Clayton Durant’s Post

The recent lawsuit filed by major record companies against AI music generators Suno and Udio marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate surrounding artificial intelligence and copyright in the music industry. While the legal action is unsurprising, it raises important questions about the future of AI in music creation and the potential outcomes of this conflict. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), representing Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, and Warner Records, has accused Suno and Udio of "mass infringement" of copyrighted sound recordings. The crux of their argument lies in the unauthorized use of copyrighted music to train AI models, which can then generate new songs that potentially compete with original works. However, this legal battle may not be as straightforward as it appears. History has shown us that major record labels often end up owning a stake in disruptive technologies they initially opposed. We've seen this pattern with streaming platforms like Spotify and, more recently, with complex arrangements involving TikTok. This raises a critical question: Is litigation the most productive path forward, or should we be exploring more collaborative solutions? The music industry has historically been slow to adapt to technological changes, often resorting to legal action as a first response. Yet, time and again, we've seen that embracing innovation and finding ways to integrate new technologies can lead to more sustainable and mutually beneficial outcomes. AI in music creation is not going away. It has the potential to democratize music production, opening up new avenues for creativity and expression. Instead of viewing AI as a threat, the industry could benefit from seeing it as an opportunity to expand the musical landscape. A more constructive approach might involve: 1. Collaborative development: Working with AI companies to ensure fair use of copyrighted material and equitable compensation for artists. 2. Licensing frameworks: Developing new licensing models that account for AI-generated content while protecting artists' rights. 3. Artist-centric AI tools: Investing in AI technologies that enhance rather than replace human creativity. 4. Ethical AI guidelines: Establishing industry-wide standards for the ethical use of AI in music creation. While the concerns raised by the RIAA are valid, we must question whether litigation is the best way to address them. The potential for major labels to eventually own a part of these AI businesses, as they do with other platforms, suggests that a more collaborative approach could yield better long-term results for all parties involved. What are your thoughts on this issue? How do you envision the future of AI in music creation, and what role should major record labels play in shaping it?

The music industry is taking legal action against AI, as major labels 🏢 Universal Music Group, Sony and Warner Music Group sue 🤖 AI music generators Suno and Udio for copyright infringement. The Recording Industry Association of America® (RIAA) alleges these companies have copied copyrighted music without permission to train their AI models, resulting in lawsuits 🏛️ in Boston and New York courts. Five key takeaways: 1. 🎼 Unauthorized Copying:Suno and Udio allegedly used copyrighted music for AI training without obtaining rights. 2. 💰 Commercial Exploitation:The AI-generated music is being sold, which intensifies the infringement claims. 3. ⚖️ Fair Use Defense:Both companies assert their actions are protected under 'fair use', which the RIAA contests. 4. 🕵️ Lack of Transparency:The RIAA accuses the companies of not disclosing details about their data usage. 5. 🎸 Industry Impact:The lawsuits highlight conflicts between established music rights and emerging AI technologies. Implications for other GenAI use cases: This legal dispute emphasizes the need for clear copyright guidelines in AI development. Financial institutions using GenAI for tasks like risk assessment, fraud detection, and customer service must ensure they have proper licenses for any data used in training their models. This case underscores the importance of transparency and ethical practices to avoid potential legal challenges and maintain trust.

