This March, Jimmy Hession, an artist manager at Milk & Honey, was ironing out a producer agreement with the Sony-owned, European dance label B1 Recordings for his client Paul Harris, who worked on the Alok and Khalid track “Dive into Me.” When Sony Music Germany sent over the deal terms, Hession discovered some novel language: a broad release allowing the use of Harris’ work for AI training.  

Specifically, the contract granted the label the “unlimited, exclusive rights” for the company to “use the recording in models and systems of generative artificial intelligence and applications based thereon, including generative AI, including [but] not limited to the analysis of the Recording for the purpose of extracting information on patterns, trends and correlations (AI training).”  

Hession pushed back on this provision, and the two parties ultimately reached a compromise, giving Hession’s client some approval rights for the use of his recording in AI training. Crucially, though, these approval rights do not extend to any “blanket license” that Sony may sign to grant another party access to “all or a significant portion” of its catalog.  

Hession’s experience was not an isolated incident. Instead, sources tell Billboard it is part of a growing new trend in music dealmaking where labels are trying to accumulate AI training rights — either through explicit new contract language or novel applications of long-standing licensing provisions.

B1 Recordings, for example, included near-identical wording in a different artist single agreement this past November, according to a U.S.-based artist attorney. French music giant Believe put a provision in an October 2025 distribution contract which allows it to license their content in datasets to “research, train, develop [and] test gen AI models and/or products.” In a BMG distribution deal, obtained by Billboard via a European music executive and translated from German, the contract phrasing mentions AI in multiple contexts. This includes an “AI Right,” which refers to the right to use songs created during the contract term in whole or in part in connection with artificial intelligence systems, “in particular to feed the contractual products into an AI system as training, validation or test datasets” and to “exploit the output generated by the AI system.” 

That last contract also forbids the artist to turn in AI-manipulated or AI-generated tracks as part of the delivery requirement for the BMG deal; prohibits the creation of re-recordings (like Taylor Swift’s), including re-records that use AI to deepfake or otherwise simulate the artist’s voice; and grants BMG the right of adaptation — meaning remixes, sampling or other modifications, including those that use AI — and to exploit those adaptations.  

The addition of these novel contractual provisions around AI training and AI use in general appear to have coincided with the music industry’s move towards partnering with the new wave of AI music startups in recent months and settling parts of their lawsuits against them. In the fall, Universal Music Group (UMG) and Warner Music Group (WMG) both settled their claims in the blockbuster copyright infringement lawsuit against AI music company Udio and entered into licensing deals to “[create] new revenue streams for artists and songwriters, while ensuring their work remains protected,” as a press release about Warner’s deal stated. Kobalt and Merlin followed suit with Udio deals months later.

In December, WMG followed up with a settlement and licensing agreement with Suno, which had also been hit with a near-identical copyright infringement lawsuit to Udio’s. (Sony Music, the other major music company who sued Suno and Udio along with UMG and WMG, has not yet announced any deals with the two firms and remains in active litigation.) 

In these settlement announcements, music companies have made a point to state that these deals ensure artists’ work is licensed and authorized. The natural result is that AI training has now become an element of record deal negotiations — and sometimes a significant pain point.

At times, this comes in the form of labels and distributors drafting clear language that grants them the right to use content for AI training, as in the case of the European deals identified by Billboard. Talent lawyer Avi Dahan says he’s been presented with this kind of provision in some recent contracts, though there “isn’t necessarily an industry norm yet around these points.” 

Dahan describes the current dealmaking landscape as the “Wild West” — a transition period where it’s becoming common practice for labels to require the disclosure of AI used to create a recording, but only some are asserting rights to use music for AI training of their own.  

Colin Morrissey, an artist lawyer at Granderson Des Rochers, similarly says AI training clauses are “starting to creep their way into some new recording agreements” from smaller distributors and technologically-driven music companies. According to Morrissey, though, it’s still “pretty rare” to see an explicit grant of AI training rights in major-label deals.  

It’s likely not a coincidence that all the examples of explicit AI training language identified by Billboard were in German and French recording contracts. According to Estelle Derclay, a professor of intellectual property law at the University of Nottingham, many European countries have laws requiring contracting parties “to spell out exactly all of the rights that you give, not just in a general clause.”

This is different from U.S. and U.K. law, which allow for broad contract provisions in which artists often grant their record labels a nonspecific right to exploit their songs. It’s common for such record deals to include clauses granting the right to use an artist’s work in “blanket licenses” of a label’s entire catalog, such as deals with social media companies like TikTok and Instagram.

