AI-Generated Retail Soundtracks Threaten Belgian Music Revenue

Belgian retailers have quietly begun replacing licensed, human-made background music with AI-generated tracks that carry no royalties. Major chains such as Brico and Carrefour are leading this transformation, seeking to reduce music licensing expenses and achieve consistent audio branding. Yet this cost-saving innovation could devastate local artists’ income and ignite long-term legal challenges.

(Insert screenshot of original article image here)

How Belgian Stores Are Deploying AI-Generated Soundtracks

Brico, operating more than 150 outlets nationwide, now uses generative playlists provided by technology firm M-Cube. The system produces algorithmic compositions that mimic commercial music styles but remain royalty-free. Carrefour is preparing a similar rollout across its 700 Belgian branches by 2028, while other retail brands including Krëfel, X2O, Trafic, Oh’Green, and Club are already testing smaller implementations.

Retail executives argue that these AI systems let them adapt music dynamically for seasons, holidays, or in-store promotions without paying repeated licensing fees. The approach, they say, delivers flexibility and branding consistency at a fraction of the cost.

Artists Warn of Revenue Collapse

Belgium’s copyright society Sabam has issued strong warnings. According to its projections, the widespread use of AI-generated music could erase roughly 25 to 28 percent of songwriters’ public-performance income. This risk arises because AI models often train on existing works absorbing melodic and rhythmic patterns without direct consent from creators.

Sabam maintains that any track derived from such datasets should still generate royalties for human artists. The organization now urges European regulators to close the gap in copyright law before generative platforms become ubiquitous in retail and hospitality.

Legal Gray Zones and Ethical Dilemmas

The deployment of generative music introduces complex legal and moral questions. Current copyright statutes were never designed for algorithmic authorship. As a result, courts and policymakers struggle to decide whether AI-produced compositions qualify as original works or derivative reproductions.

Technically, many providers employ similarity-filtering systems using databases like Shazam to detect overlaps with copyrighted songs. However, the opacity of training data remains a major issue. Retailers and vendors rarely disclose the origins of the datasets used to train their AI composers. This lack of transparency deepens the ethical divide between creative ownership and automation.

The Business Logic Behind the Shift

For large retail groups, the financial argument is straightforward. Licensed background-music services require ongoing payments to collecting societies. AI-driven music, by contrast, can be licensed through a one-time fee or a low-cost subscription model. That model reduces overhead, simplifies management, and enables targeted playlists that align with marketing calendars.

Nevertheless, the push toward automation carries reputational risks. A perception that stores are profiting at the expense of musicians could spark public backlash. Additionally, governments might soon introduce mandatory compensation schemes for AI-generated music to restore balance in the creative economy.

Potential Policy Responses

Experts suggest several mechanisms to mitigate harm. Regulators could enforce mandatory royalty frameworks for AI tracks, ensuring that original creators receive micro-payments based on stylistic similarity. Transparency laws might compel AI providers to publish dataset sources or offer audit trails. Another proposal calls for a compulsory licensing system, similar to radio broadcasting, to standardize compensation.

Such policies would acknowledge AI’s growing presence while preserving economic rights for human artists. Without intervention, the divide between technological convenience and cultural sustainability may continue to widen.

The Cultural Cost of Algorithmic Music

Beyond law and revenue, critics argue that replacing human creativity with synthetic sound diminishes emotional depth in everyday environments. Music influences mood, perception, and brand experience. Overreliance on generative algorithms risks creating sterile soundscapes that feel mechanical rather than human. In this sense, Belgium’s retail experiment could foreshadow a larger cultural debate over authenticity in public spaces.

AI-generated music offers undeniable advantages for retail efficiency, but its unchecked adoption endangers artistic livelihoods and blurs ethical boundaries. If policymakers, rights groups, and retailers collaborate early, they can design frameworks that integrate innovation without erasing human contribution. Belgium’s current shift stands as both a warning and an opportunity to define how creativity survives in an algorithmic economy.

FAQs

Is AI-generated music legal for commercial use?
It depends on jurisdiction. Some regions treat AI music as royalty-free, while others classify it under traditional copyright law, creating uncertainty for retailers.

Can artists claim royalties from AI compositions?
Only if policymakers establish a mechanism linking generated outputs to their source data. Current systems rarely track that lineage.

Will AI music fully replace human composers?
Probably not. While generative systems dominate ambient and background music, human-crafted works retain emotional and cultural value that algorithms cannot yet match.

How should retailers balance savings and ethics?
Experts recommend hybrid sound strategies AI for generic zones and licensed human tracks for branding spaces to retain authenticity while managing costs.