Music Licensing Insights

In a MAJOR ruling for European copyright law, the Munich Regional Court has sided with Germany’s music rights society GEMA against OpenAI, finding that the company’s ChatGPT model unlawfully used copyrighted song lyrics in its training and responses. The decision, issued this morning, marks the first major European court judgment holding an AI company liable for using protected works without a licence. I got into AI through being Director of Legal Affairs and Regulatory Compliance in IMRO, the Irish counterpart of GEMA - and I know the people in GEMA - so this is very interesting to me. The case centred on GEMA’s allegation that OpenAI trained ChatGPT on its repertoire of German song lyrics, allowing the chatbot to reproduce works by artists such as Helene Fischer and Herbert Grönemeyer. The court agreed, concluding that the model’s ability to reproduce lyrics word for word demonstrated that the works had been used in training. It ruled that OpenAI is liable for copyright infringement and prohibited ChatGPT from reproducing lyrics from GEMA-represented artists unless a licence is obtained. The court also held that the European Union’s Text and Data Mining exceptions cannot shield generative AI systems that “memorise” and reproduce copyrighted material. This reasoning undermines one of the primary legal defences AI developers have relied upon in Europe. While damages will be determined in a separate proceeding, the court’s finding of liability alone sets a powerful precedent. OpenAI has announced plans to appeal. The 42nd Civil Chamber of the Munich Regional Court had indicated its position in September, when it observed that the model’s outputs could not be explained without training on copyrighted material. The final judgment confirmed that assessment. For the wider AI sector, the ruling suggests that AI companies operating in the European Union may need explicit licences for any copyrighted content used in model training or risk litigation. The decision also has regulatory implications. It aligns with growing momentum within the EU to enforce transparency and rights-holder protections under the AI Act and the Copyright in the Digital Single Market Directive. The GEMA v OpenAI ruling diverges sharply from Bartz v Anthropic in the United States. In Bartz, Judge Alsup found that AI training on copyrighted material could qualify as fair use, meaning no licence is required when the use is deemed transformative and non-substitutive. He viewed training as an analytical process that teaches the model general patterns rather than reproducing expression. The Munich court took the opposite view, holding that using protected works in AI training without permission constitutes reproduction requiring a licence. This illustrates the growing divide between the U.S. model, where fair use can exempt AI developers from licensing duties, and the European approach, which treats copyright as an enforceable economic right demanding prior authorisation.

Copyright lovers – Breaking news from Germany. The Regional Court Munich has handed down its judgment in the case of GEMA against OpenAI for copyright use of copyrighted (song) lyrics in ChatGPT. GEMA won the most important parts. After reading the judgment, these are my main takeaways: ·        The case is about song texts of German pop music. These lyrics were trained into ChatGPT and could be generated in the output repeatedly with very simple prompts like “What are the lyrics of the song (title of the song)?”   ·        The Munich court held that ChatGPT included a (permanent) copy (=reproduction) of the lyrics. To assess this, the Court left open how memorization works in detail for ChatGPT. It was enough that ChatGPT contained data to generate copies. Quote: “The crucial fact is that the song lyrics, which served as training data, are reproducibly contained in the model and thus embodied in it.” ·        German copyright law could be applied to this reproduction (inherent in ChatGPT) as ChatGPT was provided to the German public also from servers in Germany. ·        While AI training in general could be justified by the text and data mining (TDM) exception in sec. 44b German Copyright Act (= Art. 4 EU DSM Directive), the requirements of the TDM exception were not met for the reproduction inherent in ChatGPT. Because this reproduction was permanent. ·        Further, the Munich Court ruled that the output constituted an illegal reproduction. ChatGPT was primarily liable as ChatGPT was the reproducer.   ·        Also, ChatGPT was illegally communicating the lyrics to the public. As the lyrics could be generated with simple prompting repeatedly, the communication by ChatGPT to its users was sufficiently public. I will get back with a link to the judgment once it is published. The case is likely to be carried on at the Court of Appeal Munich, which should rule in 2026. Here you can find the official press release by the Landgericht Munich: https://lnkd.in/dTcztnbh Congratulations to GEMA CEO Tobias Holzmüllerüller, to GEMA General Counsel Dr. Kai Welp and to GEMA attorney Felix Stang.

𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 80% 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚'𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐛𝐲𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐲𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬? The Delhi High Court has delivered a nuanced judgment in a dispute between Azure Hospitality and Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), addressing core issues in India's copyright licensing system. At issue was whether PPL, which controls 80-90% of India's sound recordings through assignments from original producers, could circumvent the regulatory regime designed for copyright societies. The court has modified an earlier injunction to create a measured solution that acknowledges both ownership rights and regulatory imperatives. The legal question centered on interpretation of Sections 18(2), 30 and 33(1) of the Copyright Act. Justice Hari Shankar found that allowing assignees to operate outside the copyright society structure would render Section 33(1)'s regulatory intent meaningless. The court observed that the proviso to Section 33(1), which preserves an owner's right to license "his own works", inherently presupposes membership in a registered copyright society - evidenced by its stipulation that licensing must be "consistent with obligations as a member". Particularly telling was the court's reference to the Parliamentary Standing Committee's report, which highlighted concerns about "arbitrariness, arm twisting and negotiations" by entities like PPL in setting tariffs. The legislative intent behind Sections 33(1) and 33A was precisely to prevent cartelization and ensure transparent tariff schemes - objectives that would be defeated if entities could acquire ownership through assignments and thereby escape regulation. The court crafted an interim arrangement with admirable pragmatism: Azure must pay PPL according to the published tariff rates of RMPL (the registered copyright society), effectively treating PPL as if it were a society member. This solution maintains PPL's compensation rights while enforcing the regulatory requirements. The judgment requires bulk copyright holders to operate within the statutory system, establishing that ownership rights, no matter how extensive, cannot exempt entities from the regulatory scheme intended to prevent monopolistic pricing and ensure transparent tariff structures. #copyright #ppl

Seems like The Weeknd is exploring a $1 billion financing deal using his catalog as collateral, according to Bloomberg. Turns out his records really are gold. It's a strategy that lets artists unlock value in their albums without completely losing control of their work. The report indicates New York-based Lyric Capital Group is leading discussions for a sophisticated financing package that breaks down into three tiers: 🟦 $500 million in senior debt 🟦 $250 million in junior debt 🟦 $250 million in equity What's backing this massive potential deal? The Weeknd's stake in his music publishing rights and his share of master recordings. Think hits like "Blinding Lights" (Spotify's most-streamed song ever), "Starboy," and "Can't Feel My Face." These tracks generate consistent revenue through streaming, radio play, sync licensing, and performance rights. This isn't a sale. The Weeknd likely keeps creative control while accessing capital that could fund everything from his production company Manic Phase to other business ventures. If the deal goes through, investors get returns from his music's ongoing revenue streams. This approach reflects a fundamental shift in how music intellectual property is being valued and traded. Since 2019, at least $20.4 billion has flowed into music rights deals, attracting major players like BlackRock, Blackstone, Apollo Global Management, and KKR. But it's not just institutional investors - new digital platforms are also allowing smaller investors to participate in this asset class. (I'll add a link with a preview of some of WIPO's research work in this space). What makes music rights particularly attractive to investors? They aren't as susceptible to economic downturns as traditional investments, offering portfolio diversification and relatively stable income streams. The streaming economy has made music distribution cheaper and future revenue more predictable - especially for established artists with proven catalogs. The Weeknd's potential deal represents the modern evolution of David Bowie's pioneering "Bowie Bonds" from 1997, when Bowie raised $55 million by securitizing his pre-1990 catalog. Today's music finance operates at a completely different scale, with The Weeknd's catalog generating massive revenue streams across multiple platforms and licensing opportunities. Which artist's catalog would you finance for a deal like this? #ipfinance #copyright #BlindingLights #StarboyCash #AfterHoursBanking

