Anton Dubov’s Post

AI and the Music Industry An AI-generated Drake song has sparked a debate about copyright and the future of music. The song "Heart on My Sleeve" features the voice of Drake rapping over a beat by Metro Boomin. It was uploaded to TikTok by an unknown user, @ghostwriter977, and quickly went viral. The song's origins are shrouded in mystery. Some speculate that it is Drake's publicity stunt, while others believe it is the work of a crypto-adjacent startup. Universal Music Group, Drake's record label, denied involvement but sent takedown notices to streaming services. As AI technology develops, creating realistic forgeries of popular artists will become increasingly easy. This raises several copyright questions. - Who owns the rights to an AI-generated song? - Should artists be compensated for using their voice and likeness in AI creations? The legal battle over "Heart on My Sleeve" is just beginning, but it could have far-reaching implications for the future of music. https://lnkd.in/g8kbfYCY

The AI Transparency Act: Who’s Training Who? Should AI developers be required to disclose the materials used to train their models? The music industry thinks so. Backing the proposed TRAIN Act, they’re pushing for transparency to protect creators’ rights and ensure fair use of their work. #AI #Copyright #Transparency #Legaltech

Wow!I'm wondering if we're about to see the Napster moment where all these music tools end up getting shut down. I can't imagine that the courts are going to say it was OK to train on all this copyrighted data… On the other hand, I guess the cats out of the bag, so no doubt there will be endless new tools can't be locked as easily locked down. But perhaps, in the same way Spotify came about and made the whole thing legal and easier for the vast majority of people is going to be the direction things go? Major Music Labels Sue Suno Audio Over AI Copyright Infringement Source: Bloomberg In an article from Bloomberg, it's reported that major music labels, Sony, Warner, and Universal, have filed a lawsuit against Suno Audio for allegedly using copyrighted music to train its AI models without proper authorization. The companies argue that Suno Audio's actions infringe on their intellectual property rights, posing significant challenges to how AI is developed and used in the music industry. PROS * Innovation in AI: The use of AI to generate music can lead to new creative possibilities, potentially transforming content creation in the music industry. * Efficiency: AI can streamline the music production process, reducing time and costs for producers and artists. CONS * Intellectual Property Issues: The lawsuit highlights the legal complexities surrounding the use of copyrighted material in AI training, risking potential restrictions on AI development. * Quality Concerns: If not appropriately managed, AI-generated music might lack the depth and authenticity that handcrafted pieces offer. QUESTION TO CONSIDER As AI continues to advance, how can the industry balance innovation with the protection of intellectual property rights, ensuring that both creators and consumers benefit? ``` Read more here: https://buff.ly/3VZmmVH Image Credit: Unsplash #AI #Copyright #MusicIndustry #AIMusic #IntellectualProperty #Innovation #LegalChallenges #AIvsCreators #MusicLawsuit #TechNews

FAIR USE IN THE AGE OF AI or here we go again: The Music is suing napster... eh, TikTok... eh, no: They are suing AI startups. Remember Udio and Suno? Those innovative AI startups capable of generating real-sounding songs from prompts are now at the center of a major legal dispute. The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) filed lawsuits against these companies, alleging copyright infringement on a massive scale. And they might have a point as these AI models were trained using copyrighted music without permission. But: Can AI firms utilize copyrighted content for training under the guise of fair use? Fair use is a legal doctrine allowing limited use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, education, and research, based on specific factors. The factors that determine fair use are: 1. Purpose and character of the use, including whether it is for commercial or nonprofit educational purposes. 2. Nature of the copyrighted work, considering whether the work is more factual or creative. 3. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the entire work. 4. Effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The RIAA is tackling the last point and argues that AI-generated music threatens the traditional music industry by offering low-cost, sound-alike tracks without proper licensing. But this case is not just about music. It's about defining the boundaries of fair use in the AI era, with implications across various industries. The lawyers of OpenAI, Google, Adobe and Microsoft but also The New York Times and all kinds of artists will certainly follow the trial. #AI #Copyright #FairUse #TechNews #digitalpinnacle

