Spotify’s AI remix tool raises royalty questions

Spotify is preparing an AI-powered remix and fan-made cover feature that will let listeners modify songs from participating artists. The tool will be offered as a paid subscription add-on, but Spotify has not said when it will launch or how much it will cost.

The company’s existing audio-mixing tools for playlists have reportedly grown quickly. Its next step is more ambitious: allowing fans to actively reshape music rather than simply choose what plays next.

Spotify’s Merlin agreement

×

On August 4, Spotify and digital licensing partner Merlin announced an agreement giving artists signed to Merlin-affiliated labels the option to license their music for the remix feature. Merlin is the second major organization to join the initiative, after Universal Music Group signed an agreement with Spotify in May.

Recommended reading

KAIST builds a transistor that adapts to data speed

Spotify says the feature is intended to “give listeners a new way to engage with the music they love from participating artists and songwriters.” It also claims the tool could create an additional revenue stream for artists whose work is used.

The central mechanism remains unclear. Spotify has confirmed that the feature will use AI, but has not explained whether users will be able to alter vocals, change instrumentation, adjust tempo, generate covers, or make other forms of remix. It has also not disclosed which artists or catalogs will be available at launch.

That lack of detail matters because Spotify is introducing the tool while facing ongoing criticism over low-quality AI-generated music and concerns about how generative systems affect musicians. The agreement’s opt-in structure is a meaningful distinction from a blanket licensing approach, but it does not by itself settle how the money will reach performers.

Demand for participatory music is growing

×

Spotify’s proposal is also running against a conservative position among some rival services. Dan Mackta, managing director at Qobuz, said the company is not pursuing a similar feature:

“Qobuz isn’t looking at anything like this. The finished music that great artists release is good enough for us and our community.”

Apple Music and Tidal use algorithmic recommendations, but the report notes that neither has adopted generative AI tools to anything like the same extent. Their approach remains centered on helping listeners discover and play music in its released form.

That is not necessarily the direction users want. Mark Mulligan, founder of MIDiA Research, said the appetite for active participation is increasing:

“A growing share of consumers want to do more than just listen. Audio modification is an opportunity both to tap into consumer creativity and fandom. Playing around with your favourite artist’s song is an ultimate expression of fandom.”

Mulligan cited MIDiA’s Q1 2026 consumer survey, which found that 54% of consumers were interested in some form of audio modification, including changes such as adjusting speed or swapping vocals. Among 16–19-year-olds, that figure rose to 80%.

The distinction is between participation and generation. Experiences such as those associated with A Vinyl Bar in Shibuya put creative control in the listener’s hands without relying on AI to produce the result. Spotify is attempting to combine that participatory appeal with automated tools, which creates both its commercial opportunity and its biggest liability.

Musicians want control and clearer royalties

×

The Musicians' Union, a UK organization representing people across the music industry, welcomed the opt-in element of the Merlin deal but questioned how artists will actually be paid. General Secretary Naomi Pohl said the announcement was better than a blanket licensing model because artists would have a choice and could share in revenue generated by their work.

Her concern is that the money may not reach all the people who contributed to a recording. Artists signed to independent labels should theoretically receive 50% of any revenue their label receives, Pohl said, but the outcome depends on how each label interprets its contracts. Many of those contracts were written before AI licensing deals existed. Session and backing musicians, she added, currently stand to receive no share of the revenue.

Spotify’s existing royalty structure adds another complication. Subscription revenue is pooled, meaning the most-streamed artists receive a larger share of the overall money. Under that model, a listener’s individual support for an emerging band does not necessarily flow directly to that band.

PRS for Music, which handles music rights and royalties, focused on protecting the original work. A spokesperson said new tools should keep creators central, preserve the integrity of their music, and ensure they are paid fairly for the value they bring to each platform.

Spotify has a credible case for experimenting here: the survey figures point to strong interest in modifying audio, especially among younger listeners, and participating artists could gain a new licensed revenue source. But the announcement is still more framework than product. The company has not provided a launch date, an add-on price, technical details, or a complete royalty model, and there is no independent evidence yet showing how the feature will protect recordings or distribute income.

The opt-in Merlin agreement makes Spotify’s approach more defensible than unrestricted scraping, but until those missing terms are public, the proposal looks like a promising fan tool with unresolved consequences for the people who made the music.