🎧 Hungama Music just shut down. That’s three major streaming platforms gone in the last 15 months: 📴 Resso (Jan 2024) 📴 Wynk Music (Aug 2024) 📴 Hungama Music (Apr 2025) And we need to talk about what this really means for the Indian music industry. 👇 Here’s what we are observing (and why artists, labels and music entrepreneurs should pay attention): 🔹 1. India’s Streaming Market Is Consolidating. The game now belongs to the global giants—Spotify, YouTube Music, Apple Music. Domestic players couldn't keep up with Advanced algorithms, better UI/UX, global partnerships, bigger marketing budgets etc. Fewer platforms = fewer opportunities for indie and regional artists to break through. 🔹 2. India Still Doesn’t Want to Pay for Music. Hungama shifted to a subscription-only model. May be a bad move—for a market where free, ad-supported content dominates. Low ARPU (average revenue per user) has made India a tough place to survive as a standalone music app. 🔹 3. Music Alone Can’t Pay the Bills Anymore. OTT platforms bundle music, brands use it as value-add but music isn't the product anymore—it’s the bait. Unless you’re a content or tech giant, music streaming isn’t profitable. Artists need to adapt fast. 🔹 4. Discovery Is Algorithm-Driven Now. With fewer indie-friendly platforms, discovery is at the mercy of algorithms. If you’re not optimising metadata, thumbnails, playlists and reels—you’re invisible. 🔹 5. Artists Need a New Playbook. The streaming-first model isn’t working. The future? - Direct-to-fan monetization - Brand syncs - Live acts - Niche communities - Strong personal branding 🎙️ As the industry changes, so should we. The golden age of passive streaming is fading. This is the era of intentional building—of ecosystems, not just music. Labels, artists, managers—it’s time to zoom out. 💬 What do you think this means for Indian music? Are we ready for a more decentralized, fan-first future? #IndianMusicIndustry #MusicStreaming #MusicBusiness #SpotifyIndia #IndependentArtists #MusicMarketing #DigitalMedia #MusicEconomy #LinkedInForArtists

Yes, I write a lot about sports. 🎾🏀🏈   And yes, our firm is called SportsInvest Advisory.   But let’s be honest, "Sports,Media&EntertainmentInvest" Advisory sounded a bit too long.   However, our focus spans the entire 𝐒𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐬, 𝐌𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚 & 𝐄𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦.   Why?   Because each of these segments is worth looking into from an investment standpoint.   Just the other day I was talking about content (series, cinema) as an investment opportunity with Louis Ladreyt from Logical Content Ventures, a fund deploying capital in films and series.   And several years ago, we also started exploring 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 as a new asset class—one that has now captured the attention of leading PE investors. 🎵 👉 BlackRock backed Alignment Artist Capital to deploy $5M-$20M deals for artists and songwriters (2015). 👉 Blackstone committed $1BN to Hipgnosis Songs (now Recognition Music Group) to acquire music catalogues (2021).   👉 Apollo Global Management, Inc. committed $1BN to HarbourView Equity Partners, led by Sherrese Clarke (2021). 👉 Providence Equity Partners launched Tempo Music in 2019 with Warner Music Group, later exiting to WMG for $450M. 👉 KKR acquired Kobalt Music's catalogue for $1.1BN (2021). What sparked private equity's interest in music rights?   ✅ Market growth—check out Goldman Sachs' Music in the Air report (link in comments).   ✅ Low correlation to macroeconomic trends & financial assets.   ✅ Stable, recurring royalties revenues (5-10% yield).   ✅ But also (and that's even more interesting) value creation opportunities through IP expansion (licensing, events, entertainment). One of my favorite investment teams in this space?   🔥 Pophouse Entertainment.   Why?   First, because it boasts an outstanding founding team, including ABBA’s Björn Ulvaeus and EQT Group founder Conni Jonsson, led by CEO Per Sundin and chaired by Lennart Blecher, EQT’s Head of Real Assets.    Second, because I had the opportunity to first connect with Pophouse Entertainment back in 2022 (Shahriar Shokofan, Parham Benisi, Joakim Andersson) and I was impressed by their visionary approach in IP expansion.    🎯 Investment focus? Music catalogs and IP, covering three key rights: publishing, recording, and brand rights (NIL—artists’ name, image & likeness).   🚀 Value creation? An artist-centric approach that goes beyond passive catalog ownership, expanding and monetizing IP across the entire entertainment ecosystem. They launched ABBA Voyage—a concert featuring digital avatars of the Swedish pop icons, and The Avicii Experience—a tribute to the late Swedish DJ. On Monday, they announced a €𝟏.𝟐𝐁𝐍 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭-𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝—one of the largest debut private equity funds raised in Europe in the past decade.   They have already deployed about 30% of the fund, acquiring rights to KISS, Cyndi Lauper, Avicii, and Swedish House Mafia.   Huge congratulations to the entire Pophouse team for this fantastic achievement. 👏