Another important draft law in America to tackle copyright infringement by AI companies. https://lnkd.in/eh-WvW3S "We strongly support the bill which prioritizes creators who continue to be exploited by unjust AI practices.” David Israelite President & CEO of 🇺🇸 group National Music Publishers' Association. There's no legal or moral excuse for AI or Big Tech companies accessing, training or generating #AI using digital music without permission. Doing so is simply ripping off artists & creators. Between the TRAIN Act & the COPIED Act, there is alignment with the infringement prevention & training transparency measures agreed in the EU AI Act - which gives clarity internationally. And as the many recent music industry deals by our member companies have demonstrated, legal #GenAI & #AI training is perfectly possible & there to be done. #ArtificialIntelligence #RealRights 🌎🎶

In May this year, Sony Music Group wrote to more than 700 AI companies with a ‘declaration of AI training opt out’ for its recordings and publishing catalogue. The aim was to make it absolutely clear that the company does not consent to any use of that music to train models without permission and licensing deals. Now Warner Music Group has followed suit, although to save on its postage stamps expenses [citation needed] it has chosen to post its declaration on its website. The statement warns AI companies that they need an express licence from WMG for uses including “reproducing, distributing, publicly performing, ripping, scraping, crawling, mining, recording, altering, making extractions of, or preparing derivative works of” its works, including ingesting them as inputs for AI models. Recordings, videos, compositions, lyrics, metadata, artwork and other visual content are included in the declaration, with WMG citing the EU’s 2019 Copyright Directive (“or similar laws in other jurisdictions”) as its basis. “We have reserved and continue to reserve all our rights,” explained the major label. “We will take any necessary steps to prevent the infringement or other violations of our artists’ and songwriters’ creative works and rights.” Read The Full Story Here: https://lnkd.in/dQm2Ekdu #AI #MusicRights #WarnerMusicGroup #musically #musicnews #readmore

#genAIandHumanities This article mainly introduces the joint lawsuit filed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Universal, Warner, and Sony against artificial intelligence music companies Suno and Udio, because they illegally copied copyrighted audio recordings to train their artificial intelligence models and generated music that competes with the original recordings. However, investors believe this is not a problem and that there should be no constraints on the completion of the AI product. RIAA condemns this and accuses the unauthorized and illegal use of artists' works. I think it reveals some problems in the development of AI, namely that some companies, to improve AI technology, disregard legal restrictions and ethical norms, illegally seize artist achievements for training, and infringe on the rights of original creators. Moreover, this behavior is by no means an example. Many original songs and paintings by well-known creators on bilibili have been used without permission for the training of related AI models, generating AI music, sound, paintings, etc., and even publicly posting on public platforms for profit. These all indicate that the rights of original creators have been repeatedly violated in the current use of AI and need to be protected. In addition, I believe this article also involves the issue of fairness in the use of AI. The music company in the article, which gathers many technical experts, uses the works of multiple artists for artificial intelligence model training and generates high-quality music. Is this fair to individuals who only have limited power to compete with it? I think this is not very fair, just like the example of AlphaGo defeating the champion, which all relied on artificial intelligence that gathered the intelligence of many people to compete against individual players. There is a significant difference in strength between the two, which violates the principle of fairness. Overall, I believe that AI, as an advanced technology, can gather the wisdom of more people to improve it. However, it is best to introduce more official laws and regulations to effectively regulate and ensure that AI can be used reasonably and legally. For example, when training relevant models, authorization from the original users must be obtained. When competing in AI competitions, it is also necessary to compete with other AI systems to ensure maximum fairness and reduce the controversies faced by AI. But this is also a long and challenging road that requires continuous improvement.

