Top Five Music Law Moments of 2025

2025 will be remembered as the year music law joined the conversation with the realities of streaming, AI, and superstar leverage. From Supreme Court arguments to headline-grabbing catalog deals, the legal battles told a bigger story about who controls music in the digital age.

#1 Drake, Kendrick, and the UMG Lawsuit

When Rap Beefs Become Legal Battles

The Drake/UMG defamation dispute serves as a reminder that in 2025, a verse can be both a cultural moment and a litigation risk. A rap beef involving Drake and Kendrick Lamar put a spotlight on where creative expression ends and potential infringement or contractual conflict begins. The case not only underscores how labels now weigh not just chart impact, but also legal exposure when artists weaponize music in public conflicts.

What This Means for Artistic Expression

The core tension is simple: how far can an artist go when responding to a rival in real time? Labels and rights holders increasingly ask whether diss tracks, surprise drops, or rapid-fire snippets may risk violating existing deals and who can be held accountable. With the dismissal of the Drake/UMG defamation lawsuit, artists maintain creative expression, for now.

#2 Cox v. Sony at the Supreme Court

The Future of ISP Liability

In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether an internet service provider can be held secondarily liable for massive copyright infringement by its subscribers.

Two Extremes the Court Must Avoid

Sony presses for a robust contributory infringement standard that could expose ISPs to significant damages when they know about piracy but keep providing service. Cox, by contrast, warns that broad liability will chill internet access and punish neutral infrastructure. The Court now has to thread the needle—crafting a rule that deters willful blindness without turning every broadband provider into a copyright enforcer.

#3 The NO FAKES Act Returns

Deepfakes, Voice Cloning, and Right of Publicity

As AI-generated voices and digital doubles flooded social feeds this year, Congress reintroduced the NO FAKES Act of 2025. The bill would create a federal right protecting a person’s voice and visual likeness against unauthorized digital replicas, including AI deepfakes and vocal clones, in a manner similar to right of publicity statutes that have been enacted in many states. It would also give artists tools such as notice-and-takedown and a private right of action to confront misuse.

Why Musicians Are Watching Closely

For recording artists, this is not an abstract fight. Their voice is their brand, and unauthorized AI imitations can dilute reputation, deplete revenue, and undermine bargaining power in both recording and endorsement deals. If enacted, the NO FAKES framework could become the backbone of how labels, platforms, and artists negotiate the use of AI training data and synthetic performances in coming years.

#4 UMG’s Settlement with Udio

From Litigation to Licensing AI Music

Universal Music Group’s settlement with AI music startup Udio marked a turning point in how labels deal with generative music tools. After accusing Udio of training its models on copyrighted songs without permission, UMG resolved the dispute and agreed to collaborate on a licensed AI platform that uses authorized music. Under the arrangement, participating artists are to be compensated both for training use and for fan-generated tracks that stay inside Udio’s ecosystem.

A New Template for AI Music Platforms

This deal functions as a blueprint: sue first, then license. It signals that major labels are open to AI creativity, so long as there is consent, control, and a clear revenue path for rights holders. Future AI music platforms will likely be judged against the UMG–Udio structure: is the training data licensed, are artists opted-in, and does the platform prevent unlicensed exports of generated works?

#5 Taylor Swift Buys Back Her Masters

A Headline-Grabbing but Limited Precedent

Taylor Swift’s purchase of her masters was arguably the most talked-about catalog story of the decade, and for good reason: the court of public opinion has never engaged this deeply with a music catalog acquisition. The visibility of her dispute and subsequent deal helped fuel unprecedented fan awareness of masters, publishing, and ownership dynamics across the industry. Yet, from a strictly legal and business perspective, her buyback does not fundamentally change the economics for most artists. Buying back one’s own catalog from their label or publisher is just not financially feasible for the vast majority of recording artists or songwriters.

The Taylor’s Version Exception, Not the Rule

The Taylor’s Version rerecording campaign was a commercial anomaly. Re-recordings are typically low-volume projects by legacy acts trying to reignite interest in their old hits, not multi-million-selling cultural events. Fans are rarely excited about re-recordings; if anything, altering past hits is a great way to stir up fan backlash. Swift, however, built a supercharged press cycle that turned re-recordings into a unique act of protest, stirring a rousing response from her intensely loyal fanbase. Her wealth and singular fan engagement allowed her to buy back and re-monetize her hits—an option that remains out of reach for most recording artists, whose re-record clauses, budgets, and fan bases usually cannot support a similar play.

Conclusion

These music law moments of 2025 reveal a transition: courts are rethinking ISP liability, Congress is grappling with AI-era identity rights, labels are striking truces with generative platforms, and superstar leverage is rewriting what is possible at the very top of the market. For everyone else—ISPs, startups, mid-tier artists—the message is clear. The rules are changing, and those who ignore the legal undercurrent in music’s new era do so at their own risk. Contact Kronenberger Rosenfeld today through our online submission form to discuss your music legal needs.

FAQs

1. Why was 2025 so important for music law?
2025 brought together Supreme Court litigation, federal legislation on deepfakes, and landmark AI and catalog deals, forcing the industry to confront how law will govern music in a digital, algorithm-driven market.

2. Will Cox v. Sony change how ISPs operate?
Yes, depending on the ruling, ISPs may face clearer duties around terminating repeat infringers or documenting their responses to infringement notices, which could alter their compliance and risk posture.

3. How will the NO FAKES Act affect AI music tools?
If passed, AI platforms that clone voices or create digital replicas will need explicit consent and licensing, or they risk federal liability for misusing an individual’s voice or likeness.

4. Does the UMG–Udio settlement help independent artists?
Indirectly, yes: it establishes a revenue-sharing and licensing model that other platforms may adopt, potentially giving independents a clearer path to opt in and get paid for AI-driven uses of their work.

5. Does Taylor Swift’s masters deal change contracts for other artists?
Not meaningfully. Her unique wealth, leverage, and fan engagement made her outcome possible, but those conditions do not automatically translate into better ownership positions for typical recording artists.