{"id":800095,"date":"2026-07-13T23:17:12","date_gmt":"2026-07-13T23:17:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/800095\/"},"modified":"2026-07-13T23:17:12","modified_gmt":"2026-07-13T23:17:12","slug":"abbas-bjorn-ulvaeus-talks-music-and-ai-at-un-global-summit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/800095\/","title":{"rendered":"ABBA’s Bj\u00f6rn Ulvaeus Talks Music and AI at UN Global Summit"},"content":{"rendered":"

\n\tABBA<\/a> member and CISAC president Bj\u00f6rn Ulvaeus<\/a> took the stage at the United Nations\u2019 AI for Good Global Summit in Geneva on Monday (July 13) to ask a simple question: \u201cGood for whom?\u201d <\/p>\n

\n\tKicking off the summit as its opening keynote speaker, Ulvaeus stressed to the crowd to remember the point of view of artists and creatives in the pursuit of AI development: \u201cA technology is good when the human beings whose work made it possible are not erased by it, when they consent to it, when they share in what it creates,\u201d he said. Ulvaeus continued that he hopes \u201cone extra chair will always be reserved at that table for the creators whose work made these systems possible.\u201d<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n

\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Generic<\/p>\n

\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n

\n\tHe added, \u201cThese tools are extraordinary, but they could not have been built without us.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tConsent was the focal point of Ulvaeus\u2019 keynote. As he noted in his speech, the ABBA co-founder has never been shy about embracing emerging technology. Just a few years ago, the band used \u201cmotion capture and motion learning\u201d to create the groundbreaking virtual ABBA Voyage show in London, which uses technology to de-age and simulate the performances of the four Swedish singers night after night. <\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cSome people sometimes ask me, \u2018How can you lecture the world about AI and human creativity, and then sell tickets to watch a machine perform as you?’\u201d Ulvaeus explained. \u201cThe answer is one word: consent. We chose it. We participated in it. We are paid for it. The technology serves the artist because the artists were at the table from the very beginning, and the audiences love it. So, I guess that\u2019s AI for good.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tHe continued, \u201cI\u2019m not going to stand here and tell you that machine-made music is cold or soulless, and that audiences will always hear the difference. I know that isn\u2019t true. I am genuinely in awe of the tools that have been built, but awe is not the same as acceptance.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tUlvaeus also stressed that because creatives\u2019 work \u201clives inside these models\u201d and is the \u201cfoundation on which these tools were built,\u201d this should make creatives \u201cpartners, not protesters, not obstacles, not a problem to be managed by lawyers. Partners. And partners deserve a place at the table. Partners deserve a share of the harvest.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tHe noted that he does not believe the answer \u201clies in tracing our work in the outputs\u2026I think it misunderstands how these models work,\u201d explaining that they \u201cdon\u2019t sample recordings\u201d but \u201clearn relationships across billions of examples.\u201d <\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n

\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"AI<\/p>\n

\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cWhat comes out isn\u2019t a copy of any one song,\u201d he added. \u201cIt\u2019s a new synthesis built from everything the model has learned.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cTracing the output was always the wrong question. The right question is much simpler. It is about the training. Our works went in. We should be paid for what went in, not for every output that comes out the other end, but for the raw material that made the machine what it is,\u201d Ulvaeus continued. He pointed to Spotify as a practical framework for payment, which started by licensing the catalog of works for the platform first, then routing \u201ca percentage of the platform\u2019s revenue\u2026back collectively to rights holders. <\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cAI can work the same way,\u201d he continued. \u201cA share of AI subscription revenues could flow back to the creators whose work trained these systems. Managed collectively, just as collective licensing has worked for more than a century. The infrastructure already exists.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tUlvaeus\u2019 words add to mounting concerns from the creative community around AI training and consent. In April,\u00a0reporting from\u00a0Billboard<\/a>\u00a0revealed that multiple top talent attorneys had learned that labels and publishers could feasibly use common contract language in U.S. record deals related to blanket licensing and exploitation to opt in artists\u2019 works to train their AI partners\u2019 models without seeking individual artist approval.\u00a0\u201cSome of the labels have already taken the position that they technically don\u2019t need special approvals to train,\u201d\u00a0Jason Boyarski, founding partner at Boyarski Fritz, told Billboard.<\/p>\n

\n\tIn June, the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) sued<\/a> Universal Music Group (UMG) and Warner Music Group (WMG), alleging that its members are not sharing in the upside of the major labels\u2019 licensing settlements with AI music firms Suno and Udio. According to the complaint, \u201cthe AFM brings this lawsuit because defendants, two of the largest music companies in the world, have licensed sound recordings on which AFM-represented musicians have worked, without compensation or credit, to two AI companies\u2026 At the same time, they have refused to provide information to the AFM about which recordings and whose work is being licensed.\u201d<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n