Multiple top artist attorneys tell Billboard they’ve recently begun to realize that labels could feasibly use “blanket license” clauses in U.S. record deals to opt-in artists’ works to train their AI partners’ models without seeking individual artist approval. 

Often, when deals between AI companies and music companies are being discussed, executives for both sides will reference what’s known as “opt-in,” a term used to describe the process of allowing artists to choose whether or not they participate in AI licensing. (That stands as opposed to “opt-out,” meaning that artists are automatically included in AI licensing unless they elect to take themselves out of it.) Over time, this has become an overwhelmingly popular stance in the music industry to assure that creatives will maintain their agency in an age of AI.

WMG CEO Robert Kyncl even called “opt-in” one of his three non-negotiable principles in a blog post in November 2025, saying that “artists and songwriters will have a choice to opt-in to any use of their name, image, likeness, or voice in new AI-generated songs.” Udio CEO Andrew Sanchez also referenced opt-ins in reply to a question from Billboard about his licensing deal with UMG, saying “[Udio is] not just [going to offer] remixing and mashing up. It’s also creating in the style of artists with their opt-in.” UMG’s chief digital officer Michael Nash also brought up opt-ins on Billboard’s On the Record podcast, saying, “We didn’t think that made any sense [to work with AI companies, like Suno, who let AI songs leave their platforms], [and] we didn’t feel like when going to artists for their support to opt-in to these services that it was going to be a very compelling pitch.”

Sony declined to comment for this story. BMG, UMG, Merlin, Kobalt and WMG did not respond to requests for comment. A representative for Believe responded with the following statement: 

“Believe and TuneCore’s GenAI policy is governed by the core principles of Consent, Control, Compensation, and Transparency, ensuring that generative AI remains a tool for artist empowerment rather than unauthorized exploitation. Central to this approach is a voluntary opt-in mechanism for the GenAI initiatives we propose to our artists and labels, which provides rights protection and early access to ethical AI opportunities. Contrary to concerns regarding the use of blanket licenses for training, Believe requires explicit opt-in to the programme and explicit consent on a case-by-case basis before the formal launch of projects involving artist content, and applies a defined scope, safeguards and transparency framework to any use of content, providing the basis for an informed decision.”

While many believe the music companies’ interest in using the “opt-in” approach was to allow artists the option both to control if their work is used in AI training — or inputs — and AI-generated outputs, such announcements seemingly never reference training specifically. And that has led to some suspicion among artist advocates.

“We’re seeing a differentiation between the way training — or inputs — and outputs are treated,” says Audrey Benoualid, partner at Myman Greenspan Fox Rosenberg Mobasser Younger & Light, pointing to the potential use of blanket licensing for AI training. Jason Boyarski, founding partner at Boyarski Fritz, adds, “Some of the labels have already taken the position that they technically don’t need special approvals to train.”

“As of now, the grant of rights in deals are broad enough to allow them to do it,” says Morrissey of AI training. In response, Morrissey says he’s “focused on the approval rights for our artist clients around not allowing their music to be trained in AI tools. We kind of assume, a lot of time, that the label will have rights in these sorts of cases and try to work back from there to give our client as much approval over that [as possible].” Benoualid says she has also had success in asking for approval rights, “depending on the artist.”

Derclay notes that artists in the U.S. and U.K. might have the right already to nix AI training uses of their work if their record deals include approval rights for “future technology.” Otherwise, they can try to win approval rights now through contract re-negotiations. 

Still, just because music companies could potentially rely on a blanket license to circumvent the need for individual artist approval for AI training, that doesn’t necessarily mean they will. Morrissey says he thinks “a  lot of these labels are going to ask regardless [of approval rights] because it is such a hot-button issue.” Boyarski holds a similar view, citing the importance of maintaining a positive artist-label relationship. “I don’t think they will [opt artists in without approval],” Boyarski says. “I think the labels genuinely want buy-in from the artist community in a way that makes it work. I think that there’s going to be a partnership between the artists and labels to find the right solution.” 

A small record label that sued Bad Bunny over a sample on Un Verano Sin Ti is now fighting back against his demand to be repaid nearly $500,000 in legal bills from the failed lawsuit, calling some of the star’s arguments “absurd.”

Empawa Africa claimed last year that Bunny’s “Enséñame a Bailar” featured an illegal sample, but the label later effectively dropped the case. So last month, Bunny (Benito Martínez Ocasio) demanded that Empawa reimburse the whopping $465,612 legal bill he racked up defending it, arguing the case “should never have been brought.”

