Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which platform—Tidal, Bandcamp, or Spotify—has taken public stances on artist rights, equitable pay, or content moderation recently?
Executive summary
Tidal and Bandcamp have recently taken explicit public steps that relate to artist rights and pay: Tidal launched a direct-upload tool and large cash contests but says uploaded tracks "do not earn royalties," while Bandcamp maintains a "fair trade" payments model (artists keep ~80–85% of sales) and updated terms to ban using artists’ music to train AI models (Tidal and Bandcamp specifics cited below) [1] [2] [3] [4]. Spotify has focused public statements and policy work on content moderation and emerging AI protections for creators — including partnerships, transparency reporting, and new mismatch/AI policies — rather than changing payment splits [5] [6] [7].
1. Tidal: courting indies with tools — but no royalty promise
Tidal rolled out “Upload” (aka TIDAL Upload) to let independent artists place original tracks directly on the platform and paired that with editorial Spotlight programs and large-money contests (Upload Headliners / $1M total, $100k prizes) to incentivize creators — but Tidal’s FAQ and reporting make clear uploads “do not earn royalties”; the monetisation they offer is editorial promotion, daily Cash App payments for featured placements and contest prizes rather than standard per-stream royalties (MusicRadar; Music Business Worldwide; CelebrityAccess) [1] [2] [8]. Coverage and Tidal’s own support pages also show the company is investing in Artist Home tools (songwriter tools, claiming pages) that aim to give artists more control over metadata and splits, though those are administrative tools rather than guarantees of higher payouts [9] [10] [11] [9] [10] [11].
2. Bandcamp: an explicit stance for direct pay and against AI training
Bandcamp publicly positions itself as a direct-to-fan marketplace that routes a large share of purchase revenue to artists: Bandcamp’s Fair Trade Music policy and About pages state that on average about 80–85% of a sale goes to the artist and that Bandcamp’s revenue share is typically 15% (dropping to 10% after $5,000 in sales), with daily payouts to artists [3] [12] [13]. Bandcamp updated its Terms of Use in November 2024 to explicitly say it will not use artists’ music to train generative models or allow others to do so, a clear public stance on protecting creators’ rights in the era of AI [4]. Bandcamp has also communicated payment-system changes (Stripe rollout) and defended rapid, transparent payouts as part of its artist-first messaging [14] [15].
3. Spotify: public focus on moderation, safety and AI protections — not new pay models
Spotify’s recent public-facing activity has centered on content moderation, platform safety, and artist protections against AI misuse. Spotify announced partnerships (e.g., with the Internet Watch Foundation) and published DSA transparency material and policies around content classification, removal and advisory labels; it has also rolled out or discussed expanded “content mismatch” processes and AI-related protections to stop fraudulent or AI-generated tracks from hijacking artist profiles [5] [6] [7]. Reporting and critiques have highlighted moderation failures (NSFW/pornographic videos appearing in search results) and ongoing tension over how Spotify balances free expression and safety — these are the public debates Spotify is engaging with, rather than big public changes to per-stream payout formulas in the sources provided [16] [17] [18] [16] [17] [18].
4. How the three differ in approach to “artist rights” and equitable pay
Bandcamp’s model explicitly prioritises direct payments and artist revenue share (typically 80–85%) and has taken a formal legal stance against AI training on user music [3] [4]. Tidal’s recent moves present a mixed picture: it markets higher per-stream rates historically and now offers direct uploads and cash-prize incentives to bypass distributors, yet warns uploaded tracks won’t trigger streaming royalties — shifting the benefit from continuous per-stream income to editorial exposure and contest payouts [19] [2] [1]. Spotify’s public stances, as shown in the reporting, are concentrated on content moderation and protecting artists and audiences from AI abuse and harmful content — it is strengthening mismatch detection and moderation resources rather than reframing artist pay in the reporting provided [7] [6] [5].
5. Caveats, disagreements and hidden incentives to watch
Be cautious interpreting “better for artists”: reports and platform materials present competing claims. Tidal markets higher per-stream numbers (figures like ~$0.012–$0.013 per stream appear in industry roundups), but payouts vary by distribution deals and Tidal’s Upload program explicitly removes royalties for uploaded tracks — the company is also run under corporate owners whose broader business moves (layoffs at Block) are noted in background reporting [19] [20] [1] [21] [19] [20] [1] [21]. Bandcamp’s commitment to artists is strong on revenue share and anti-AI-training language, but unionization and ownership changes have prompted scrutiny and labor tensions that could affect future practices [3] [22] [23] [3] [22] [23]. Spotify’s public actions on moderation and AI protection are concrete and documented, yet third‑party investigations show gaps (NSFW content incidents), and Spotify’s work focuses more on safety than pay reforms [5] [16] [17] [5] [16] [17].
If you want, I can: (a) compile a one-page comparison table of specific policies/actions and exact source quotes; (b) track follow-up stories (e.g., final winners of Tidal’s contests or Bandcamp’s Stripe rollout) and update this summary as those reports appear.