AI attribution is the key to unlocking the limitless opportunities available in a music world that seeks to embrace generative AI technology. It can calm artists’ fears around compensation and unauthorized use. It can reduce litigation risk and increase profits for platforms that provide generative AI music products. And it can give rights owners more certainty on license scope, plus more nuanced and enhanced revenue shares. In short, if designed and deployed the right way, AI attribution can be a boon to the entire generative AI music ecosystem.

What is AI Attribution in the Music Industry?

In the context of generative AI and music, attribution refers to the process of attempting to trace which training inputs contributed to a given AI-generated output (and in some cases, how much each input contributed).

For artists, copyright owners and platforms alike, attribution offers what the industry has demanded since the early days of generative AI: transparency. By shining a light into what was once a black box, attribution gives copyright owners visibility into whether and how their works are being used by AI systems.

It also creates the potential for more customized compensation opportunities. Where licensing arrangements exist today, they generally take the form of upfront fees or revenue-sharing models that are not tied to the actual contribution of any specific work. Attribution, in theory, changes that calculus by enabling compensation to be linked to traceable impact.

The potential upside is industry-wide. For AI developers, attribution could make licensing discussions less contentious. It is much easier to negotiate with artists, labels and publishers when there is a credible way to offer visibility into how works are used and how value is tracked. More transparent systems could also lend greater comfort to investors mindful of the legal exposure of generative AI platforms in today’s climate. Plus, this creates an opportunity to have more targeted data about what music fans and music creators find most useful in generative AI products.

Importantly, attribution offers more legitimacy. Platforms can point to sourcing and compensation mechanisms that are more trustworthy and easier to build on. Music fans and creators, and copyright owners, are more likely to partner with or use generative AI music platforms if they believe the underlying system can explain where the value came from and whether the relevant rights were compensated.

The Attribution Landscape Today

In recent years, a range of technical methods have been proposed to investigate whether particular training materials may have influenced a given AI-generated output. Some methods compare generated outputs to candidate training materials in a separate database to identify similarity or proximity. Other methods examine the AI model itself, using signals from the model’s parameters to estimate whether, and to what extent, particular training materials contributed to a given output. Watermarking training content is another method, where the presence of a watermark in the output has been suggested to indicate which specific training materials contributed to it.

At present, however, none of these methods yield answers about influence with certainty. Some rely on probabilities, while others may find correlations, which does not necessarily mean causation. Often the results depend on underlying assumptions and, in some cases, on access to technical information about the AI model that may not be available in practice. Some options rely on significant computing power, which can be expensive.

Because current attribution methods carry various limitations, it may take time before any single approach is widely adopted across the industry, or before effective hybrid approaches that combine the best of these methods emerge. That doesn’t mean that these technologies shouldn’t be used. As long as everyone understands the limitations, the benefits of these technologies merit development because the better they get, the better the commercial opportunities will be in the music space. And the technology won’t improve at the pace users will expect without actually using them, perhaps in limited data environments (“sandboxes”) to mitigate risk. In the meantime, as these technologies evolve, several questions matter from a commercial contracting perspective.

Where the Rubber Meets the Road: Questions Worth Asking in Your AI Music Deals

Capability – Before the attribution data is used to support payment or other rights-sensitive decisions, the parties should first ask: Is the attribution system capable of identifying the kind of influence you intend to compensate? This is important to ask because, in practice, an attribution tool’s capabilities (and its limitations) become part of the parties’ commercial bargain. Consider a hip-hop producer who licenses his catalog to an AI platform under an agreement intended to compensate him when the model draws on his unique production style. The model later generates a track in a new genre that incorporates his distinctive production signatures, but the output sounds nothing like any particular recording in the producer’s catalog. An attribution tool that looks for close resemblance to recordings in a reference database may return no close match to the producer’s catalog (or low confidence), potentially leaving his contribution uncompensated despite the parties’ intent to the contrary.

Auditability – If attribution data will inform payments to copyright owners, there should be visibility into how the system works and how the results are produced. What documentation exists to describe the attribution methodology? Are independent audits permitted or even possible with respect to these technologies?

Liability – Current attribution technologies are still developing and, like any technology, are not immune from error. If the attribution system over-credits, under-credits, or fails to trace the influence or credit at all, what are the consequences? Who should bear the cost of investigation and resolving these claims? Is there a process for dispute?

Data ownership – the data generated about how often each work in a training set influenced an output, in what context, to what degree, and other considerations could have secondary value for everyone in this ecosystem. The data can reveal which training content is commercially relevant or stylistically influential, which may be useful for A&R professionals in picking which artists and songwriters to sign; copyright owners and generative AI music platform developers in what content should be most valued in licensing; and to anyone interested in learning more about what music fans and creators find most relevant in their worlds. Who owns this attribution data and any derived analytics? Can this attribution data be leveraged for other purposes?

