establishing that every AI music deal is unlawful.

Brian Eno’s warning about AI ownership

Eno did not comment directly on the lawsuit in his AP interview. However, his criticism raises a broader question about who benefits as AI becomes more deeply embedded in creative industries.

For musicians, the issue is not simply whether AI can generate music. It is also who controls the recordings used in AI-related services, what existing contracts permit and whether performers receive compensation when their work is used in new ways.

The AFM case could help clarify the reach of existing contractual protections, although its outcome will depend on the legal arguments and evidence presented.

Eno’s comments and the lawsuit are separate developments, but both highlight the growing debate over power, ownership and financial benefits as AI reshapes the music business.

Image credit: BBC