🎵 3 Do’s and Don’ts of Sync Licensing That Could Save You a Headache (or a Check) 🎬 I’ve seen too many indie artists shoot themselves in the foot. Sync licensing is not just about talented. Artists make mistake because they don't know the business behind it. So here’s a quick cheat sheet to help you stop leaving money on the table. ✅ DO: 1. Own Your Masters and Publishing (or know who does). If you don’t control your rights, you’re not making moves you’re just making noise. Split sheets matter. Metadata matters. Don’t get caught slipping. 2. Tag Your Tracks Like a Librarian with ADHD. Mood, genre, tempo, instruments, themes — make your catalog searchable. Music supervisors don’t have time to dig for gold. Make it easy for them. 3. Make Alt Versions and Instrumentals. If your hook slaps but the vocals clash with dialogue, you’re out. Always export stems and clean/instrumental versions. That extra 20 mins in your DAW could mean a 5-figure check. --- 🚫 DON’T: 1. Don’t Send Random Links to Music Supervisors. Respect the inbox. Build a relationship first or go through a trusted sync agent/platform. Cold DMs with Dropbox links? Immediate red flag. 2. Don’t Overthink the Artistry. Sync isn’t about “the deepest song you ever wrote.” It’s about function. Simple, repeatable themes that evoke emotion that’s the secret sauce. 3. Don’t Sign Your Life Away in One Contract. That exclusive deal might look cute upfront. But read the fine print. Some of these folks want 50% of everything just for placing you once. --- 🎯 If you’re trying to get serious about sync — whether you’re a producer, artist, or creative looking to tap into licensing — I’ve been building a small (but mighty) Circle community for creatives like you. We talk shop, share wins, drop gems, and yes even plug opportunities. Drop a 🎧 or “I’m in” if you want an invite. Or just shoot me a DM. Let’s stop waiting on luck and start building leverage.

The truth nobody tells indie artists: catalogues aren’t just about how good the music is. They’re about how clean, structured, and monetisable the rights are. Investors don’t buy vibes, they buy cashflow and if your catalogue isn’t set up to generate income consistently, it’s not ready to work for you yet. There are five things every serious investor, publisher, or acquirer looks for: First, rights clarity. Who owns what? Is it registered with a PRO? Are the splits documented and signed? Second, metadata hygiene. Do the songs have correct ISRCs, ISWCs, and IPIs? Are they tagged, searchable, and trackable? Third, earnings history. Is the catalog generating revenue? From where? Streaming, sync, or publishing? Fourth, sync potential. Has it been licensed before? Does it have instrumental versions? Is it cleared for one-stop licensing? And fifth, deal-readiness. Are your contracts centralised and digitised? Can a buyer complete due diligence in a week instead of a month? Most artists fail at three out of five, and that is where the problem starts. Metadata, in particular, is the invisible backbone of your catalog. The Verge once called it “the biggest little problem plaguing the music industry,” estimating that billions in royalties go unclaimed every year because songs aren’t properly tagged or credited. Every ISRC, IPI, and songwriter detail is how performance rights organisations like IPRS identify and pay you. If your metadata is missing or incorrect, your song might still play everywhere, but the royalties could be going anywhere. Messy splits lead to royalty disputes. Missing metadata means lost income. No sync prep means no high-margin placements. No earnings track record means no valuation benchmark. You can’t raise capital, sell equity, or pitch your catalog if you don’t even know what you own, or worse, if you co-own something you can’t monetise. This isn’t about being perfect, it’s about being prepared. If you’re serious about turning your music into long-term value, get your house in order. Build a clean catalogue, and it becomes a business. Keep it messy, and it stays a hobby. Streams are great, but splits, syncs, and structure are what make a catalogue valuable. The next wave of music wealth isn’t going to the loudest, it’s going to the most organised. #musicbusiness #musicindustry #metadata #rights #tips #fairplay