Great to have commented on the cases brought against Suno and Udio by the major labels for Music Business Worldwide (MBW) and WIPR - World IP Review (after speed-reading them on the train). My general thoughts on the cases including both defendants' responses are below: 🔊 First off, the lawsuits are a big deal - they're the first major cases brought by the recorded music industry in relation to AI after a noticeable lag in relation to other areas (such as publishing and software). 📯 The initial question is whether the AI tools trained on copyrighted recordings in the first place? The labels have presented compelling evidence showing the similarity between outputs and original works, including digital watermarks such as Jason Derulo’s infamous self-referential vocal trade mark. Notably, neither companies' response denies that they have trained on recordings, with Udio's response impliedly confirming that they have done so (when they state that the model has "listened" to recorded music presumably copies were made?). 💻 If training has occurred, then does it constitute fair use? This is a US defence to copyright infringement which is far more flexible than in the UK and include considerations such as whether the use was “transformative”. This could potentially become a philosophical question about the creative role of AI encompassing its economic and social impact. The cases will likely be one of a number across the creative industries that are eventually decided by a US Supreme Court decision - although whether one decision can be applicable to every case isn't clear. 👩⚖️ Udio has already laid the groundwork for a potential defence which relies on the fact that the outputs it creates are not simple reproductions but instead are creative (read "transformative"). They also note that AI just continues in a long line of music tech including the sound recording (whose rights are being used to sue them) which are simply "tools". 💿 I think that there is a fundamental contradiction in this position. How can AI be so original that it produces entirely new creations, but simultaneously be "just a tool" to empower creators? Other tools simply allow or facilitate reproduction (e.g. the musical score, the player piano, streaming services, samplers) or sonic transformation (e.g. a harpsichord or a synthesiser) or a bit of both (e.g. a drum machine or a DAW). Whilst some technologies have undoubtedly stimulated the development of new creative and cultural practices (e.g. sampling and multi-track recordings), I'm unaware of any other technology which has so fundamentally outsourced human creativity - in copyright terms the expression of ideas in an original (albeit non-human) way. Saying that AI is simply a tool appears to miss that and contradict their entire business strategy!💡 #suno #udio #musicai #copyright #intellectualproperty #ai #artificialintelligence

Why Major Record Labels Are Suing AI Music Generators https://ift.tt/hpiI5ad In what promises to be one of the first—of potentially many—major showdowns between AI tech companies and music rights holders, as well as and other copyright-protected arts, we’re watching in real-time as the world begins to define what AI is going to be allowed—and not allowed—to do. With a focus on training and how AI models have trained their own models and algorithms on music and art created not by computers, we have news that the Recording Industry Association of America and record labels are suing AI music generators over copyright infringement claims. Let’s look a bit at this ongoing debate and explore what it could mean for the future of not just music for video, but filmmaking and video more specifically as well. Record Labels Suing AI Music Generators Led by a group of music labels including Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and Sony Music Group, this coalition has filed lawsuits in US federal court alleging copyright infringement on a massive scale—most notably by AI music generator companies Suno and Udio. As we’ve seen with the rise of AI in all types of creative arts from graphics and video, music has been one of the many frontiers in which AI has promised to completely revolutionize. We’ve seen music-gen AI technology pop up over the past year which has promised the ability to get fully AI-generated tracks based on simple text prompts. And, in theory, this does seem like the next logical step for the budding royalty-free music for the video world to embrace, as it does feel quite similar to the way in which AI image and video models work. However, as we’re quickly learning, the training materials are key here. What the Future Holds The lawsuit has just been filed so we’ll have to wait and see how this latest suit plays out, but it does look to be a pretty big step for such major labels to be making a statement about protecting their artists’ works. It also is a bit of an offensive play, perhaps, to suss out more information about where these AI companies are getting their training materials from—which most companies have not shared much info about at all. We’ll see what comes next, but for now, we can assume that these lawsuits are going to be coming more often as these conversations and debates continue on. It’s a bold new world, and there’s a lot of scrambling left to do for everyone to make sense of what this future is ultimately going to look like. via No Film School https://ift.tt/Mi879fI June 27, 2024 at 10:03AM

Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Music have thrown a bombshell at the AI music industry by filing a landmark lawsuit against Suno and Udio, AI music generators accused of mass copyright infringement. This case could redefine the legal landscape for AI-generated content. Both platforms have been lauded for their ability to create high-quality, genre-specific music from text prompts. However, the heart of the controversy lies in whether these AI models were trained on copyrighted music without the necessary licenses, an allegation that could spell significant financial and operational repercussions for these startups. Interestingly, Ed Newton-Rex, a well-known figure in AI and music, highlighted the uncanny similarities between Suno's generated music and existing copyrighted tracks, suggesting unauthorized use of copyrighted material in their training datasets. Despite the impressive funding and user base, Suno and Udio now face intense scrutiny not just from the music industry but also from their own user communities, who question the ethics and legality of their AI models. For those following this saga, the lawsuit underscores the urgent need for transparency in how AI models are trained and the necessity for clear legal frameworks to govern AI-generated content. https://lnkd.in/dCUc67c5

