AFM told regulators pay alone will not cover AI job losses

The audio task

A session musician, arranger or orchestrator wants to know whether the union representing them is treating AI-driven replacement of live performance as a bargaining issue, and what position that union has staked out in public before a contract is on the table.

What the documents show

The American Federation of Musicians' own account of an October 4, 2023 Federal Trade Commission roundtable quotes AFM Electronic Media Services Division Director John K. Painting telling regulators that wholesale replacement of instrumentalists cannot be solved by "bargaining of replacement remuneration," minimum-hiring requirements, or copyright extensions alone, because those measures do not address session and touring work disappearing outright. He argued the union sat alongside the Writers Guild and SAG-AFTRA as unions facing the same structural threat. A companion piece in the AFM's own International Musician magazine, published the same month by International Secretary-Treasurer Ken Shirk, frames AI as "devoid of humanity" and states the AFM supports the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes because a win there will help musicians "when it's our turn to sit at the bargaining table." Neither document quotes specific contract language already in force; both describe positions and warnings ahead of negotiations, not settled terms.

Rights status

As these AFM documents state it, the union's position in October 2023 was advocacy and public testimony, not a signed AI clause the AFM can point to. Painting's remarks explicitly reject the idea that compensation alone resolves the problem, arguing job loss itself is the harm, not merely uncompensated use. No specific studio, label or streaming agreement is named in either piece, and no court or regulator ruling accompanies them.

What to check before you use it

This is an editorial checklist. Before citing AFM positions as binding, confirm whether a specific collective bargaining agreement has since incorporated AI language, distinguish a union official's public testimony from ratified contract text, and check the AFM's own negotiations pages for updates rather than relying on 2023 commentary alone.

• Is this AFM statement testimony and advocacy, or text from a ratified agreement?
• Does it name a specific employer or type of engagement, or speak generally?
• Has a later AFM agreement addressed the wholesale-replacement scenario Painting described?

The AFM's 2023 record shows a union stating its negotiating priorities publicly before striking any specific AI deal, which is a different thing from a contract already governing a session.