The announcement last week that Universal Music Group had struck a partnership and settlement with AI-platform Udio is being hailed by some as the next frontier of music creation. But for many artists, it raises more alarms than applause. The Music Artists Coalition, an advocacy group founded by industry veterans including Irving Azoff, was quick to push back warning that the deal could sideline creators rather than elevate them. What they’re asking for echoes a simple but urgent message: when technology advances, artists must not pay the price.

UMG’s statement said the deal will “provide further revenue opportunities” for artists and songwriters whose work is included in the new licensing framework. But MAC wants to know more. Their list of demands is direct: artist opt-in rather than automatic inclusion, full transparency around how revenue is split, clarity on how settlement money will be distributed, and strict protections for how artist works and voices are used within AI systems. Azoff said: “We’ve seen this before, everyone talks about ‘partnership,’ but artists end up on the sidelines with scraps. Artists must have creative control, fair compensation and clarity about deals being done based on their catalogs.”

The deal between UMG and Udio didn’t emerge in a vacuum. UMG sued Udio (and other AI platforms) last year for alleged copyright infringement, claiming songs generated by Udio bore “very similar melodies” to long-standing hits in the UMG catalog. Following settlement, UMG and Udio stated they will launch a platform in 2026 that allows users to remix and generate music in artist-styles but with “controlled access” and no downloads of AI tracks for now. On the surface that sounds like progress. But MAC’s concern is less about the feel of the deal and more about the mechanics.

The optics of “artist permission” are promising, yet MAC’s statement underscores how messy the reality might be. The coalition’s key questions are: Who gets to opt in and who doesn’t? What happens when multiple songwriters or performers are involved in a track and only some agree? How much of the new revenue will actually reach creators and will it count against already recouped advances? Will artist work simply feed models and default to label-ownership of derived content? In short: the uncertainty is high.

Another worry MAC raised is transparency. The settlement amount between UMG and Udio remains undisclosed, and the language of many contracts leaves creators unclear about future rights. MAC wants disclosure: how much was paid, how it will be distributed, how the new platform will differentiate between existing catalogs and AI-generated content. Without that, MAC argues, this could become a case of new tech locked into old-industry advantage.

The broader context is crucial. Music-industry transitions from vinyl to CD, from downloads to streaming have always shifted power. Often, the creators who build the movement find themselves negotiating the rules set by middlemen and platforms. Artists watching this AI deal are nervous that the next shift will replicate that pattern: once again, technology benefits labels and platforms first, creators later. As one MAC executive put it, artist opt-in without fair compensation isn’t partnership: it’s permission.

Yet it’s not all resistance. MAC says they are “cautiously optimistic.” If the deal is done with proper guardrails consent, compensation, clarity this could be a template for how artists engage with generative AI rather than be replaced by it. The potential exists for artists to shape, benefit from and retain ownership in the next wave of music creation tools.

For UMG, positioning the narrative as “we lead innovation and protect artists” may serve the public relations case well. They claim that through their alliance with both Udio and other AI tools (like the strategic partnership with Stability AI) they are centering artists in AI development. But artists argue that executing that vision is what matters most. Without clear commitments, the power imbalance remains. Music creators are watching as the deal’s full details unfold, aware that their catalogs are now entry points into a new system of value.

In Nigeria and other markets, the implications are no less real. Afrobeats artists and songwriters must ask: Will their voices be part of the deal? Will they be invited to opt in or simply assumed to participate? Will revenues from AI-derived works flow back to them or be absorbed by label recoupment? The questions don’t change just because the geography does.

When technology advances, culture must not retrogress. The creators behind the work must not become casualties of their own innovation. The Music Artists Coalition’s response to the UMG-Udio deal doesn’t reject AI. It demands that creators shape its terms. Because if the industry writes the rules without artists at the table, we’ll look back and wonder who actually benefitted from the next frontier in music.