Surprise surprise, major labels and the RIAA file lawsuit against Udio and Suno. Don't act shocked, we all knew this was inevitable. The philosophy for so many AI music companies is --> move fast, break shit, scrape and train on everything and do not maintain an auditable trail that shows you have been Fairly Trained. It was only a matter of time before the lawsuits came flying in. Will this change anything? It will set a new precedent that is for sure. New blanket licenses and frameworks that may only work for 1% of tech companies and handful of artists? Very possible. The music industry has made it nearly impossible for innovators to add value to the sector in my opinion. It is not any individuals fault per se. Just an ancient design flaw that is losing relevance and control. I've been fascinated by the music rights landscape for years. The level of fragmentation/inefficiency in music is laughable. Pathetic even. Music rights are often so fragmented across multiple stakeholders, including songwriters, composers, publishers, and record labels that it is so hard to do anything meaningful unless you have a lot of money and even more time/patience, hence the music industries value is proportionally low. Each party holds different rights and may be represented by different entities, leading to a complex negotiations and agreements that are almost impossible to execute upon when the use-case becomes even remotely innovative. Imagine trying to license all the music Udio and Suno trained their models on 😵 There has to be a different way. When it comes to new meaningful use cases that can transform the sector, like gaming for example, the music industry has alienated itself in my opinion and not truly embraced the potential until very recently. The way rights are managed/monetised is a problem that is so foundational but I'm very optimistic that a new future is on the horizon. A future where artists can protect their IP whilst taking advantage of new platforms and formats that push boundaries of their art. Whether that is through games, UGC or new AI-based revenue streams. There is a change happening that is pulling music away from the traditional format of consumption to new dynamic formats that can instantly transforms the listening experience and brings the user closer to the artform whilst expanding the canvas for creators massively. I love the potential of this future. Zooming out for a second, I hope this moment in time is part of a catalyst towards more efficient licensing frameworks, evolved metadata standards, protocols that protect artists IP, transparent/realtime royalty models and platforms that give artists the choice to grow how they want to. Udio and Suno are one of many companies that have most likely built their product and raised millions on the back of other peoples IP. We are building a very different future. What do you think happens next?

Universal Music Group, the world’s largest music rights holder, just announced that its agreement with TikTok is set to expire tomorrow (January 31, 2024). UMG said in a statement today (January 30) that the companies have not agreed to terms for a new deal, and upon expiration of their current agreement, UMG, including Universal Music Publishing Group, “will cease licensing content” to TikTok and TikTok Music services. UMG said in the letter that during its contract renewal discussions with TikTok, it has been "pressing" the platform on "three critical issues" including "appropriate compensation for our artists and songwriters, protecting human artists from the harmful effects of AI, and online safety for TikTok’s users". Universal Music Group, the world’s largest music rights holder, have pulled all of their catalogue from TikTok. They cite three reasons : 🥊 Appropriate compensation for our artists and songwriters. 🥊 Protecting human artists from the harmful effects of AI 🥊 Online safety for TikTok’s users. Point two caught my eye. Anyone following my feed will be aware of my concern with the threat that AI poses to folk who make a living in the creative industry. Universal went on to say, I quote "TikTok is allowing the platform to be flooded with AI-generated recordings — as well as developing tools to enable, promote and encourage AI music creation on the platform itself – and then demanding a contractual right which would allow this content to massively dilute the royalty pool for human artists, in a move that is nothing short of sponsoring artist replacement by AI". So the gloves are off but this presents me with a dilemma. I have signed an agreement with Sound On, TikTok's digital distribution partner. I've put about 40 tracks through the channel, I've had many plays but the royalty payments have been poor. I can live with that but if Universal are correct then TikTok will have certainly used my music to train their machines and that I am not cool about So I will not submit any more music through Sound On while considering how I move forward.