\t\t\t<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Artists<\/p>\n

\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n

\n\tLater that month, 31 music rights organizations, including Music Artists Coalition and Songwriters of North America, expressed concerns<\/a> about the AI licensing deals being struck between music companies and AI companies and how they might be leaving artists behind. \u201cStop the misuse of [our] rights in AI deals,\u201d a press release announcing the letter said, adding, \u201cthis is hypocrisy and an injustice which needs to stop now. Labels and publishers rightly argue that AI companies need permission to train on their music catalogue, but will not grant artists and songwriters the same rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tNotably, Ulvaeus did not complain in his keynote about how labels and publishers specifically are treating licensed training data. Even so, his address adds to the growing chorus of creatives asking for consensual AI training in 2026. (You can read his full address below.)<\/p>\n

\n\tThe UN\u2019s AI for Good Global Summit also featured the voices of other music industry power players like John Legend<\/a>, Universal Music Group chief digital officer Michael Nash, NVIDIA vp and general manager of media and entertainment Richard Kerris, Splice CEO Kakul Srivastava, Stability AI CEO Prem Akkaraju and Udio CEO Andrew Sanchez. The group spoke for a session titled The Sound of Intelligence: John Legend and the Leaders Shaping the AI Music Revolution. In it, Legend built on similar sentiments expressed by Ulvaeus, saying, \u201cAI has penetrated into our business and a lot of us are using it in healthy ways\u2026I want us to treasure the role that great art plays in our lives. Treasuring also means requiring policy which protects the\u00a0creators,\u00a0so it is a viable career for artists.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tUlvaeus\u2019 full keynote address:<\/p>\n

\n\tGood morning,<\/p>\n

\n\tLast month, I stood on a stage in Paris, marking 100 years of CISAC, the Global Confederation of authors and composers, and this month I stand on a stage here in Geneva, and I find that the journey from one city to the other has a story to tell, because Paris is where the rights of creators were born. In 1791, when France became the first country in the world to write into law that the work of an author belongs to an author. And Geneva is where those rights became universal. The treaty that says a song written in Stockholm is protected in Seoul, in Sao Paulo, and in New York. The Berne Convention has its guardian here at WIPO, just a few kilometers from this stage.<\/p>\n

\n\tParis made the promise, Geneva made it universal, and I\u2019m here to ask this summit to do the same thing one more time, for the age of AI. The name of this summit is AI for Good. It\u2019s an inspiring name. This week, the United Nations launched a new AI for Good Commission, bringing government scientists and technology companies together to help shape the future of AI. I hope one extra chair will always be reserved at that table for the creators whose work made these systems possible, because the title of this summit contains a question: Good for whom?<\/p>\n

\n\tI want to suggest a simple test. A technology is good when the human beings whose work made it possible are not erased by it, when they consent to it, when they share in what it creates. By that test, AI for good already exists. I know because I\u2019m standing inside an example of it every night in London. Some of you may have seen ABBA Voyage, four digital avatars, myself among them, 40 years younger. I can recommend that. Performing usually to a full house, six shows a week, made possible by motion capture and machine learning.<\/p>\n

\n\tSome people sometimes ask me, \u201cHow can you lecture the world about AI and human creativity, and then sell tickets to watch a machine perform as you?\u201d The answer is one word: consent. We chose it. We participated in it. We are paid for it. The technology serves the artist because the artists were at the table from the very beginning, and the audiences love it. So, I guess that\u2019s AI for good. It isn\u2019t a slogan; it is a contract.<\/p>\n

\n\tBut there\u2019s another version, one without the contract. Somewhere in the world today, a generative model is producing music. It produces more songs in a day than every member of CISAC will write in a lifetime. It can do this for one reason only. It was trained on our work, on a century of human songs, including, I have no doubt, mine. Ingested without agreed permission, without payment, and without so much as a postcard.<\/p>\n

\n\tI\u2019m not going to stand here and tell you that machine-made music is cold or soulless, and that audience will always hear the difference. I know that isn\u2019t true. I am genuinely in awe of the tools that have been built, but awe is not the same as acceptance. The tools are extraordinary, but they could not have been built without us \u2014 the artists, the songwriters, the musicians, the producers, every person who has written a melody, recorded a performance, found the words to something that perhaps had never been said before. Their work lives inside these models. It is the foundation on which these tools were built. It is the reason they sound like they sound, move the way they move, and feel the way they feel. That makes us partners, not protesters, not obstacles, not a problem to be managed by lawyers. Partners. And partners deserve a place at the table. Partners deserve a share of the harvest.<\/p>\n