While AI attribution technology may feel like a nuts-and-bolts topic, it is worthwhile for the various music and AI stakeholders, creators and technologists alike to engage with its development and work cooperatively to maximize its efficacy. Implementation of reliable attribution technology could be a boon to the entire music and AI ecosystem, helping the commercialization market mature and bringing both more certainty and higher revenues to its constituents.

Adrian Perry is a partner at global law firm Covington & Burling, co-chair of its Entertainment and Media Industry group, and a driving force behind the firm’s artificial intelligence transactional and advisory work.

Nicole Canales is an associate at Covington & Burling who advises on transactional matters across the firm’s technology and music industry practices.

A decade after Cinq Music bought much of T.I.’s recorded music catalog, the rapper is suing the label over accusations that it has refused to honor a contract promising to let him to buy back those same masters at a cheap price.

Cinq bought T.I.’s Atlantic Records-era catalog in a splashy 2017 deal, including chart-topping albums King, T.I. vs. TIP and Paper Trail. But he says he only greenlit that deal because Cinq gave him an option to buy back the records later on “very favorable” terms.

Now, in a new lawsuit obtained and first reported by Billboard, the “Bring Em Out” star (Clifford Joseph Harris) says Cinq is violating that part of the agreement after he invoked it — demanding a price nearly $50 million higher than what he actually owes.

“Cinq regretted that it had agreed to the [option terms], and, therefore … did everything it could to frustrate plaintiffs’ efforts to complete the purchase,” writes T.I.’s lawyer Robert Jacobs of the law firm Manatt Phelps & Phillips.

After T.I. exercised his option in 2024, he claims Cinq tried to “artificially inflate” the price by warping the formula that the company itself wrote back in 2017: “Using these tactics Cinq sought to extract a purchase price from plaintiffs that was nearly 20 times higher than the price mandated by the parties’ agreed-upon formula.”

Rather than the maximum of $3 million that T.I. says he should pay for his albums under the original deal, he claims Cinq “manipulated” the numbers and came back with the “significantly overstated purchase price” of $52 million.

A spokesperson for Cinq did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday. An attorney for T.I. also did not return a request for comment. Atlantic is not named in the lawsuit nor accused of any wrongdoing.

After releasing his 2001 debut on Arista, T.I. spent the prime of his career at Atlantic, releasing seven studio albums that included a slew of Hot 100 top 10 songs. His 2008 Paper Trail included two No. 1s (“Whatever You Like” and “Live Your Life” feat. Rihanna) as well a third track (“Dead and Gone”) that reached No. 2.

In 2017, Cinq made a splash by buying the recorded music rights to all those albums from Atlantic. “Through artists like T.I, we’re showing Cinq is a company that artists of all sizes can rely on to maximize the value of their intellectual property,” Cinq president Barry Daffurn said at the time.

Though not always strictly required, such catalog deals work better with cooperation and consent from the artist — and T.I. says in his new lawsuit that Cinq sought such approval by offering him the buy-back provision. He claims it was “one of the principal reasons” that he agreed to consent to the sale.

The option allegedly required the label to sell him the masters at a price determined by a set formula: Cinq’s gross receipts from May 2023 to April 2024, minus any royalty compensation owed to T.I. and his company, multiplied by 12. But crucially, T.I. says it explicitly excluded Cinq’s revenue from digital streaming providers like Spotify.

That’s a surprising carve-out in the modern music business, and one that would obviously drive down the sale price. But T.I.’s lawsuit says that Cinq itself wrote the agreement to included that provision, and cannot back out now simply because it regrets the terms.

“Because it was common knowledge when the parties entered into the Cinq agreement in 2017 that audio streaming and video streaming via the DSPs had become the main driver of music industry growth and revenues, Cinq had ample reason to know then that the [streaming] exclusion would have a significant impact on the [price].”

When T.I. exercised the buy-back option, he says Cinq quickly realized that the formula would “yield a low purchase price because of the limited revenue streams it included.” So, he says, the label simply included that streaming revenue anyway, as well as other excluded sources of income like foreign revenue. “Cinq’s departure from the contractual definition of Gross Receipts resulted in an exaggerated and inaccurate revenue-side starting point.”

He claims Cinq also fudged the numbers when it came to deducting his royalties, doing so as part of an overall effort to “artificially maximize” the price he’d have to pay. His lawyers say the label clearly knew the terms of the deal, but chose to violate them because it was hoping to “trigger a negotiation” that would net a better price.

Jennifer Lopez and David Guetta’s “Save Me Tonight” surges from No. 5 to No. 1 on Billboard’s Dance/Mix Show Airplay chart dated May 2, 2026, thanks to a 31% increase in plays among 24/7 dance reporters and pop stations’ mix show hours April 17-23, according to Luminate.

Lopez lands her second No. 1 on the chart, after “On the Floor,” featuring Pitbull, in April 2011. The track was a crossover smash, reaching No. 3 on the Billboard Hot 100, as well as No. 1 on Latin Pop Airplay, No. 2 on Latin Airplay, No. 5 on Pop Airplay and Tropical Airplay and No. 10 on Rhythmic Airplay.

