WATCH: Sen. Schiff Leads Hearing on Addressing Inequity in Music Royalties, Calls Out Trump Administration’s Reported Plans to Target California and Other States with AI Guardrails

Schiff: "The challenges posed by AI to copyright and to creators' livelihoods demand thoughtful legislation - not overreach, and we must not preempt the important work that's going on."

Washington, D.C. - Today, top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Ranking Member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) led a hearing on balancing the interests of local radio and performers in the digital age. In his opening statement, Senator Schiff reaffirmed his support for the bipartisan American Music Fairness Act to address the inequity musical performers face when they are not compensated for their recordings played on the radio.

He also directly responded to President Donald Trump's pledge to sign an executive order this week preemptively targeting California and other states that have implemented guardrails on artificial intelligence (AI).

Schiff highlighted the need for commonsense AI regulation to protect artists from the unauthorized use of their work and likeness, and that in the absence of federal leadership, states must be able exercise their power to protect consumers. He also noted that members of both parties, including Republican governors have urged Congress to protect state-level legislation that addresses potential harms to users, consumers, and creators.

Watch the full clip HERE. Download the clip HERE.

Key Excerpts:

On the need to pass the American Music Fairness Act and ensure performers are compensated:

[…] The American Music Fairness Act, led by Senators Blackburn and Padilla, offers a bipartisan strategy to address this inequity. And in acknowledging the benefits local radio provides while also recognizing that artists deserve to be paid for their work, this bill includes protections for small and local stations as well. I deeply value the role of local radio in our communities. Local broadcasters provide vital news, emergency information, and entertainment. All of which relies on the hard work of local journalists, studio staff and others - all of whom must be fairly compensated for their labor. The artists whose songs we hear on those same airwaves deserve the same. Compensating performers is common sense, and it also should not come at the expense of any other group of artists or other forms of copyright.

On President Trump's promise to sign an AI executive order targeting states with AI guardrails:

[…] I want to take this opportunity to briefly address one other pressing concern for creators […]. This includes recent reports that the White House has drafted an executive order that may be signed as early as this week to preempt state AI regulations. While AI has the potential to improve our lives and change the way we work and live, we need a unified approach to implementing AI guardrails to mitigate potential harms to users, consumers, and creators alike.

So, we need to make sure that we have common sense AI regulation which protects artists from the unauthorized use of their work or likeness. And while the Congress and the federal government should certainly take the lead in crafting rules of the road for this revolutionary technology, in the absence of federal leadership, the states can and must exercise the power they have to protect their residents.

Members of both parties, including several Republican governors, have spoken out against this potential federal preemption and urged Congress to protect state level AI protections. This bipartisan concern reflects a fundamental truth: the challenges posed by AI to copyright and to creators' livelihoods demand thoughtful legislation - not overreach, and we must not preempt the important work that's going on.

Read the full transcript of his opening remarks as delivered below:

Thank you, Chairman Tillis, and thank you to all our witnesses for joining us today. This subcommittee has always been guided by a simple principle that creators deserve to be compensated for their work. Whether we're discussing patent protections for inventors, trademark rights for businesses or copyright protections for artists and writers, our intellectual property system exists to ensure that those who create value can share in the benefits of their creativity.

The principle goes back to our country's founding, when the Constitution granted Congress the power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Which brings us to today's hearing and the opportunity to address an inequity in the creative ecosystem in which performing artists in America go uncompensated when their recordings are played on terrestrial radio.

Song writers get paid. Music publishers get paid. All as they should. But the artists whose voices we actually hear get nothing. This anomaly places the United States in troubling company. We stand alongside only Iran and North Korea in refusing to recognize performance rights for sound recordings on terrestrial radio. Nearly every other industrialized nation, including China, has recognized that artists deserve compensation when their work is broadcast. This isn't just about fairness at home. American artists are losing an estimated $70 to $100 million annually in foreign royalties because other countries won't pay our artists when we refuse to pay theirs.

The American Music Fairness Act, led by Senators Blackburn and Padilla, offers a bipartisan strategy to address this inequity. And in acknowledging the benefits local radio provides while also recognizing that artists deserve to be paid for their work, this bill includes protections for small and local stations as well. I deeply value the role of local radio in our communities. Local broadcasters provide vital news, emergency information, and entertainment. All of which relies on the hard work of local journalists, studio staff and others - all of whom must be fairly compensated for their labor.

The artists whose songs we hear on those same airwaves deserve the same. Compensating performers is common sense, and it also should not come at the expense of any other group of artists or other forms of copyright. This bill aims to mirror the performance royalty afforded to songwriters for their work, and should no way dilute songwriter royalties.

I want to take this opportunity to briefly address one other pressing concern for creators, which is not the focus of this hearing, but worth mentioning while we have so many of the valued stakeholders in this room. This includes recent reports that the White House has drafted an executive order that may be signed as early as this week to preempt state AI regulations. While AI has the potential to improve our lives and change the way we work and live, we need a unified approach to implementing AI guardrails to mitigate potential harms to users, consumers, and creators alike.

So, we need to make sure that we have common sense AI regulation which protects artists from the unauthorized use of their work or likeness. And while the Congress and the federal government should certainly take the lead in crafting rules of the road for this revolutionary technology, in the absence of federal leadership, the states can and must exercise the power they have to protect their residents.

Members of both parties, including several Republican governors, have spoken out against this potential federal preemption and urged Congress to protect state level AI protections. This bipartisan concern reflects a fundamental truth: the challenges posed by AI to copyright and to creators' livelihoods demand thoughtful legislation - not overreach, and we must not preempt the important work that's going on.

The Music Fairness Act is the kind of considered balanced legislation we should be pursuing to address complex policy challenges, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

###