🎵 **Sony Music Group Takes a Stand on AI and Copyrights!** 🎵 In a bold move, Sony Music Group has issued over 700 cease-and-desist letters to companies using its music without permission to train AI models. This decisive action aims to protect artists' intellectual property in the evolving AI landscape.🔒 The recipients range across various industries like tech, automotive, and finance, showing that no sector is exempt from respecting copyright law.🚫 Personal Insight: As someone passionate about both AI and the creative arts, I can see the tension here. On one hand, AI development needs vast amounts of data to learn and innovate. On the other hand, creators deserve to have their work protected and properly compensated. It's a delicate balance.🎶🤖 - What are your thoughts on using copyrighted materials to train AI? Do you think the industry is striking the right balance? - Have you had to navigate copyright issues in your AI projects? How did you handle it? **Key Stats:** - Over 700 cease-and-desist letters sent by Sony Music Group. - Similar actions by the RIAA impacted over 1,000 companies last year. - Google’s $40 million settlement over using music in training datasets. It's more crucial than ever to ensure that AI development respects intellectual property rights. Companies should either obtain proper licenses or utilize publicly available datasets to avoid legal repercussions. Let's innovate responsibly!💡 #AI #Copyright #MusicIndustry #Innovation #IntellectualProperty #AIethics #TechNews Your thoughts and experiences can help shape the future. Let’s discuss below! 👇 #LinkedInCommunity

Lawsuit Against AI Firms - A Potential Game-Changer for the AI Industry? In a landmark move, Universal Music Group, Sony Music, and Warner Records have filed lawsuits against AI music-synthesis companies Udio and Suno for massive copyright infringement. The lawsuits, brought before federal courts in New York and Massachusetts, allege that these AI firms used copyrighted recordings to train their models without permission. The record labels are seeking statutory damages of up to $150,000 per song used in training, a figure that could lead to significant financial repercussions for the AI companies. The core of the complaint revolves around the use of copyrighted materials to train AI models, which can generate new music based on textual descriptions. This practice, according to the plaintiffs, devalues the original works and poses a direct threat to the livelihoods of human artists. Specific examples cited in the lawsuit include AI-generated songs that mimic elements from famous tracks. This case marks the first major legal challenge against AI-generated music and underscores a growing concern within the industry. Previously, Sony Music sent warning letters to over 700 AI firms and streaming services, prohibiting the use of its music for AI training. Additionally, over 200 artists have voiced their opposition to the use of AI in music creation, fearing it undermines their rights and efforts. The outcome of this lawsuit could set a precedent for the future of AI in creative industries. If the court mandates compulsory licenses for AI training data, it could make AI development financially unfeasible for smaller startups, potentially consolidating power within the hands of major labels. Key Takeaways: - Massive Copyright Infringement Claims AI firms Udio and Suno face significant legal challenges and potential damages. - Industry Impact The case could reshape how AI models are trained and used in the music industry. - Future of AI in Music The lawsuit could lead to stricter regulations, possibly limiting AI music generation to well-funded entities. As a CXO why should you care? As AI continues to transform industries, leaders must stay informed about legal and ethical implications. This case highlights the importance of balancing innovation with respect for intellectual property. This landmark case underscores how Silicon Valley's Big Tech continues to disrupt traditional industries by leveraging AI, raising significant concerns about intellectual property and the economic impact on creative professionals. #MusicIndustry #CopyrightLaw #AI #DigitalTransformation #Innovation https://lnkd.in/g2z9myns

The music industry has made it very clear that it wants generative-AI developers to be as transparent as possible about what their models were trained on. A new bill introduced in the US House of Representatives backs this view. It’s called the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act and was introduced by Democrat representative Adam Schiff. Its key measure would “require a notice to be submitted to the Register of Copyrights prior to the release of a new generative AI system with regard to all copyrighted works used in building or altering the training dataset for that system”. This would also apply retroactively to existing generative AI models. The bill has the backing of music industry organisations the RIAA, Ascap, NMPA, Recording Academy, SONA, Black Music Action Coalition, Music Artist Coalition, A2IM and the Human Artistry Campaign. Bodies representing other creative industries are also supporting the bill. “It champions innovation while safeguarding the rights and contributions of creators, ensuring they are aware when their work contributes to AI training datasets,” is how Schiff pitched his bill. “This is about respecting creativity in the age of AI and marrying technological progress with fairness.” Read Our Full Analysis Here: https://lnkd.in/d4reAPpc #Legislation #AI #MusicRights #musically #musicnews #readmore