Artist revenue and “equitable remuneration”
One of our members’ jobs is to earn as much money as possible for their artists. This is part of what labels do that’s indispensable alongside risk taking, providing stability, scale, investment, brand, experience, as well as the all important “belonging“ or identification with what a label stands for which adds huge value to creators. It is vital that the role of these structures in today’s music ecosystem is understood. As mostly small businesses, they need the right market and financial conditions to grow.
The whole question of remuneration for artists is key and we are very engaged in the debate around streaming. We want to see reform of multiple aspects of the digital market to help improve revenues, but it doesn’t mean we agree with all proposals put forward by the artist community. In June 2026, IMPALA adopted its Digital Music Plan, a new set of proposals focused on 5 priorities:
1. Increase revenues and share them fairly, close value gaps
2. Supercharge support for new, emerging and diverse music
3. Establish trust through industry-wide provenance labelling
4. Stop fraud and AI dilution, embrace responsible models
5. Reduce climate impact and strengthen collective innovation
In terms of remuneration, our key recommendations are:
Increased subscription prices, fair digital royalty rates for artists and bespoke deals for fans, are among our new proposals for a fairer, more dynamic market
We ask all record labels to pay artists a fair contemporary digital rate and review old contracts. We also ask labels and distributors to share all forms of remuneration including guarantees, advances, equity (including when shares are sold) with all artists signed/labels distributed. This is in line with the WIN Fair Digital Deals Declaration. We promote national agreements for non-featured performers to ensure proper payment for their work (where they don’t exist already). We don’t support so-called “equitable remuneration” as set out in our previous recommendations, see more below.
We ask DSPs to put an end to payment thresholds and if they do continue then to allow verified genuine artists to be paid and change how the monies withheld are distributed (currently they are simply put back in the pot which tends to favour those already earning the most).
Differentiation in rates by services continues to be one of our main priorities. There are several proposals for services to explore, which would shift how revenue is generated and allocated – Pro Rata Temporis, Active Engagement, Artist Growth, Fan Participation and we also refer to recent calls for user-centric.
Our plan is underpinned by a call to end the dilution of revenues generated by value gaps which continue to exist as well as other types of bad practices (such as streaming manipulation, excessive uploading of AI generated content especially if an unlicensed tool is used), non-music content eating on music’s revenues, and the creator economy and “moment economy” services using music in videos and other forms of usage.
We also have a whole host of other recommendations for services to really boost local markets in Europe to tackle the issues highlighted by the EC in its discoverability study. Our 2026 Digital Music Plan recommends that action goes beyond mechanisms which involve a reduction in royalties, which we note is a race to the bottom.
In addition, we call for a payment boost for new releases as well as for local repertoire and diverse music.
We also propose an industry-wide provenance scheme and new rules for AI generated content:
- Standard definitions of materially AI-generated content are key, as well as disclosure of the tool(s) used. We welcome efforts made so far to tag content, including by DSPs, and support accelerated work towards an industry-wide framework. This is more than an identification exercise.
We also need to decide how materially AI-generated content should be treated. Services have different approaches and this should be standardised. IMPALA’s proposal is two-fold: I) Use of unlicensed tools automatically makes content infringing, and this should be blocked from upload, remuneration and discovery systems; II) GenAI content from licensed tools must be properly controlled and labelled and able to be filtered out – keeping it in discrete spaces makes sense as it is a different product to human music and should not feature in music royalty pools or recommender systems.
Our new plan follows our plan in April 2023 titled It’s Time to Challenge the Flow #2 – Revisiting how to make the most of streaming (infographic here), also featured in an op-ed for Billboard in September 2023. As we say in our 2026 recommendations, our 2023 plan remains relevant today. We point to some of the points dealt with in that plan, such as valuing the master rights share for labels and artists, the rationale for opposing so called equitable remuneration, specifics on more detailed search options, royalty reductions, boosting diversity etc. (A first set of proposals was published in 2021.)
On 30 May 2025, IMPALA published a Remuneration Playbook – 12 recommendations to boost revenues and diversity in today’s music business. Our remuneration playbook is a reminder of some of the basic components of a comprehensive strategy for decision makers to boost revenues and diversity. Taking on board the need to look at developments offline as well as online and considering the latest changes to the music ecosystem, IMPALA set out 12 recommendations to boost revenues and diversity:
- Implement the EU’s AI Act properly to ensure specific consent, transparency, respect of rights and maximise licensing opportunities (see more here & here)
- End the transfer of €125 million per annum of European performance and broadcast monies to third countries which do not have these basic rights (see more here)
- Fight dilution of revenues through fraud and piracy as well as fix value gaps such as TikTok and other “moment economy” services not paying properly, which are together costing the global music industry billions every year (see more here)
- Stop de-monetisation and other measures on streaming services which create a two-tier streaming business (see more here & here)
- Support modern digital royalty rates and other proposals in IMPALA’s streaming plan to test different royalty allocation models (see more here)
- Block UMG/Downtown and further consolidation in the music sector, to ensure labels and artists have an open, diverse and competitive music market (see more here, here & here)
- Establish a comprehensive fiscal and social security status for small cultural businesses, artists and other cultural workers (see more here)
- Implement copyright directive remuneration provisions in full as supported by IMPALA during negotiations (see more here & here)
- Oppose measures that cut across labels’ ability to maximise artist revenues such as so-called “equitable remuneration” (see more here, here & here)
- Adopt tax credits and better finance options to support labels as artist partners and risk takers (see more here)
- Ensure digital and other services using music are obliged to respect collective licensing solutions like Merlin (see more here & here)
Boost discoverability and diversity on streaming services to improve visibility of European repertoire (see more here)
Sharing the pie
- The question of how the overall pie should be shared also comes up.
