AI music firms, major labels clash over ‘Walled Garden’ model

The debate intensified this week after Suno’s chief music officer, Paul Sinclair, published a LinkedIn post during Grammy Week criticising what he described as “walled garden” approaches to AI music platforms. Sinclair, a former major label executive, argued in favour of what he termed “open studios”, a model that allows users to create and download AI-generated music within licensed frameworks. His comments were widely interpreted as a response to UMG’s recent AI licensing strategy.

UMG was the first major label group to settle litigation with AI music company Udio in October 2025, alongside a licensing agreement for a new platform expected to launch in 2026. That deal introduced the concept of a “walled garden”, under which AI-generated tracks cannot be downloaded or distributed beyond the platform. Udio subsequently disabled downloads, allowing users a limited period to retrieve existing material. Warner Music Group reached a similar settlement with Udio in November, adopting comparable restrictions.

However, Warner’s later agreement with Suno took a different approach, allowing the platform to retain key features, including the ability for users to download songs. The contrast has drawn attention to diverging philosophies among major rights holders. In an internal memo last year, UMG Chairman and CEO Sir Lucian Grainge warned against business models that “fail to respect artists’ work and creativity” and risk encouraging low-quality AI-generated content.

UMG’s position was further outlined by Michael Nash, the company’s executive vice president and chief digital officer, during a recent appearance on Billboard’s On The Record podcast. He described the walled garden concept as a way to enable interaction with artists and their work without allowing derivative content to circulate freely across other platforms. “The concept is to set up through AI a component of the service for deep interaction with the artists and the content, but not to create derivatives that you then take off of the platform,” Nash said. He argued that unrestricted distribution could lead to artists competing with AI-generated versions of their own work.

Nash indicated that this principle has been a key factor in UMG’s decision not to reach a settlement with Suno, citing ethical considerations and ongoing litigation. He later described Suno’s more open approach as risking “direct cannibalisation” of artists’ work.

Sinclair, by contrast, warned that excessive restrictions could hinder innovation. “If we had tried to lock music into closed systems over the last 25 years, we wouldn’t have streaming as we know it,” he wrote, pointing to the growth of global genres and user-generated platforms as evidence of the benefits of openness. Since joining Suno in July 2025, Sinclair has consistently argued for AI tools that empower artists rather than limit user capabilities.

The disagreement reflects a wider industry debate over how to balance copyright protection with technological development. Analysts have suggested that concerns about unregulated international competitors may influence more permissive licensing strategies. Suno, valued at approximately $2.45 billion following a recent funding round, continues to face legal action from UMG and Sony Music, as well as lawsuits from Germany’s GEMA and Denmark’s Koda.

As the industry prepares for the launch of Udio’s licensed platform and updated models from Suno later this year, the question of whether AI music should operate within open systems or tightly controlled environments remains unresolved. The outcome is expected to shape the future of AI-driven music creation and artist compensation.