🚨 SCOOP: the three majors are considering a joint lawsuit against AI companies Suno and Udio for allegedly training on their copyrighted sound recordings without consent or compensation. This could be filed as soon as next week, according to sources close to the matter It is unclear whether or not Suno and Udio use copyrights during their training process, but Ed Newton Rex’s articles for MBW point towards this being a good possibility. Of course, some AI firms believe training models on copyrights to be “fair use,” but rights holders often disagree, believing the practice to be a form of copyright infringement. I feel this possible lawsuit would be the biggest move yet in the push to regulate AI music companies. Let’s see what happens next… https://lnkd.in/gfpe4jZY
If labels couldn’t even be a label for everyone who wants one they should shut up and mind their business. If they can’t even make money, they should just shut down. Only labels that can’t even pay their bills seem like the ones that’d be doing the most suing smart companies. Labels are so entitled that they’d assume their songs are better than ones that aren’t signed to them. They try making up that they’re the “source of why ai songs are better than theirs” because they’re too cocky. Songs by independent artists are stolen by their own A&R’s everyday and given to their entire roster. They’re snitching on themselves. It’s like with suing Spotify. Why would label execs and ex label executives sue Spotify for songwriter pay? Everyone knows the only money is in publishing. If their own horrible lawyers force artists to give them their publishing rights, then they leave and can’t make money, those seem like the people who’d sue. They don’t know they can just buy ads. If they buy ads they’ll get rich but they have broke mentality. They should just mind their business. And grow up. Nobody cares about label execs they don’t matter to the 30 million unsigned people which is where real money is.
I try Suno AI every day, and sometimes it produces work so good that it can easily become a hit and generate significant royalty income. In such a scenario, how will the income be distributed? How will it be proven that the song is an AI product? What will the distribution be like between the AI company, the artist, and the streaming platforms? These are difficult and realistic questions to answer...
I participated in a roundtable discussion about AI at BMI in March and when I asked the other writers at the table "So you would rather be style jacked by a person than a computer?" everyone said "yes"
Duh
Two months ago I predicted that industry will clamp on AI generative music, didn't know they would join forces: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7184205626175074304?commentUrn=urn:li:comment:(activity:7184205626175074304,7184251512703827968)&dashCommentUrn=urn:li:fsd_comment:(7184251512703827968,urn:li:activity:7184205626175074304)
How does this not turn into style as IP? Wasn't that every writer's problem with the outcome from the Marvin Gaye/Pharrell thing a few years ago?
We have a saying in Sweden: If you are big and strong, you must be kind. Although I doubt the majors would do this out of the kindbens of their hearts, but it would be for the good of all creators. Sidenote: the saying is from a childrens cartoon about a bear who drinks magic honey to gain super strength, Bamse
The only right move to make in this situation. 🤞
Founder/CEO SyncLodge LTD | Board Member, Co-Chair of Education Sub Committee, IAFAR | Music Clearance Administrator | Music Career Mentor | Conference Speaker |
1moIt is coming, the first ruling that ML training on copyrighted material is no fair use. In my understanding, Fair Use does not include a focused future profitability from the use. If it was a university doing it for student learning purposes, then they would have an argument. But they trained the AI for the purpose of profiting. Nothing else. And then there is the output, there is certainly copyright infringement there.