STIM Explores AI Music Licensing Framework With Songfox Deal: ‘This Is a Blueprint’

STIM, the Swedish collective management organization, announced today (Sept. 9) that it has signed what is thought to be the first collective management license for AI music. The deal, signed with the AI music company Songfox with support from the attribution technology company Sureel, will start small, using both compositions and recordings from a publisher that owns compositions as well as recording rights. But STIM’s ambitions are bigger: To create a framework for licensing AI companies to train their algorithms on music that STIM controls.

For the past few years, AI music has loomed as both threat and opportunity – a source of competition or revenue or both, which rightsholders will need to license. Some AI companies say that they do not need a license to train their algorithms – arguing that this is fair use in the U.S. – but others see licensing as desirable, advantageous, inevitable or some mix of those. But there has been considerable debate – mostly behind the scenes, in terms that aren’t obvious – about how these license deals might work and which rightsholders they will favor.

“We need to get started and provide solutions for the market,” STIM acting CEO Lina Heyman tells Billboard. Already, several rightsholders have sued AI companies for copyright infringement, including STIM’s sibling society GEMA, which has taken legal action against Suno and OpenAI. “You need to pursue those who are stealing, but you also need to offer a way to” operate legally, Heyman says. “What we are trying to do is provide a license.” In some ways, she says, the issue is a bit like that of digital piracy, where a combination of shutting down illegal operations and licensing start-ups gradually opened the way for a thriving streaming business.

“This is a blueprint,” says Simon Gozzi, STIM’s head of business development and industry insight.

It is not a simple one. The problem with licensing AI music companies is that they may only need to make one copy of a work for training purposes – which in most cases would require a mechanical license – which they could then continue to use on an ongoing basis. Understandably, however, rightsholders want to impose some control over the data that results from that copy. So STIM’s license involves an up-front payment, a share of technology company revenue that’s involved and a share of revenue from the AI music that is created based on elements from works it controls. Sureel will monitor this, using its attribution technology.

The other recent AI licensing deal, signed in early August, involves Kobalt and Elevenlabs. Both deals allow rightsholders to opt-in, so they seem to be more about trying to create a business than running one. To that end, presumably, both deals also set out a “50-50 split,” so the owners of a composition get paid as much as owners of a recording – the same level as sync licenses but very different from the consumer streaming model. That is a pattern that the publishing side of the music business will presumably greet with more enthusiasm than the labels – which is likely to lead to further debate.

For now, Heyman says, “it’s a fantastic start.”