- Every part of the music business should be paid properly.
- Current remuneration models for digital and physical exploitation tend to reflect the risk taken by the respective parties.
- Compared to physical sales, under streaming artists’ share of revenues has increased at the expense of labels; and the share allocated to publishing rights has increased significantly more than that of recording rights (with songwriters seeing a corresponding increase). (for more stats on this see below).
- In this context, our ten point streaming plan asks whether the master right share for labels and artists is being undervalued compared to other parts of the sector, and how to boost it to ensure investment in new talent can continue.
- We do not agree that revenues between different parts of the sector should be reviewed without a change as regards risk taking.
- We ask all decision makers to fully map the question of how risk works in the music sector as well as the key role of labels and self-releasing artists in the ecosystem before any assessments are made on whether there should be a change to how different parts of the sector are remunerated and their share of the overall digital pie.
- In addition, we believe increasing revenues overall and growing the pie is one of the primary means to improve the situation across the market for all rightsholders.
- For some stats on the situation of authors and publishers in the digital market, please see below.
- Significant upside for DSPs with less value flowing through the industry and to artists
- Increased administration costs to be borne by industry – and ultimately artists
- A decrease in transparency for artists
- A decrease in investment in artists – and particularly new artists
A potential loss of choice for artists – particularly if equitable remuneration results in a drift towards blankets
This assessment was substantiated by the findings of a significant AIM member who submitted an outline impact assessment of equitable remuneration on streaming.
| Option Appraisal | Status Quo | Equitable Remuneration | Artist Growth Model |
| Impact on Label Return on Investment | Investment likely to increase in line with UK revenue growth | Less investment in UK artists as ROI falls and foreign competition increases | Increased investment in more diverse and niche content |
| Impact on DSP Cost of Goods | Likely to edge downwards (increasing DSP leverage) | Increased downside risk for labels under compulsory blanket licensing | Negligible – labels will have marginally different agreements with DSPs |
| Impact on Economies of Scale | Indie share increases with prominence of Merlin and DIY | PPL licensing shifts costs but mainly benefits larger labels | More equitable allocation of costs and benefits |
| Impact on Transaction Costs | Likely to fall as systems are re-engineered | Likely to increase due to legal implications of ‘switching costs’ | One-off increase in transaction costs to calibrate scales |
| Impact on Artist-Label Contracts | More transparency as artists negotiate more confidently | Less transparency accompanying increased switching and auditing costs | Potential for less transparency as complexity increases |
More on the situation of authors and publishers
The following figures are taken from independent research conducted in the UK where the most recent analysis of the music streaming market has taken place – See the UK Intellectual Property Office’s study on music creators’ earnings in the digital era from September 2021 and the UK’s competition authority (CMA) study on the music streaming market from November 2022 (full report).
Between 2008 and 2021, the earnings of composers and lyricists increased by 11%, while the remainder going to music publishers increased by 8%. (UK IPO)
The CMA’s analysis shows that the publishing share went from 8% in 2007 to 15% in 2021, almost doubling. (UK CMA)
In absolute terms, overall publishing revenues paid out by the UK’s largest music streaming services have grown (from £[100-200]m in 2017 to £[200-300]m in 2021, a [110-120]% increase) as streaming revenues continue to grow. Major publishers in particular have seen above average streaming revenue growth between 2017 and 2021 – significantly outpacing their recording counterparts’ revenue growth. In this period, the total publishing streaming revenues for the majors increased by 244%, whilst total recording streaming revenues for the majors increased by 121%. (UK CMA).
“Traditionally the record labels have earned a greater share of revenue from music sales, which reflect the higher costs and risks of their business”. (…) “With the advent of music streaming, the costs of manufacture and distribution are considerably lower, but other costs have also changed and the record labels continue to face significant risks when creating new recorded content for the streaming services”. (UK CMA)
“It is possible any significant shift in revenues from recording towards publishing could adversely impact artists relative to songwriters as artists could lose out from lower recording revenue”. (UK CMA)
Other areas we work on to improve artist remuneration include performance rights. Here we have various working groups, including one looking after the vital question of whether countries that don’t have their own performance rights can claim revenues from European performers and labels. This could cost 125m euros a year just for the USA, see more here.