Being an AI company in the music industry is incredibly challenging. 1) Every musical note you interact with is copyrighted. 2) Access to training data is expensive. 3) Most musicians cannot afford to pay for costly tools, even if developed legally. Our focus should be to augment revenues for musicians, not steal their work or replace them with AI-generated content. At Kena AI, we have created a FREE platform for students, practitioners, musicians, composers, tutors, educators, and everyone in the industry. Our platform is entirely free, and we charge zero commissions. Kena's AI teaches students on behalf of musicians, creating a source of passive income for them. It's simple and straightforward. People often ask, "But what is your business model? How do you fund this?" I have invested millions of my personal funds into this passion project. I do not have expectations of returns. I just want to see a significant portion of the community benefit from our marketplace. Passion projects are marathons. Price discovery can always happen at scale. #AI #startup #music

Here are 10 problems and potential solutions that music executives might face in Canada: 1. **Streaming Revenue Distribution**: Problem - Unequal distribution of streaming revenue. Solution - Advocate for fairer royalty distribution models and transparency in streaming platforms' payment structures. 2. **Lack of Government Support**: Problem - Limited government funding and support for the music industry. Solution - Lobby for increased funding and incentives for Canadian musicians and music businesses. 3. **Piracy and Copyright Infringement**: Problem - Rampant piracy and copyright infringement. Solution - Strengthen enforcement of copyright laws and collaborate with internet service providers to combat piracy. 4. **Limited Access to International Markets**: Problem - Difficulty accessing international markets due to geographic distance and regulatory barriers. Solution - Develop strategic partnerships and initiatives to promote Canadian music globally, such as international showcases and trade missions. 5. **Decline of Physical Sales**: Problem - Declining sales of physical music formats like CDs and vinyl. Solution - Diversify revenue streams by investing in merchandise, live performances, and licensing opportunities. 6. **Underrepresentation of Diversity**: Problem - Underrepresentation of diverse voices and cultures in the music industry. Solution - Implement diversity and inclusion initiatives to promote equitable representation and provide resources and support to underrepresented artists. 7. **High Costs of Touring**: Problem - High costs associated with touring, including transportation, accommodations, and venue fees. Solution - Advocate for government support for touring musicians and explore innovative touring models, such as virtual concerts and live streaming. 8. **Competition from International Artists**: Problem - Intense competition from international artists for airplay and streaming attention. Solution - Support Canadian talent through increased promotion and exposure on radio, streaming platforms, and other media outlets. 9. **Limited Access to Music Education**: Problem - Limited access to music education and training programs, particularly in underserved communities. Solution - Invest in music education initiatives and partnerships to provide access to training and resources for aspiring musicians and industry professionals. 10. **Technological Advancements**: Problem - Rapid technological advancements impacting music consumption and distribution. Solution - Embrace technology and innovation to adapt to changing consumer behaviors and explore new revenue streams, such as virtual reality experiences and interactive content.

BREAKING: All 3 major labels are suing AI music generators Suno & Udio. Hammer, dropped. The RIAA is coordinating the two lawsuits on behalf of Sony, Warner & UMG. 1. Against Suno in Massachusetts 2. Against Udio in the Southern District of New York Why? It's been clear that Suno & Udio have trained on copyrighted material with no plan to license or compensate. The RIAA calls it: "𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘺𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪-𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴. 𝘈𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘴 𝘈𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴." And this can be done the right way: 1. Train only on licensed catalog 2. Compensate artists & songwriters 3. Full transparency It just takes a little longer & requires actually caring about creatives. Music isn't anti-AI. It's anti-theft. "𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘈𝘐 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘈𝘐 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭𝘴 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦." - RIAA So, how does the RIAA know Suno & Udio use copyright materials? They cite 4 examples: 1. Early Suno investor Antonio Rodriguez in the press: "𝘪𝘧 𝘚𝘶𝘯𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘐 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯'𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴." Leaves open they needed to *start* this way 2. Udio execs said their AI was trained on "𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘺-𝘢𝘷𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤" 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 "𝘰𝘣𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘵" 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 "𝘣𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦"... I mean...come on 3. They left producer tags on their output. 4. Many obvious sound-a-likes. WHO WILL WIN? It all comes down to fair use. Either way, we'll finally have an answer. I hope it's one that protects artists. We can do this in a way where everyone wins.