Warner and Atlantic file reply in AFM dismissal proceedings

The archive provides Chinese and English research texts. Translations may be AI-assisted and may not yet have received independent human review. Consult the original-language sources alongside them.

Warner and Atlantic argue that existing recording terms do not supply additional AI-use rates and urge reliance on collective bargaining; AFM maintains that the contract permits competing reasonable interpretations.

Opening page of the source document associated with “Warner Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss — Document 52”. Original page layout retained; follow the source for the full text.
Image source: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; copy hosted by Music Business Worldwide; rights remain with the original rights holders.
Source · Warner Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss — Document 52 ↗

Sources read · Research in progress

What changed

RESEARCH NOTE

Document 52 was filed on 11 September, distinct from later reporting. First five pages checked; no claim that the court dismissed the case or musicians waived all rights.

Editorial research question

Editorial interpretation: examines relationships between creative labour, permission and institutional responses in this record.

This is an editorial interpretation or question, separate from factual statements.

Evidence & sources

SRC-0436

PDF pp.1–5.

SRC-0436

Warner Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss — Document 52

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; copy hosted by Music Business Worldwide · EN · 2026-09-11

Case

CASE-0216AFM: session-musician new-use payments after AI licensing

Cite this record

ANTI-AI ARCHIVE. “Warner and Atlantic file reply in AFM dismissal proceedings.” evt-0366. Include this page’s URL and your access date when citing.