In a response filing on Monday (April 20), the label is strongly opposing that request — arguing that it still believes its case against Bunny could have been successful and that copyright accusers should not be so harshly punished simply because their lawsuits didn’t pan out.

“If fees are awarded to defendants in this case, such an award would send a chilling message to songwriters, artists, and other copyright owners,” Empawa’s lawyers write. “Awarding fees against Empawa for bringing a good faith lawsuit … would be completely antithetical to the goals and purpose of the Copyright Act.”

To support that claim, Empawa says Bunny and his lawyers admitted he had used the sample, and that his only justification was that he had properly cleared it with somebody else. But Monday’s filing says the superstar never provided any evidence of such a deal.

“Ocasio has admitted sampling Empawa’s music, and, in almost three years, has not presented a scintilla of evidence that the sample was authorized,” the company’s attorneys write. “Empawa’s claims were brought and prosecuted in good faith.”

The case, filed last spring, claimed Bunny’s track included an uncleared sample of a 2019 track called “Empty My Pocket” by a Nigerian artist named Dera (Ezeani Chidera Godfrey). Bad Bunny argued he had done nothing wrong, since he properly cleared the sample with another rightsholder on “Empty My Pocket,” a production company called Lakizo Entertainment.

The lawsuit was a big deal because Un Verano Sin Ti was a big deal — spending 13 weeks atop the Billboard 200 and more than 150 weeks total on the chart. “Enséñame a Bailar” was a hit in its own right, charting on the Billboard Hot 100 for two weeks and earning 72 million views on YouTube.

But earlier this year, Empawa and Dera’s lawyers withdrew from the case, citing “irreparable differences” with their clients. Without lawyers, both Dera and Empawa abruptly stopped litigating the case, and a judge eventually dismissed it for lack of prosecution.

Bad Bunny isn’t ready to close the case just yet, though. Last month, his lawyers argued that Empawa should not be allowed to walk away after filing “frivolous” accusations in court that forced the superstar to incur a huge legal bill to defend himself.

“This case was meritless from the beginning and should never have been brought,” his lawyers write. “Instead, Empawa filed and aggressively litigated it, apparently hoping that Bad Bunny’s wealth, prominence and desire to avoid attorneys’ fees and bad publicity would enable Empawa to extract an undeserved, multimillion-dollar settlement.”

In Monday’s response, Empawa says there is “no merit whatsoever” to the argument that it tried to use the threat of media coverage to gain leverage.

“It is undisputed that Ocasio is world-famous artist, considered one of the largest Latino artists of all time. Quite obviously, any claim against such an artist would garner publicity,” the company’s lawyers write. “For defendants to suggest bad faith conduct on Empawa’s part simply for raising good faith infringement claims against a popular artist because it garnered publicity, is absurd.”

In the American legal system, each side usually pays its own legal bills, even defendants who defeat a lawsuit that they feel they shouldn’t have faced. But such awards are more common under copyright law, which has a specific provision allowing for fee awards to deter bad lawsuits. Mariah Carey, Nelly and other stars have recently used such requests in an effort to punish accusers.

But Empawa argues Monday that its lawsuit doesn’t warrant such a penalty because it had good reasons to think Bad Bunny had infringed its copyrights. The filing includes a sworn declaration from the label’s former lawyer, Robert Jacobs, in which he says the star’s lawyers repeatedly refused to provide any proof that the sample had been validly cleared. He also says his withdrawal had nothing to do with the validity of the case.

“The merits of the lawsuit had nothing to do with the [withdrawal] motion, and … I believed more than ever that Empawa and Mr. Godfrey would prevail on their claims,” Jacobs writes in the sworn statement.

A judge will rule on Bunny’s request for fees in the months ahead. An attorney for the star did not immediately return a request for comment.

Ella Langley’s sophomore set, Dandelion, launches as her first No. 1 on Billboard’s Top Country Albums chart and the all-genre Billboard 200 (dated April 25). The album starts with 169,000 equivalent album units earned in the United States April 10-16, according to Luminate, marking the biggest week for an album by a woman this year.

Concurrently, five of Dandelion’s tracks pollinate the Hot Country Songs top 10, with 16 of the album’s 17 chart-eligible tracks making the list. Langley places second among women for the most titles charted at once; Taylor Swift has surpassed that mark multiple times, led by 22 when Speak Now (Taylor’s Version) made its entrance in 2023. She also charted 21 songs upon the arrival of Red (Taylor’s Version) and 18 with Fearless (Taylor’s Version), both in 2021. Langley matches Beyoncé, who placed 16 titles on the chart with 2024’s Cowboy Carter. Megan Moroney follows with 14, achieved with the release of Cloud 9 in March.

