{"id":23900,"date":"2026-10-27T16:35:51","date_gmt":"2026-10-27T16:35:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/interspacemusic.com\/blog\/administration-deals-now-decide-who-can-negotiate-ai-training-licences\/"},"modified":"2026-10-27T16:35:51","modified_gmt":"2026-10-27T16:35:51","slug":"administration-deals-now-decide-who-can-negotiate-ai-training-licences","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/interspacemusic.com\/blog\/administration-deals-now-decide-who-can-negotiate-ai-training-licences\/","title":{"rendered":"Administration Deals Now Decide Who Can Negotiate AI Training Licences"},"content":{"rendered":"

Rightsholders tied to Elvis Presley’s catalog allege that Anthropic trained its Claude models on lyrics to 274 songs without authorization or payment. The suit is one of several that put the publishing administration contract, not the streaming statement, at the centre of how independent songwriters get paid for AI use.<\/p>\n

Two revenue pools, one catalogue<\/h2>\n

Streaming is the pool that pays today. Spotify reported 788 million users and 306 million subscribers for Q3 2026<\/a>, which means about 39% of its users pay a subscription. The company also posted growth in revenue, paid subscriptions and advertising<\/a>, and substantial profit growth<\/a>. The subscription base is the funding source for per-stream royalties, and it is still expanding.<\/p>\n

The second pool is training use, and right now it is a dispute rather than a revenue line. Rightsholders allege that lyrics and compositions were copied into AI models with no licence and no payment. The two pools draw on the same songs, but they are collected through different contracts and by different parties.<\/p>\n

What the lawsuits actually target<\/h2>\n

The claims are about the written work, not the recording. The Presley-related suit against Anthropic<\/a> is framed around lyrics to 274 songs. Reservoir Media has filed separate copyright suits against Suno and Anthropic<\/a> over compositions and lyrics used to train AI models. Suno also faces another lawsuit<\/a> in the same period.<\/p>\n

Two features matter for a small catalogue. First, the unit of claim is the song, counted individually: 274 songs is a list of works, not a percentage of a catalogue. Second, the plaintiffs are parties that control publishing rights. A master-side payout from a distributor does not reach this dispute, because the distributor typically delivers recordings to a digital service provider (DSP) and holds nothing in the lyrics.<\/p>\n

Why the administration grant is the control point<\/h2>\n

Publishing deals are consolidating authority in a few administrators. My Chemical Romance signed an exclusive worldwide administration deal with Warner Chappell Music<\/a> covering its existing catalogue and future works. Separately, MAIA Universe announced rights partnerships with BMG, Kobalt and Warner<\/a>, along with a strategic investment and an improved operating model with the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society (MCPS).<\/p>\n

The mechanism is in the wording of the grant. An exclusive worldwide administration deal assigns the right to license and collect for the works it covers, and the phrase “existing and future” extends that to songs not yet written. If the grant covers all uses without carve-outs, the administrator is the party positioned to license a training use or join a claim, and the songwriter may have no say in either. If the grant lists specific uses, such as sync, mechanicals and performance, AI training may sit outside it, and the rights stay with the writer.<\/p>\n

Neither outcome is good or bad on its own. A broad grant gives a larger counterparty with litigation resources. A narrow grant leaves the writer holding rights with no one equipped to enforce them. The risk is not knowing which one you signed.<\/p>\n

Contract checks before the next signature<\/h2>\n