In a significant victory for Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), the Bombay High Court at Goa has quashed the State of Goa's Circular dated January 30, 2024. This Circular had attempted to restrict the collection of royalties by copyright holders, specifically for the public performance of sound recordings at weddings, marriage-related events, and other social festivities. PPL, one of the petitioners, argued that the Circular unlawfully expanded the scope of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which provides exceptions for certain acts that do not constitute copyright infringement. The Court agreed with PPL, ruling that the Circular not only overreached but also interfered with the rights of copyright holders to enforce their exclusive rights. The Court emphasized that while the intent of the Circular might have been to prevent public harassment and undue demands, it cannot distort the statutory provisions of the Copyright Act. Any disputes regarding what constitutes a "bona fide religious ceremony" or "social festivities associated with marriage" should be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis rather than through a blanket administrative directive. This judgment is a strong reaffirmation of the rights of copyright holders in India, underscoring the importance of adhering to the legal framework established by the Copyright Act. It also highlights the need for a careful balance between public use and the enforcement of intellectual property rights.

🚀 How Spotify Turned Streams into Serious Cash Flow 🎵💰 For years, Spotify epitomized the “growth-first” tech company: expanding its user base but struggling to profit. Today, Spotify is not only profitable but also a case study in using pricing as a lever for sustainable growth. Spotify’s journey from rapid user growth to profitability is a masterclass in strategic pricing, product design, and revenue diversification. In Q3, they hit 232 million paying subscribers, raised prices in 50+ markets, and achieved €3.36 billion in revenue—up 11% year-over-year. Let’s break down how they did it. 🎯 1. Understand Your Value—and Charge for It Spotify offers immense value: access to over 100 million songs, curated playlists, and exclusive podcasts. Yet, for years, they underpriced their offering. This year, they increased prices across major markets like the U.S. and Europe, boosting Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) to €4.52—up 6%. The secret? Communicating value effectively. By highlighting premium features like ad-free listening, higher-quality audio, and exclusive content, Spotify ensured users saw the justification for paying more, with minimal churn impact. 💡 Takeaway: Customers will pay more when they clearly perceive value. Use pricing adjustments as an opportunity to reinforce why your product is worth it. 📉 2. The Right Price Needs the Right Product Architecture Spotify’s two-tier model is an excellent example of monetization through architecture. The free tier, with 295 million users, serves as a gateway, offering ad-supported access while generating €447 million in ad revenue last quarter alone. Meanwhile, their premium users—232 million strong—drive the majority of revenues with higher margins. What makes their strategy exceptional is their conversion engine: 46% of free-tier users eventually upgrade to premium, driven by carefully designed features that showcase the value of ad-free and offline access. 💡 Takeaway: A strong product architecture enables you to serve different segments while maximizing both reach and revenue. 📈 3. Build Stickier Revenue Streams Spotify didn’t stop at subscriptions. They leaned into podcasts and audiobooks to diversify revenue. Their podcast advertising arm alone grew by 16% last quarter. Plus, new ventures like audiobooks position Spotify to capture incremental spend from existing users, ensuring revenue streams grow without significant customer acquisition costs. 💡 Takeaway: Stickier revenue streams keep users engaged while unlocking scalable, recurring income. In Q3, Spotify posted €65 million in net income, marking a major turnaround for a company historically known for losses. 🔍 Are you leveraging pricing and product design to expand both your user base and profitability? What opportunities exist to diversify your revenue streams? Let’s discuss! 👇 ----- 📢 Curious about navigating the dynamic world of pricing and staying ahead of the curve? Hit the 🔔 icon