The Council of Music Makers (CMM) has published five fundamental rules that they want companies to embrace when it comes to developing music AI technologies. Find the full list below.

The CMM is a council that represents songwriters, composers, artists, musicians, producers and music managers across the UK, and consists of five member organisations: the Ivors Academy, the Featured Artists Coalition, the Musicians’ Union, the Music Producers Guild, and the Music Managers Forum.

Now, it has outlined five key objectives to ensure that all training, licensing and commercialisation of music-making generative AI models in the music sector can be developed in a way that is both helpful to creators and respective of their rights.


The guidelines were officially unveiled at the Ivors Academy Global Creators Summit on music and AI in London. Taking place yesterday (September 20), the Summit brought music creators together to discuss both the opportunities and potential threats that artificial intelligence brings, and the way it has impacted the way we create, discover and consume music.

OpenAI displayed on a smartphone with ChatGPT 4 seen in the background. CREDIT: Jonathan Raa/NurPhoto via Getty Images

The guidelines are as follows:

1. Where licensing deals are negotiated in respect of AI technologies, the explicit consent of individual music-makers must be secured before music is used to train AI models. Such consent cannot be inferred by rights-holders or technology companies.

2. The publicity, personality and personal data rights of music-makers must be respected. These rights belong to individual music-makers and cannot be exploited – by AI companies or rights-holders – without explicit consent. The UK government should clarify and strengthen these rights, and collaborate internationally to promote a robust global rights regime.

3. Where permission is granted, music-makers must share fairly in the financial rewards of music AI, including from music generated by AI models trained on their work.

4. As AI companies and rights-holders develop licensing models, they must proactively consult music-makers and reach agreement on how each stakeholder will share in the revenue from AI products and services.


5. AI-generated works must be clearly labelled as such and AI companies must be fully transparent about the music that has been used to train their models, keeping and making available complete records of datasets. Rights-holders must be transparent about all licensing deals that have been negotiated with AI companies and what works those deals include.

Soundboard in recording studio stock image
Soundboard in recording studio stock image. CREDIT: L. Shaefer/Getty Images

Along with the guidelines, the CMM also shared a template letter for artists and songwriters. The intent behind this is so that musicians can tailor and send the letter to any record labels, music distributors and music publishers they work with – stating that they are keen to hear about any opportunities to work with AI, but must be asked permission before any of their music is used to train an AI model.

“We all recognise that AI presents opportunities for the music business. However, the rights of music-makers – including artists, musicians, songwriters and studio producers – must be respected by technology companies and rights-holders as music AI models are trained and new AI-powered products and services are developed,” read a statement by the CMM, explaining the importance of the five fundamentals.

“That begins with AI companies respecting copyright and law-makers ensuring that no new copyright exceptions are introduced to reduce those obligations. ”.

Dr Jo Twist OBE, Chief Executive BPI, agreed, adding: “Music and tech innovation have always worked hand in hand. AI is no different and offers exciting opportunities, as well as new challenges that could adversely impact creators and rightsholders if the right balance is not struck.

“Safeguarding human artistry and the interests of creators is front and centre in all of this, and the BPI and its members look forward to maintaining open discussions with our colleagues across the music sector as we navigate the dynamic landscape of AI opportunities.”

Home Studio Computer Music Station portable set up - stock photo
Home Studio Computer Music Station portable set up – stock photo. CREDIT: Junce/Getty Images

Over recent months, the prospect of using AI platforms to create music has been one that has divided musicians, with some wholly opposed to the concept, while others perceive it as intriguing.

One of the most prominent artists to speak out against the method is Bad Seeds frontman Nick Cave, who has previously described the prospect as a “grotesque mockery of what it is to be human” and told platforms such as ChatGPT to “fuck off and leave songwriting alone”.

Others who have criticised it include Sting, who said AI “doesn’t impress” him and that songwriters will have to defend “our human capital against AI”, as well as Stereophonics frontman Kelly Jones, who said that art is about “a real person’s expression”.

Grimes was more open to the concept, however, permitting fans to use her voice in their own AI projects – provided they share the royalties with her. Liam Gallagher also seemed pretty impressed with the AI-made “Lost” Oasis album earlier this year, describing the finished product as “mega”.