Why Recording Academy Advocacy Co-Chairs Say A ‘Fair Music Ecosystem’ Is In ‘The Public Interest’

The music business has never been larger or more complex — and accordingly, the issues facing the industry and its many creators are more numerous, and complicated, than ever.

As musicians face myriad challenges, from negotiating fair streaming royalties to navigating the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI), the Recording Academy is among the most critical institutions fighting for their rights. With the business staring down another consequential year, the academy announced in October its new National Advocacy Committee co-chairs: DJ-producer Dani Deahl will return for a second consecutive yearlong term, with Hanson’s Taylor Hanson joining her for his first term in the role.

Deahl and Hanson have deep histories with the academy, as current national trustees and former presidents of its Chicago and Texas chapters, respectively, so they bring not just their lived experiences as musicians to the Advocacy Committee, but also their knowledge of the academy as an institution. Both cherish the work they’ve been tasked with — and have ideas for how to modernize and streamline it.

“I’ve been working in music for over 30 years,” Hanson says. “I’ve seen it evolve. But that also means I’ve seen us miss opportunities over and over to set a better example for what our industry could be.”

At times, he argues, the business’ fragmentation — between publishing, management, touring and more — has enabled the exploitation of its creators. That’s why, for him and Deahl, a holistic approach to resolving issues is critical. Plus, they note, other entertainment sectors often face similar challenges to the music industry, meaning that the effects of this advocacy work can ripple well beyond musicians.

Earlier this year, the Help Independent Tracks Succeed (HITS) Act was signed into law, making the tax code more musician-friendly and representing a major victory for advocacy groups, including the academy. Among the other federal legislation Deahl and Hanson are fighting for: the Nurture Originals, Foster Art and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act, to curb deepfakes and likeness infringement; the American Music Fairness Act, to ensure creators are paid for the use of their songs on terrestrial radio; the American Music Tourism Act, to fortify music tourism; the Protect Working Musicians Act, to help independent creators collectively negotiate with streaming platforms and AI companies; and the RAP (Restoring Artistic Protection) Act, to protect the First Amendment rights of artists whose lyrics are used in courts of law.

But they aren’t going it alone. The academy’s membership — and the broader creator community — support the advocacy efforts led by Deahl and Hanson, including the annual Music Advocacy Day, when these parties meet with state and federal legislators. During this year’s edition, in September, 2,100 creators took part in 200 meetings with policymakers across 45 states and in Washington, D.C.

“Patterns of advocacy — not just wins today, but showing when we raise our hand and when we challenge things — is critical,” Hanson says. And, Deahl adds, this work’s benefits assist far more than musicians themselves: “Advocating is not just good for creators, but the public interest. A stable, transparent and fair music ecosystem benefits musicians, but it also benefits fans. These policies reinforce a system where creators can thrive and consumers aren’t exploited.”

Taylor, you’ve been active in Recording Academy governance and advocacy efforts for years. Why did you want to take on this new role?

Taylor Hanson: I’ve been an academy member for a very long time, since I was 15, and here I am at the ripe old age of 42. I [have] really witnessed the power of the academy to develop, evolve and grow in order to represent its community, and one of the most significant places I’ve seen the academy really invest in the last decade is advocacy.

It’s a very important time now because there’s new things happening in our industry that we’ve never seen before, whether it’s technology, new habits that are changing with fans, the way they consume music. It’s up to organizations like the academy to be at the point of the spear, so to speak, of how we engage in the challenges that are ahead and continue to make sure that creators’ rights are protected and represented.

Dani, you’ve already served a yearlong term as Advocacy Committee co-chair. Why did you want to continue?

Dani Deahl: This feels like a continuation of how I’ve lived my life up until this point. Even before I was asked to be co-chair of this committee last year, I’ve lived most of my professional life in pursuit of trying to make things more equitable for everyone else in my space. I know what it’s like to face systemic barriers — I’ve been a woman in dance music for 20 years. I had to fight for recognition, for pay equity, for safety in greenrooms, and spent a lot of time and many years advocating for those same things for other women in my space. I feel like I’ve always had a fire in me to try and advocate for other people. So being able to participate in a committee of this stature at this level and to create meaningful change, how can I turn that down?

Dani, what were some of the initiatives that you worked on during your first term that you’re proudest of?