Five tracks from Dandelion are in the Hot Country Songs top 10, placing Langley third among women behind Swift and Beyoncé, who have seen as many and eight and seven chart in the tier, respectively. Zoom to the top five and Langley charts four songs this week — tying Beyoncé for the most ever by a woman in a single week. Over three weeks in 2023 and 2025, Morgan Wallen filled all five spots, including the entire top 10 on the May 31, 2025, list.

Dandelion’s placements on the latest Hot Country Songs chart, as she ups her count to nine career top 10s:

No. 1 (21st week), “Choosin’ Texas” (No. 1 last week)
No. 2, “Be Her” (holds at its high)
No. 4, “Bottom of Your Boots” (debut)
No. 5, “Loving Life Again” (No.  11 last week)
No. 8, “Dandelion” (No. 13 last week; has hit No. 7)
No. 15, “Broken” (debut)
No. 16, “We Know Us” (debut)
No. 17, “You & Me Time” (debut)
No. 21, “Low Lights” (debut)
No. 22, “Speaking Terms” (debut)
No. 26, “Butterfly Season,” with Miranda Lambert (debut)
No. 28, “Somethin’ Simple” (debut)
No. 29, “Last Call for Us” (debut)
No. 31, “I Gotta Quit” (debut)
No. 32, “It Wasn’t God Who Made Honky Tonk Angels” (debut)
No. 38, “Most Good Things Do (Acoustic)” (debut)

Langley’s “Girl You’re Taking Home” also appears at No. 39, though that track is from her 2024 release, Hungover.

Wallen holds the record for the most concurrent placements on Hot Country Songs in a single week: 36, upon last year’s chart start of his 37-song I’m the Problem, one of multiple weeks in which he has placed 30-plus titles. Zach Bryan follows, having charted 23 songs in January thanks to his album With Heaven on Top.

The only artists who have placed 10 or more songs on Hot Country Songs in a single week are Beyoncé, Bryan, Langley, Moroney, Swift, Wallen, Luke Combs, Post Malone and Thomas Rhett.

Meanwhile, Langley and Wallen are set to impact Billboard’s charts dated May 9 together: their duet, “I Can’t Love You Anymore,” is due this Friday (April 24), after they premiered it on Wallen’s Still the Problem tour in Tuscaloosa, Ala., Saturday (April 18).

ANOTR’s “Talk to You,” featuring 54 Ultra, logs a third total and consecutive week at No. 1 on the WARM Global Dance Radio chart (dated April 25), drawing more than 900 plays (up 8% week over week) across 200-plus monitored stations worldwide April 10-16, according to WARM (World Airplay Radio Monitor).

Released March 6 via ANOTR’s own NO ART imprint, the song has built momentum on TikTok, where it has been featured in nearly 60,000 videos.

“Talk to You” has also become a hit across Billboard’s other U.S.-based charts, reaching No. 5 on Hot Dance/Electronic Songs last month (and currently ranking at No. 11). In the latest tracking week, it drew 1.2 million official U.S. streams, according to Luminate.

ANOTR is an Amsterdam-based electronic duo comprising Oguzhan Guney and Jesse van der Heijden.

Rounding out the top five of the WARM Global Dance Radio chart, Bebe Rexha and Faithless’ “New Religion” holds at its No. 2 high (up 3% in plays); Calvin Harris and Kasabian’s former four-week leader “Release the Pressure” is steady at No. 3; Milky X Mall Grab’s “Just the Way You Are” keeps at No. 4; and Gordo and Reiner Zonneveld’s “Loco Loco” rises 6-5.

The top debut on the chart is Anyma and Joji’s “Beautiful” at No. 34. Anyma also debuts at No. 70 with “Bad Angel,” with LISA. All three acts teamed up at the second weekend of Coachella.

The WARM Global Dance Radio chart debuted on Billboard.com in March, joining Billboard’s long-standing U.S.-based dance lists, including Hot Dance/Electronic Songs, Hot Dance/Pop Songs, Dance/Mix Show Airplay and Top Dance Albums. The 40-position Global Dance Radio chart (published in full as a 100-position ranking on WARM’s platform) aggregates plays from 200-plus dance-dedicated radio stations across more than 30 countries, reflecting songs trending globally through a network of programmers and radio gatekeepers operating across multiple territories.

Check out the top 40 of the WARM Global Dance Radio chart on Billboard.com and head over to warmmusic.net for the full 100-position survey.