Major music labels are taking on AI startups that they believe trained on their songs without paying. Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Group sued the music generators Suno and Udio for allegedly infringing on copyrighted works on a \u201cmassive scale.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) initiated the lawsuits and wants to establish that \u201cnothing that exempts AI technology from copyright law or that excuses AI companies from playing by the rules.\u201d<\/p>\n
The music labels\u2019 lawsuits in US federal court accuse Suno and Udio of scraping their copyrighted tracks from the internet. The filings against the AI companies reportedly demand injunctions against future use and damages of up to $150,000 per infringed work. (That sounds like it could add up to a monumental sum if the court finds them liable.) The suits appear aimed at establishing licensed training as the only acceptable industry framework for AI moving forward \u2014 while instilling fear in companies that train their models without consent.<\/p>\n Suno AI and Udio AI (Uncharted Labs run the latter) are startups with software that generates music based on text inputs. The former is a partner of Microsoft<\/a> for its CoPilot music generation tool. The RIAA claims the services\u2019 reproduced tracks are uncannily similar to existing works to the degree that they must have been trained on copyrighted songs. It also claims the companies didn\u2019t deny that they trained on copyright works, instead shielding themselves behind their training being \u201cconfidential business information\u201d and standard industry practices.<\/p>\n According to The Wall Street Journal<\/em>, the lawsuits accuse<\/a> the AI generators of creating songs that sounded remarkably similar to The Temptations\u2019 \u201cMy Girl,\u201d Green Day\u2019s \u201cAmerican Idiot,\u201d and Mariah Carey\u2019s \u201cAll I Want for Christmas Is You,\u201d among others. They also claim the AI services produced indistinguishable vocals from artists like Lin-Manuel Miranda, Bruce Springsteen, Michael Jackson and ABBA.<\/p>\n Wired<\/em> reports that one example cited in the lawsuit details how one of the AI tools reproduced a song that sounded nearly identical to Chuck Berry\u2019s pioneering classic \u201cJohnny B. Goode,\u201d using the prompt, \u201c1950s rock and roll, rhythm & blues, 12 bar blues, rockabilly, energetic male vocalist, singer guitarist,\u201d along with some of Berry\u2019s lyrics. The suit claims the generator almost perfectly generated the original track\u2019s \u201cGo, Johnny, go, go\u201d chorus.<\/p>\n To be clear, the RIAA isn\u2019t advocating based on the principle that all AI training on copyrighted works is wrong. Instead, it\u2019s saying it\u2019s illegal to do so without licensing and consent, i.e., when the labels (and, likely to a lesser degree, the artists) don\u2019t make any money off of it.<\/p>\n The recording industry is working on AI deals of its own that license music in a way that it believes is fair for its bottom line. These include an agreement<\/a> between Universal and SoundLabs, which allows the latter to create vocal models for artists while still allowing the singers to control ownership and output. The label also partnered with YouTube on an AI licensing and royalties deal. Universal also represents Drake, whose diss track against Kendrick Lamar<\/a> from earlier this year used AI-generated copies of Tupac Shakur and Snoop Dogg\u2019s voices.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is room for AI and human creators to forge a sustainable, complementary relationship,\u201d the filing against Suno reads. \u201cThis can and should be achieved through the well-established mechanism of free-market licensing that ensures proper respect for copyright owners.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n