Deahl: I was really, really proud, in my home state of Illinois, about passing HB 4875. Now, of course, on a national level, we’re talking about the NO FAKES Act. This, for my state, is a version of that. It followed in the wake of the ELVIS [Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security] Act [in Tennessee], and it updated my state’s right of publicity in order to make it so that artists could have some protections if generative AI was used to impersonate them or their work. It was so meaningful to go down to Springfield and testify in front of the [Illinois] Senate and to be able to talk to legislators face-to-face and put a story to the issue that affects so many people.

For musicians, advocacy can encompass so many things. What do you see as the most important issues facing creators today?

Hanson: The NO FAKES Act is going to continue to be an anchor of the dialogue — and all the things related to how AI is emerging in the new world. Historically, music has been the canary in the mine for change. We’re the first ones: downloading, streaming music, digital. It started with music because [we have] smaller files, we’re slightly easier to push around than the film and TV [sectors]. But what starts with music leads to everything else. The onus is on the music business to do a better job of protecting likeness and protecting intellectual property going forward. That’s something that, if we don’t highlight it, will be abused. It’s already at risk and it’s already begun to be abused.

Deahl: I’m very personally invested in NO FAKES. It’s so disheartening to watch tech companies build [billion-dollar] — or potentially now — trillion-­dollar companies that are trained on music that was made by people that can barely scrape together rent. That disconnect, to me, says everything. Creators are being asked to adapt to a world they didn’t agree to be a part of. That part’s not new; we’ve always had to historically do that [in the entertainment business]. But NO FAKES is about setting a very clear and simple boundary, and that is your identity is not public domain. Just because it exists online, it does not mean that other people can use it. And if someone wants to use your voice or your image or your likeness, they need consent. It feels like such a simple baseline, doesn’t it?

I’m so excited that the academy is being so proactive on this because if we don’t intervene now, the music industry’s next generation of creators won’t lose money — they’re going to lose authorship. They’re going to lose identity. That is incredibly scary to me because we’ve spent decades telling artists they need to build their brand, they need to own their narrative, and now we’re watching systems and companies come out that strip all of that away unless you can afford to fight it — and how many of us can?

You referenced Tennessee’s ELVIS Act and legislation in Illinois. There’s national legislation, but the states are incubators as well. How, in your role, do you liaise with folks who are on the ground regionally and marshal support for local or regional initiatives that may not receive the same media attention but are still important?

Deahl: This year, we have a very exciting change to our structure at the academy that is going to allow us to listen and activate more closely on that state level. Each of our chapters now has a standardized Advocacy Committee, which then ladders up to Taylor and I and everyone else that is on advocacy at a national level. That means that we basically have a phone tree across the country to let us know about the local issues that are affecting people, and that’s a structure that we did not formally have in place before. Because of that, we’re on the precipice of a very exciting time at the academy where we can more closely attune to localized issues that are affecting people on the ground in local chapters, and that will allow us to not only be more effective at a state level but [also] nationally.

Hanson: The RAP Act is something, specifically, that is really important, but is working its way more state by state.

Deahl: Working on state-level issues, it gives us a shorter runway to real impact. Like HB 4875, that was concept to execution in under a year. That’s crazy. It doesn’t always happen that way, but that’s a real demonstrable difference from how law passes at a federal level. You’re not dealing with the same gridlock, you can build relationships more directly. And once one state passes a law, then immediately that becomes a blueprint for other states to look at. It’s a proof of concept, and it can become much easier to scale that idea.

These issues span red states and blue states, and music has proved to be a space for bipartisanship in recent years. Can you speak a little bit about working with people across the political spectrum, across different parts of the country, who may have different values but can come together about protecting creators and the music community?

Hanson: The great thing about music is it gives us an opportunity to speak about something that is a uniting force versus a dividing one. The importance of the arts, the importance of songs and artists, does bring us back to what unites us over and over, and it’s a privilege to be able to bring that subject into a room with leaders. We have seen people that are extremely red and people that are extremely blue sit around a table and say, “Oh, you love hip-hop? I love hip-hop. You love country? I love country.” That’s a great opportunity for us as a country and as a community to not only get the job done by realizing we have an issue that is uniting, but also for everyone to be reminded that we do share a lot of things — a lot more, I think, as citizens, than oftentimes we get to talk about.

Deahl: Regardless of where you live, every city, every state has local venues, has nightclubs, stadiums, recording studios, church musicians, music teachers, someone who wants to play in a touring band. We all know someone: “I used to play piano” or “My daughter wants to write songs for a living,” “My cousin’s in a band.” That’s where the momentum really comes from because music doesn’t belong to one side of the aisle. It belongs to people.

This story appears in the Dec. 6, 2025, issue of Billboard.