Your Monday Music Briefing
Weekly industry news for self-label artists who choose ownership
Welcome to Your Monday Music Briefing - what caught my attention last week that felt important for self-label artists to know.
Spotify Launches First-Ever Songwriters To Watch List
Spotify released its inaugural Songwriters to Watch 2026 list, spotlighting emerging songwriters and writer-producers across genres, from Nashville hitmakers to global pop builders. The company’s global editors and Songwriter & Publisher Partnerships team curated the list, with Head of Songwriter & Publisher Partnerships Jacqueline Ankner stating: “Songwriters are the architects of the songs we fall in love with, and too often their stories stay behind the scenes.” Each featured writer has two essential cuts added to a dedicated playlist.
Sono Hikari take: It's genuinely good to see the people who build the songs getting a spotlight. However, the fact that it's taken until 2026 for the world's largest streaming platform to launch something like this says a lot about whose stories have mattered up to now. Even more forgotten than songwriters are the musicians, engineers, mixers and mastering engineers who actually create the recordings. Hopefully, this is a start to not just acknowledging the creators behind the music but making them visible, and creating a healthier ecosystem where everyone involved in the creative process can benefit from exposure in addition to being compensated fairly. Recognition is a start, but it also reminds us how invisible the work has been.
For self-label artists: Are your songwriter credits accurate across all platforms? Is your publishing registered so that recognition can actually translate to compensation? Are you crediting your musicians properly?
Spotify’s AI Deals: Permission-Based or Just Better PR?
Spotify announced partnerships with Sony Music Group, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, Merlin, and Believe to develop “artist-first AI music products.” The company outlined four principles: upfront licensing agreements with rightsholders, choice in participation for artists, fair compensation and new revenue streams, and tools that enhance rather than replace human artistry. Spotify stated: “Some voices in the tech industry believe copyright should be abolished. We don’t. Musicians’ rights matter. Copyright is essential. If the music industry doesn’t lead in this moment, AI-powered innovation will happen elsewhere, without rights, consent, or compensation.”
Sono Hikari take: Spotify is using all the right words here: consent, compensation, choice. But it’s important to note that nothing has been signed yet. This is Spotify saying they intend to do things the right way before launching AI products. The big question is whether independent artists who account for roughly half of Spotify's total royalty payouts will be included in these conversations, or if it’s just the major labels at the table. Either way, these discussions are crucial to shaping how AI is used in music for years to come.
For self-label artists: When did you last read your distributor’s terms of service, especially the sections on data usage and AI? Make sure you’re not signing away your songs for AI training purposes and that you have full ownership of your songs.
Bandcamp Bans AI Music: Why It Matters for Real Artists
Bandcamp announced it will no longer permit music “generated wholly or in substantial part by AI” on its platform. The company also prohibited AI tools used to impersonate other artists or styles. In a blog post titled “Keeping Bandcamp Human,” the platform stated: “We believe that the human connection found through music is a vital part of our society and culture, and that music is much more than a product to be consumed.” Users can flag suspected AI content for review, and Bandcamp reserves the right to remove music on suspicion of being AI-generated.
Sono Hikari take: Bandcamp framed this as protecting "the sheer quantity of human creativity and passion that artists express on Bandcamp every single day." That's a different starting point than platforms focused on scale and efficiency. It's not just about banning AI; it's about what kind of space they want to be. Enforcement will be messy, and the line between "AI-assisted" and "AI-generated" isn't clear yet. But in an industry where most platforms are hedging, it's notable when one doesn't.
For self-label artists: Are you distributing on platforms that align with how you want your work treated? If you're using AI music tools like Suno, have you read their latest terms? Some platforms may flag your music as AI-generated to distributors or limit your ownership rights. Understand Suno’s recent fine print here.
Mark Cuban Invests in Live Events Company Burwoodland
Billionaire investor Mark Cuban made a significant investment in Burwoodland, the New York-based live events company behind Emo Night Brooklyn, Gimme Gimme Disco, Broadway Rave, and All Your Friends. Burwoodland produces over 1,200 shows annually and has sold more than 1.5 million tickets to date. Cuban said: “It’s time we all got off our asses, left the house and had fun. Alex and Ethan know how to create amazing memories and experiences that people plan their weeks around. In an AI world, what you do is far more important than what you prompt.”
Sono Hikari take: Cuban’s quote is the headline here: “In an AI world, what you do is far more important than what you prompt.” Burwoodland’s model is built around community-driven, genre-based events, not individual artist tours. Co-founder Ethan Maccoby described it as “the tour that never officially begins or ends.” There’s something interesting about the bet being placed: that shared, in-person experiences built around a vibe will matter more, not less, as digital spaces get noisier. It’s a reminder that connection doesn’t scale or resonate with audiences the same way content does.
For self-label artists: What would it look like to turn your show into an experience built around community, not just a one-off performance? How do you want your audience to feel after seeing your show?
Landmark Ruling: Songwriters Can Reclaim Their Music Worldwide, Not Just in the U.S.
A U.S. appeals court ruled that songwriters can use American copyright law to get their songs back globally, not just in the U.S. The case centered on Cyril Vetter, who sold his 1963 rock song “Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love)” for one dollar. Sixty years later, the court said he’s entitled to take back full control of the song worldwide. Judge Carl Stewart wrote that giving artists only their U.S. rights back would leave them with “half of the apple,” which was never the intent. Major industry groups warned this could shake up decades of standard agreements.
Sono Hikari take: This one matters. A songwriter sold his song for a dollar in 1963 and is finally getting it back, sixty years later, and not just in the U.S., but everywhere. That’s the key shift: termination rights now apply worldwide. If you signed away your music early in your career, this changes what’s possible down the line. U.S. copyright law lets you reclaim your work after 35 years, and this ruling says that includes global rights too. It also changes how future deals might be written, now that labels know this precedent exists. The music industry has long assumed certain rights stay locked forever. This cracks that open.
For self-label artists: This is a good reminder that ownership plays out over decades, not just release cycles. If you’ve signed anything in the past, it’s worth understanding what termination rights you have down the line.
If You Missed It:
One Thing To Carry With You This Week:
“Never play to the gallery. I think it’s terribly dangerous for an artist to fulfill other people’s expectations.”
- David Bowie
