The convergence of ‘Artificial Intelligence’ (AI) and music labels is under legal scrutiny as the use of AI in the music industry is changing the course of music industry in multiple ways. As AI capabilities advance, the complexities surrounding its application within the music industry, particularly concerning copyright infringement and creative ownership as a major point of concern.
Copyright & Ownership Issues
One of the primary concerns in the debate between music labels and AI is the attribution of creative ownership. Copyright law traditionally grants exclusive rights to creators, including musicians, lyricists, and composers. With AI generating music autonomously or assisting in composition, questions arise regarding who holds the rights to the music produced.
Currently, AI-generated works generally lack legal framework, complicating matters of ownership and copyright infringement. Music labels may argue that they hold rights to works created using AI tools under existing contractual agreements or through assertions of creative control. Conversely, proponents of AI-generated music advocate for recognizing the technology’s role in the creative process and adjusting legal frameworks accordingly.
Copyright Infringement Allegations Against Suno & Udio
Suno AI, often referred to simply as Suno, is an artificial intelligence music creation program engineered to produce lifelike songs that integrate vocals and instrumentation. Udio, on other hand, is an AI model designed for generative music creation, capable of producing music from basic text prompts. It can generate both vocals and instrumentation, simulating a full musical composition.
Recently, major record labels namely Sony Music, Universal Music Group, and Warner Records filed a lawsuit against artificial intelligence companies Suno and Udio, alleging extensive copyright infringement. According to lawsuit filed in New York against Udio and in Massachusetts against Suno, the companies allegedly copied music without permission to train their systems in creating music. The lawsuits argue that this practice aims to produce music that will directly compete with, devalue, and potentially overshadow the creative work of human artists. The record labels requested the courts to grant statutory damages of up to $150,000 per song that the defendants purportedly copied. They alleged that Suno copied 662 songs and Udio copied 1,670 songs. They argue that the AI models could only achieve their ability to generate realistic songs if they had been trained on “extensive collections of sound recordings encompassing artists from various genres, styles, and historical periods.”
The allegations were rubbished by Suno CEO who stated that the technology use by Suno is transformative, and it is crafted to generate entirely new outputs, rather than memorize and reproduce existing content. Udio officials did not directly address the complaint. They stated that their AI model has learned from a vast collection of recorded music and the process of creation of music by Suno does not lead to copyright infringement. Officials from Udio asserted that the “musical ideas” discovered by its AI model are not owned by anyone and emphasized that their focus is on creating “new” music.
Whether the creation of works by Suno and Udio resulted in copyright infringement as alleged by Sony Music, Universal Music Group, and Warner Records shall only be clear once the legal proceedings are over. It is pertinent to note that the lawsuit highlights the concerns regarding the training data utilized by AI companies. The outcome of these cases could have significant implications for how AI developers acquire and use training data, particularly in relation to intellectual property rights and fair use considerations and that the AI platforms benefited from using substantial amounts of copyrighted music without proper authorization, which forms a central point of contention in the legal proceedings.
The Emergence Of RightsAndAI.com
RightsAndAI.com is an initiative spearheaded by the International Confederation of Music Publishers (ICMP), which represents a significant portion of the global music publishing industry. The initiative has launched an online resource, RightsAndAI.com, intended for rights-holders to assert their rights against unauthorized use of their works, particularly by artificial intelligence (AI) technologies.
The platform serves as a centralized hub aimed at educating AI companies about copyright regulations and advocating for compliance. It also sends a strong message to AI firms engaging in what is perceived as “unlicensed exploitation” of copyrighted music and works.
The emphasis is on AI companies acquiring appropriate licenses prior to using music for AI training and highlighting the importance of data protection and privacy. The stance “No use without consent, credit, & compensation” highlights their commitment to upholding ethical standards and protecting intellectual property rights in the context of AI development.
Conclusion
The legal dispute underscores the escalating conflict between traditional content creators and AI-driven platforms, a conflict that spans beyond music into the eCommerce realm. With AI-generated content increasingly used in online retail, from product descriptions to customer service chatbots, the outcome of these lawsuits holds substantial implications.
The eCommerce sector stands to be greatly affected. Numerous online retailers are exploring AI-generated content to improve customer interactions and operational efficiency. However, the legal hurdles confronted by Suno and Udio serve as a warning for businesses contemplating the integration of AI-generated content. They highlight the importance of addressing copyright concerns meticulously before deploying such technologies, as these cases could establish crucial legal precedents affecting how AI and intellectual property rights intersect in digital commerce.
Authors: Khushboo Pareek, Arushi Sharma & Harneet Sethi