Lopez has earned No. 1s on 10 of Billboard’s 25 radio charts: Pop, Rhythmic, R&B/Hip-Hop, Mainstream R&B/Hip-Hop, Dance/Mix Show, Latin, Latin Pop, Latin Rhythm, Tropical and the all-format Radio Songs.

As for Guetta, the DJ scores his record-extending 21st Dance/Mix Show Airplay No. 1, and his first of 2026. He has now earned new No. 1s on the chart in a record eight consecutive calendar years.

Here’s an updated look at the artists with the most leaders on the chart, which launched in 2003:

“I cannot believe it,” Lopez shared in an Instagram Reel Monday (April 27) upon learning that “Save Me Tonight” hit No. 1. “Thank you guys so much. Go out there, dance this summer and have the best time. That’s why I made this record.”

Greeicy is adding European and Latin American legs to her 2026 Candela Tour, Billboard can exclusively report Tuesday (April 28). 

Powered by independent touring company AUL Worldwide and Massivo, the 14-date trek kicks off July 17 at the Cook Music Fest in Spain and will wrap at the Forum Majadas in Guatemala on Sept. 3. Greeicy will also visit fans in London, Barcelona, Toronto, Buenos Aires and Lima, with more cities to be announced later.

The Candela Tour is in support of the Colombian artist’s forthcoming studio album of the same name. 

“Candela is about to arrive, and announcing the tour has my heart racing,” she tells Billboard. “I’ve poured my entire soul into this concept alongside my team, and what’s coming is something the fans won’t forget. The choreography, the visuals, the arrangements … everything has been designed to create a show that lives up to the energy of this album. I can’t wait to experience it with my people!”

If her latest single, “Discúlpeme Señor” — an innovative merengue with electro rhythms — is any indication, Greeicy’s upcoming project will explore Latin Afrobeats and tropical music while staying true to her contemporary pop sound. 

Candela, set to come out May 22, includes previously released singles “Estas Ganas,” “Limonear,” “Cúrandote,” “Quiero+” and “Mantis” with Cultura Profética. Other collaborators include Rawayana and La Guru. 

For ticketing and more information, visit Laylo. See the confirmed Candela tour dates below:

The Grammy Awards were rather late to recognize Rod Stewart – he didn’t receive his first nominations until 1980 and he won his first and only Grammy to date in 2005 for Stardust…The Great American Songbook Volume III.

But Stewart and the Grammys are in sync now: CBS and the Recording Academy will present Forever Young: A Grammy Salute to Rod Stewart Live, airing Tuesday, May 19 (8:00-10:00 p.m., ET/PT) on CBS and streaming on Paramount+.

The two-hour concert special, named after Stewart’s Grammy-nominated 1988 hit “Forever Young,” was filmed over two nights in February in Hollywood, Florida. Ben Winston, Patrick Menton, Harvey Mason jr. and Lou Fox are executive producers, with Menton also serving as showrunner. Fulwell Entertainment and Grammy Studios are producing with support from Iconic Artists Group.

Forever Young: A Grammy Salute to Rod Stewart Live also reveals the man behind the music. Stewart invites viewers backstage for interview segments reflecting on his life, his family and passion for performing. The special features rare archival footage and exclusive behind-the-scenes access.

Stewart received a lifetime achievement award and performed “Forever Young” at the 2025 American Music Awards, held in May 2025. It marked Stewart’s first time on the AMAs stage since 2004.

Stewart has landed four No. 1 albums on the Billboard 200 and four No. 1 singles on the Billboard Hot 100. He topped the album chart with Every Picture Tells a Story, Blondes Have More Fun, Stardust…The Great American Songbook Vol. III and Still the Same…Great Rock Classics of Our Time. He topped the Hot 100 with the double-sided smash “Maggie May”/ “Reason to Believe,” “Tonight’s the Night (Gonna Be Alright),” “Do Ya Think I’m Sexy” and “All for Love,” a collab with Bryan Adams and Sting.

Stewart has received 15 Grammy nominations, spanning 31 years (1980 to 2011) and across five categories. He received five nominations for traditional pop; four each for pop and rock; and one each for disco (that would be for “Do Ya Think I’m Sexy”) and video, short-form.

Stewart, 81, has been especially active of late. He headlined Jazz Fest in New Orleans on Sunday (April 26). The extended U.S. leg of his long-running “One Last Time” world tour goes through September. It includes two encore runs at the Colosseum at Caesars Palace, where Stewart is now their longest-running headliner. Stewart is continuing to tour the world and headline festivals (Glastonbury in 2025, Jazz Fest, Rock in Rio and more this year). He is set to play the Hollywood Bowl show on June 10.

Stewart is a two-time Rock & Roll Hall of Fame inductee. He was inducted as a solo artist in 1994 and again with Faces in 2012. He was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II in 2016 for his services to music and charity.