\n\tNow, what does that actually mean in practice? Because I\u2019m not here only to make moral argument. I\u2019m here to propose one. Some people argue that the answer lies in tracing our work in the outputs, and I understand that instinct. But I think it misunderstands how these models work.<\/p>\n

\n\tAs we all know, they don\u2019t sample recordings; they learn relationships across billions of examples, how melodies move, how harmony resolves, how rhythm, timbre, and language combine. What comes out isn\u2019t a copy of any one song. It is a new synthesis built from everything the model has learned.<\/p>\n

\n\tNow, let me give you an example of how I work with AI. I\u2019m writing a new musical at the moment, and I\u2019m using it almost every day. I record myself singing and playing a song or a part of one, which I\u2019ve written; I\u2019m playing it on my guitar. I\u2019ll upload it to the AI model, and I ask it to give me a cover because I want to hear the song roughly as it\u2019s going to sound when I someday hopefully record it with a human artist, so I simply prompt, I ask it to give me pop ballad, female vocal, strings, and suddenly I have a full-blown demo. Weaknesses I couldn\u2019t hear before suddenly become obvious. A bridge that doesn\u2019t quite do the job, words that don\u2019t sound right, a melody that needs another turn. Then I rewrite, and I do it again and again. I challenge anyone to trace that back. You can\u2019t.<\/p>\n

\n\tFor me, tracing the output was always the wrong question. The right question is much simpler. It is about the training. Our works went in. We should be paid for what went in, not for every output that comes out the other end, but for the raw material that made the machine what it is.<\/p>\n

\n\tWe\u2019ve solved problems like this before. When Spotify emerged, we didn\u2019t try to measure the value of every individual listen before paying creators. We licensed the catalog. A percentage of the platform\u2019s revenue flowed back collectively to rights holders. AI can work the same way. A share of AI subscription revenues could flow back to the creators whose work trained these systems. Managed collectively, just as collective licensing has worked for more than a century. The infrastructure already exists. The principle is already established. What is missing is the political will to require it for everyone, not just those powerful enough to sue.<\/p>\n

\n\tAnd that is what I\u2019m asking this room for today. This is not simply about protecting today\u2019s artists. It is about making sure there are artists tomorrow. If human creators cannot earn a living, fewer people will devote years to mastering an instrument, finding their voice, or writing songs that matter, and if that happens, AI itself will eventually have less original, new human creativity from which to learn. Fairness is not just morally right. It is how we keep the well from running dry.<\/p>\n

\n\tWe are sitting right now at a fork in the road. The legal cases now moving through courts around the world will help determine whether licensing becomes the foundation of this new industry, or whether free extraction does. The decisions made over the next few years will shape the creative economy for decades and decades. I\u2019m not pessimistic. I have lived through the cassette, CD, the MP3, Napster, streaming. Every time our industry found a way to embrace new technology while protecting the human creator. Every time people had to make difficult decisions. And every time the decisions that lasted were reasonable ones.<\/p>\n

\n\tHuman creativity is not just content; it is not just data. It is testimony, a life lived, a grief that became a lyric, a love that became a melody, a specific, unrepeatable experience of a human being in a particular time and place, transformed into something another human can feel. That is what trained these models, and the people whose life\u2019s work became part of those models deserve to share in what they have made possible.<\/p>\n

\n\tSo I say to the companies building these extraordinary systems: you have built remarkable things. You could not have built them without us. That makes us partners. We deserve a place at the table. We deserve a share of the harvest.<\/p>\n

\n\tHuman creativity is not the enemy of artificial intelligence. It is the reason artificial intelligence exists. The future does not require us to choose between creators and technology. It requires us to decide whether creators remain partners in the future they help build.<\/p>\n

\n\tParis made the promise. Geneva made it universal.<\/p>\n

\n\tThe people in this room have the opportunity to renew that promise for the age of AI.<\/p>\n

\n\tI believe we will.<\/p>\n

\n\tThank you.<\/p>\n


\"Billboard
<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"ABBA member and CISAC president Bj\u00f6rn Ulvaeus took the stage at the United Nations\u2019 AI for Good Global…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":800096,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[28],"tags":[4713,40455,62,276,281788,49,48,281789,75,341,15111],"class_list":["post-800095","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-music","tag-a-i","tag-abba","tag-ai","tag-artificial-intelligence","tag-bjorn-ulvaeus","tag-ca","tag-canada","tag-cisac","tag-entertainment","tag-music","tag-music-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/800095","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=800095"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/800095\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/800096"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=800095"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=800095"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=800095"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}