Chinese and English archive texts include AI-assisted translations, not independently human-reviewed. 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.
What changed
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.
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
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.
SRC-0436PDF pp.1–5.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; copy hosted by Music Business Worldwide · EN · 2026-09-11
Case
Related documents
DOC-0427Warner Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss — Document 52Cite 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.