Spotify plans to sell its AI remix and cover tool as a paid add-on for Premium subscribers.
Spotify plans to sell its AI remix and cover tool as a paid add-on for Premium subscribers.
Turn a folk song into a dance track. Make one artist sound as if they are covering another. Those are the two examples the Financial Times gave on 30 October for a tool Spotify plans to launch in the first quarter of 2027, possibly unveiled around the Grammy Awards in February, and for which it is considering charging Premium subscribers an extra $4 to $5 a month. If it arrives on that timetable, Spotify AI remixes will be the first licensed, large-scale test of whether fans will pay to rework the songs they stream.
For independent artists the price is the least interesting part. The real questions are who decides whether a song can be remixed, how the money flows back, and what the deals already signed say about consent. On each of those, the paper trail is now long enough to read.
What the FT Says Spotify Is Building
According to the FT report, as summarised by Reuters, the service would let paying subscribers use AI to create their own versions of songs. Royalties from fan-created remixes would flow back to the original artists, and plays would count towards the original songs in Spotify’s charts. Spotify has struck licensing deals for the feature with Universal Music Group, the independent licensing body Merlin and the French music company Believe, the paper said, while negotiations with Sony Music and Warner Music are continuing. Spotify did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
The chart detail matters more than it first appears. If remix plays are credited to the original recording, a fan version that travels could lift the source track’s position rather than compete with it. For an artist whose catalogue relies on discovery, that turns a remix from a rival listing into a funnel back to the record.
How the Deals Were Signed One Rights Holder at a Time
Spotify first outlined the plan in October 2025, when it said it would build “artist-first AI music products” with Universal, Sony Music Group, Warner Music Group, Merlin and Believe. At the time it framed that as an intention to license rather than a set of binding contracts, as Music Business Worldwide noted.
The first signed deal came on 21 May 2026, announced alongside a run of Investor Day product news. Universal agreed to license the tool, which TechCrunch reported would launch as a paid add-on for Premium subscribers with a revenue share for participating artists. “What we’re building is grounded in consent, credit, and compensation for the artists and songwriters that take part,” said Spotify co-CEO Alex Norström.
Merlin followed on 4 August, the same day Spotify reported crossing 300 million Premium subscribers for the first time. Merlin represents independent labels and distributors across more than 70 countries and says its membership accounts for 15% of the global recorded music market. “Giving our members’ artists the choice to make their music available as part of this exciting technology, while ensuring the opportunity to participate in an additional revenue stream, is exactly what Merlin is here to do,” said Merlin chief executive Charlie Lexton.
Believe signed on 20 October, and its deal explicitly reaches self-releasing artists, because it covers those distributing through its DIY platform TuneCore as well as artists and labels working with Believe itself.
What Opting In Means for Independent Artists
Every deal so far is built on opt-in rather than opt-out, and the mechanics differ by route to market. The Merlin agreement gives artists on labels under Merlin’s Spotify licence “the option to participate”, in the words of its announcement. Believe and TuneCore have gone a step further with a two-step consent process: artists first choose whether to be considered for AI-related programmes at all, and only those who say yes are then shown the Spotify partnership and asked whether to take part.
Spotify’s own description, in its announcement of the Believe deal, sets the limits of what fans will be able to make. The tool is designed for AI-powered remixes and covers, “not entirely new works”. Streams of the remixes generate royalties for the participating artists and rights holders behind the originals, and every remix links back to the original track and artist, which Spotify contrasts with remixes posted on social media.
For a self-releasing artist, the practical upshot is that the decision will usually sit with whoever handles distribution. An artist on a Merlin member label will hear about it through that label; a TuneCore user will see the question directly; an artist using a distributor with no deal in place will, for now, not be in the tool at all. Distributors already shape what independent artists can do on streaming platforms, as PopHits.co found when it looked at what DistroKid’s UMG takedowns are costing independent artists.
The Money Question Nobody Has Answered Yet
What none of the announcements has disclosed is the split. Spotify says the add-on creates “an additional revenue stream on top of what participating artists and songwriters already earn on Spotify”, and TechCrunch reported that the Universal deal includes a revenue share for participating artists. How add-on revenue is divided between Spotify and rights holders, and how a remix stream is valued against a stream of the original, has not been published.
The reported price fits a strategy Spotify has been circling for some time. In February 2025, Bloomberg reported that the company was weighing a “Music Pro” tier costing up to $5.99 more per month, with an AI remix tool among the possible perks, according to Music Business Worldwide. The FT’s $4 to $5 range suggests a narrower, single-feature add-on rather than a full premium tier, although Spotify has confirmed neither.
Until the terms are public, the most useful thing an independent artist can do is treat the opt-in as a commercial decision like any other licence: ask the label or distributor what share of add-on revenue reaches the artist, whether consent can be withdrawn later, and how remix plays will appear in reporting.
Why Spotify Wants Remixing Inside Its Own App
Spotify’s argument is that the activity already exists. “Fan-made remixes are already widespread, often without compensating the artists and songwriters,” it said when announcing the Believe deal, and the tool is meant to bring that behaviour into a licensed environment. “Done right, fan creativity can deepen the connection between fans and the artists they love, creating new value for artists and driving attention back to the original music,” said Charlie Hellman, Spotify’s head of music.
The competitive backdrop is the wave of AI music generators that built products first and negotiated later. TechCrunch noted that the major labels sued generator services such as Udio, some of which have since settled, and that Spotify instead went to the labels for licences before launch. Believe’s founder Denis Ladegaillerie framed his company’s deal around four principles: “consent, control, compensation and transparency.”
Neither side of that argument is settled yet. Supporters see a licensed channel for activity that was happening anyway; sceptics will wait to see whether fans pay for it and whether the revenue reaching artists is meaningful. The tool’s first months will supply the evidence.
The Safeguards Spotify Is Promising Alongside It
Spotify paired the Believe announcement with commitments on AI spam. It says it is strengthening protections against spam, impersonation and deception, keeping AI-generated spam out of recommendations, helping listeners know when a real artist is behind the music, and giving artists more control over what appears on their profiles. Listeners can already see when an artist has disclosed AI use in a track. Believe says it is building on its own framework for AI-generated content in distribution, with more to be announced.
For artists weighing the opt-in, those commitments are the other half of the bargain. A licensed remix of a real artist’s song, credited and paid, is a different proposition from an unlabelled imitation, and the deals are written to keep the two apart.
What to Watch Before the Launch
Three things will decide how much Spotify AI remixes matter for independent musicians. The first is whether Sony Music and Warner Music sign, which determines how much of the mainstream catalogue fans can remix, and therefore how many people pay for the add-on. The second is the revenue split, which nobody has yet published. The third is which distributors beyond TuneCore offer their artists the choice, because for most self-releasing acts that is where the decision will be made.
If the FT’s timetable holds, the answers arrive within months, around the Grammys in February. Until then, the opt-in is the one lever artists control, and the most important thing to know about it is that, under every deal signed so far, nobody is in the tool unless they say yes.
About The Author
