Living Wage for Musicians Act of 2025

Bill Number

H.R. 5664

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Arts, Culture, Religion

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-09-30: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Last Updated

2026-01-10T09:06:28Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The "Living Wage for Musicians Act of 2025" aims to create a new funding mechanism to improve financial compensation for musicians, particularly those whose work is streamed online. It establishes a dedicated fund to distribute royalties directly to artists based on streaming activity, addressing concerns that current payments from digital music services are insufficient for artists to earn a sustainable income.

Key Provisions

• Establishment of the Artist Compensation Royalty Fund: The Register of Copyrights (an official in the Library of Congress responsible for managing copyright records) designates a non-profit eligible entity to set up and run the fund. This entity must have a board including artist representatives and demonstrate administrative capabilities. A notice of the designation is published in the Federal Register (the official journal for U.S. government notices).

• Funding Sources:
• Streaming service providers (companies like Spotify or Apple Music that deliver music streams to users) must contribute quarterly:
• All revenue from a new "living wage royalty fee," which is an extra charge of 50% of each user's subscription fee (minimum $4, maximum $10 per subscription).
• 10% of any non-subscription revenue (e.g., from ads or one-time purchases related to streaming).
• The fund can also accept donations from governments or other sources.

• Distribution of Funds:
• 90% goes to "eligible featured artists" (main performers on a track who register with the fund), paid quarterly based on their share of "qualifying streams" (streams of their songs, capped at 1 million per track per month to prevent overpayment for ultra-popular hits).
• 10% goes to "eligible non-featured artists" (e.g., session musicians or backup singers), distributed through existing union funds like those of the American Federation of Musicians (AFM) and SAG-AFTRA (unions for performers).
• Unclaimed payments for featured artists are held in a trust and eventually returned to the fund if the artist cannot be located.

• Service Provider Requirements:
• Providers must add the royalty fee to subscriber bills and itemize it clearly on statements or receipts.
• They cannot count this fee as part of their content costs or revenues for internal calculations.
• Providers must maintain records for at least 3 years on revenues, fees collected, and stream data; the fund administrator can audit these and require reports.

• Enforcement and Administration:
• The fund administrator can create regulations for penalties against non-compliant providers.
• All parties (fund and providers) must keep detailed records for 3 years.

• Definitions (key terms simplified):
• Artist: A human creator (excludes corporations or AI-generated content).
• Stream: An on-demand digital transmission of a song allowing real-time listening (excludes temporary copies for technical purposes like buffering).
• End User: Any individual accessing streams, whether paying or not.
• Offering: The act of providing a stream to users.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This bill introduces mandatory new fees and a separate royalty fund outside of traditional copyright royalty systems (like those managed by the Copyright Royalty Board). Currently, artists receive payments through negotiated licenses or statutory royalties based on usage, but this creates a direct, government-designated fund with fixed contribution rates from providers. It excludes AI-generated music from eligibility and caps stream counts for payments, which are not features of prior laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or the Music Modernization Act.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: The Library of Congress and Register of Copyrights gain oversight roles in designating and monitoring the fund administrator, potentially increasing administrative workload without new funding specified.
• On Citizens (Consumers and Artists): Subscribers to music streaming services will face higher costs (e.g., a $10/month plan could rise by $5), affecting millions of users. Artists, especially independent or lesser-known ones, could see increased earnings from streams, potentially supporting more creators financially.
• On Service Providers: Companies must adjust billing, reporting, and operations, which could raise costs and lead to price hikes or service changes; smaller providers might face compliance burdens.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could influence global streaming companies operating in the U.S. (e.g., non-U.S. firms like Spotify) by imposing U.S.-specific fees, potentially affecting trade in digital services.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Musicians and Artists: Featured (lead performers) and non-featured (supporting roles) artists benefit from direct payments; registration is required for featured artists.
• Streaming Service Providers: Entities like Spotify, Apple Music, or Tidal must collect and remit fees, maintain records, and face audits/penalties.
• Consumers/End Users: Pay the additional royalty fee through subscriptions, increasing access costs to music streaming.
• Unions and Non-Profits: Groups like AFM and SAG-AFTRA handle distributions for non-featured artists; the designated fund administrator (a non-profit) manages operations.
• Government Entities: Library of Congress oversees designation; no direct taxpayer funding, but regulatory involvement.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: The bill empowers a private non-profit to enforce penalties and audit private companies, which could raise questions about due process or administrative law compliance. It also mandates fees without opt-outs, potentially leading to lawsuits over contract interference with provider-user agreements.
• Constitutional: Possible challenges under the Takings Clause (Fifth Amendment), as it requires providers to divert revenue without compensation, or under the Commerce Clause if seen as unduly burdening interstate (and international) digital trade.
• Political: Sponsored by progressive lawmakers, it highlights debates on artist rights versus tech industry regulation; could spark broader discussions on fair pay in the gig economy or AI's role in creative industries, but faces opposition from providers concerned about costs passed to consumers.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12]

Cosponsors (7)

Rep. McIver, LaMonica [D-NJ-10], Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria [D-NY-14], Rep. Omar, Ilhan [D-MN-5], Rep. Ramirez, Delia C. [D-IL-3], Rep. Thompson, Bennie G. [D-MS-2], Rep. Lee, Summer L. [D-PA-12], Rep. Carter, Troy A. [D-LA-2]

Recent Actions

• 2025-09-30: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
• 2025-09-30: Introduced in House
• 2025-09-30: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Living Wage for Musicians Act of 2025 — issued 2025-09-30 — PDF (13 pages)