This August 2026 edition covers what changed in July.
The month’s practical theme was proof. Buyers, collecting societies, courts, and regulators all moved toward clearer answers about who made a recording, who controls it, how it was used, and which rules apply.
Provenance is now part of the deliverable: who made the recording, who controls it, and what tools touched it.
What changed
Six Emmy-nominated shows just became your best music-supervision study list
The Television Academy announced the 78th Emmy nominations on July 8, including six episodes in Outstanding Music Supervision: The Boys, “Blood And Bone” (Michelle Johnson and Yvette Metoyer); Hacks, “Hacks (Finale)” (Matt Biffa); Nobody Wants This, “When Noah Met Joanne” (Manish Raval, Tom Wolfe, and Jonathan Leahy); Pluribus, “We Is Us” (Thomas Golubić); Stranger Things, “Chapter Eight: The Rightside Up” (Nora Felder); and Widow’s Bay, “Beach Reads” (Toko Nagata). The Academy’s nominations announcement set final voting to begin August 17 and the Creative Arts Emmy Awards for September 5–6.
What it means if you are trying to get placed. Treat the list as a map of current work, not a mailing list. Watch the nominated episodes and log what each song is doing: carrying dialogue, announcing a time period, turning a scene, building a joke, or delivering an end-credit release. Then compare those functions with your own catalogue. A useful target note should name the show, episode, supervisor or team, the kinds of uses you can serve, and the exact tracks that fit. The multi-person credits also matter. They show that music decisions can move through a team, so a generic pitch to one visible name may miss the actual workflow. Before approaching anyone, make the music easy to clear: confirm every writer and split, identify the publisher and master owner, remove unresolved samples, and prepare clean, instrumental, and shorter edits with consistent filenames and metadata. The nomination recognizes one episode, not an entire series, so study the submitted work closely rather than assuming every season has one fixed sound.
Nearly $300 million in European recording royalties may be at risk for US artists
On July 8, thirteen music organizations asked the US Trade Representative to oppose a European Commission proposal that they said could replace national treatment for American recording artists and labels with “material reciprocity.” The coalition said nearly $300 million in annual royalties could be at risk and reported that 21 of 27 EU member states currently extend national treatment to American performers and recording owners. It linked the dispute to the absence of a US terrestrial-radio performance royalty and argued that the American Music Fairness Act would address the reason for the proposed shift. No EU decision or US response was reported.
What it means if you are trying to get placed. Keep the two rights sides of an international placement separate. This advocacy concerns neighbouring rights in the sound recording: money associated with performers and recording owners. Songwriter and publisher performance income travels through a different network of societies and reciprocal agreements. When a television placement or campaign crosses borders, ask your representatives which territories they cover for each side, whether your performer role is registered, and whether the master is registered under the correct ISRC and ownership. Do not describe your collection setup as “worldwide” unless you can name the route for both the composition and the recording. The coalition’s $300 million estimate is an advocacy figure, not a promise about any artist’s account, and the proposal had not become policy by July 31. The practical response is therefore not to forecast a loss. It is to make your records complete enough that you can claim under the current system and adapt if eligibility rules become more conditional.
Your future vinyl and download costs may keep rising with inflation
On July 10, the Copyright Royalty Board published a proposed partial settlement for Phonorecords V, the proceeding that will set Section 115 rates and terms for 2028–2032. The proposal covers physical phonorecords, permanent downloads, ringtones, and music bundles. It would leave the relevant regulatory text unchanged except for continuing inflation adjustments to physical and permanent-download rates. The notice invited comments and objections through August 10 in eCRB under docket 25-CRB-0013-PR (2028-2032). It was a proposed settlement among several participants, not a final rule or a settlement of every issue in the proceeding.
What it means if you are trying to get placed. Do not mistake this for a streaming-rate decision. It applies to specific Subpart B configurations, including physical copies and permanent downloads, so its clearest sync-adjacent use is planning a soundtrack, score album, vinyl edition, or downloadable release after a placement. If adopted, the structure would keep moving with inflation rather than reset around a newly negotiated formula. That makes unit economics easier to model, but it does not make them optional: the party reproducing and distributing a composition still needs to account for the mechanical. Longer cues can also trigger the per-minute calculation, which matters for extended instrumentals, ambient pieces, and score suites. Put composition ownership, playing time, units, and the responsible licensee into the release budget before manufacturing. If you want to comment, use the docket named in the notice and remember that properly filed submissions appear publicly without change. Most artists will not need to file; every artist releasing a placed work should understand which right the proposed rate covers.
A proposed rate for physical copies and downloads is not a streaming decision — know which right the number covers.
Buyers now have two labels for AI-made music. Know which one fits your track
On July 10, a group of recording-industry and creator organizations announced a voluntary track-labelling programme for generative AI. “AI-Generated” applies when generative AI created all or the primary portion of a recording’s creative elements, including an AI lead vocal or key instrumental performance. “AI-Assisted” applies when humans substantially created the recording, humans performed the lead vocal and primary instruments, and AI supplied some expressive elements. The labels are intended to appear as icons supported by metadata and delivery systems. The announcement said they would become available in the near future; it did not make them mandatory or give an implementation date. The scheme covers sound recordings, not lyrics, compositions, music videos, or cover art.
What it means if you are trying to get placed. Classify each track before a buyer asks, and keep the material that supports your answer. Session files, dated stems, take logs, prompts, tool names, and contributor notes can show which elements came from people and which came from a generator. The distinction is practical: a human lead vocal with limited generative processing may fit “AI-Assisted,” while a generated lead vocal falls within the programme’s “AI-Generated” examples. Do not use the label as a complete clearance certificate. A recording-level icon says nothing about whether AI helped write lyrics or melody, and those composition questions matter when a production licenses both master and publishing. Add a provenance field to your own catalogue sheet that covers recording, composition, artwork, and any material supplied by a third-party tool. Ask your distributor how it plans to collect and transmit the labels, but do not claim the programme is already live everywhere. Disclosure can make a legitimate use easier to evaluate; incomplete or inaccurate disclosure creates a new reason for a buyer to stop.
Copyright registration may cost more this fall. Clear your backlog now
On July 14, the US Copyright Office sent Congress a proposed fee schedule for its services, the first proposed change since 2020. The Office said the schedule followed a cost study and public comments, included an inflation adjustment, and had been modified in response to stakeholder concerns. The Register may institute the fees 120 days after submission unless Congress passes a law disapproving them, and the Office said it was seeking implementation in fall 2026. The July notice did not list the amount for each registration service or announce a fixed effective date.
What it means if you are trying to get placed. Use the notice as a deadline signal, not as permission to invent a price increase. Review the catalogue you are actively pitching and identify unregistered musical works and sound recordings. Where you own both, remember that they are separate copyrights and plan the filings accordingly. Prioritize tracks already placed, currently being pitched, or likely to enter a release schedule; then evaluate whether an eligible group-registration option fits the material before submitting it. Keep application receipts, deposit copies, titles, claimant information, and registration numbers in the same catalogue record used for pitching and clearance. That gives you a clean answer when a buyer or lawyer asks what is registered and under which title. Registration costs should be a recurring catalogue expense rather than an emergency after a use has been negotiated. Because the Office had not published a fixed implementation date in this notice, the sound action on August 1 is to clear a known backlog under the current schedule, not to promise a future fee or date.
Registration belongs in an annual catalogue budget, not in the scramble after a use has already been negotiated.
An AI tool’s training data can put your sync warranty at risk
On July 31, the 42nd Civil Chamber of the Munich Regional Court I predominantly granted GEMA’s claims for injunction, information, and damages in case 42 O 763/25. The court’s press release on the Suno decision concerned six named musical works and described infringement through reproduction during US training, reproduction in the model in Germany, and performance in outputs in Germany. It also said the training dataset contained the works and that stream-ripping from YouTube had circumvented its Rolling Cipher protection. Lyrics infringement was not at issue. The judgment was not legally binding, and the release did not state a damages amount.
What it means if you are trying to get placed. Treat the decision as a due-diligence warning, not a universal rule. It is a German first-instance judgment about six works, and it does not decide US fair use. Its practical value is the way it separates the chain into acquisition, training, retention in a model, and output. Use the same separation when evaluating an AI tool or contract. Ask what material trained the system, whether that material was licensed, what the provider retains, what rights it claims in your inputs and outputs, and what evidence supports its answers. Keep those answers with the project file. A sync agreement may require you to warrant that a delivered work is original and non-infringing; do not give that warranty for generated material if you cannot explain its provenance or obtain a suitable promise from the tool provider. If a proposed licence asks for training rights, define them separately from the right to synchronize or distribute the finished track. One permission should not silently become all of them.
July’s message is operational: document the people, rights, versions, registrations, and tools behind every track before you pitch it. Start with the six songs you are most likely to send this month, fix the missing fields, and keep the evidence where a clearance team can use it.