In a groundbreaking legal battle concerning Ethical AI, the world’s three largest record labels—Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Records, coordinated by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)—have filed a lawsuit against two leading AI music generation startups, Suno and Udio. The crux of the dispute centers around the AI companies’ use of copyrighted music to train their sophisticated algorithms, which can generate complete songs from simple text prompts.
The record labels argue that this constitutes massive infringement, as these AI-generated songs could potentially saturate the market, diminishing the value and unique appeal of human-created music. This lawsuit not only challenges the boundaries of copyright law but also raises profound questions about the ethical implications of AI in creative industries. As this legal drama unfolds, it will likely set important precedents for the future of AI development and its intersection with copyright norms, potentially reshaping the landscape of both technology and creative expression.
Listen to an example of AI creation and then continuing reading below.
Who’s Involved?
The Plaintiffs: The world’s three largest record labels are leading this lawsuit. These are Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Records. They’re being coordinated by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which is a powerful trade organization representing the recording industry in the United States.
The Defendants: Two AI companies are being sued – Suno and Udio. These two websites are considered the most influential AI music generation startups right now.
The Issue – Is This Ethical AI Usage?
The generation of creative content is a hot topic in the AI world. These AI companies have developed advanced technology that can create realistic, natural-sounding music from simple text descriptions. For example, you could type “upbeat pop song about summer love” and the AI would generate a full song matching that description in seconds with instrumentals, vocals and lyrics.
The record labels claim that to create these AI systems, Suno and Udio used copyrighted music without the permission of the copyright holders to train the AI models. They argue this amounts to theft and is “mass infringement of copyrighted sound recordings.”
They contend that the AI-generated music produced by these sites could “saturate the market with machine-generated content that will directly compete with, cheapen, and ultimately drown out the genuine sound recordings.
What About Fair Use?
The RIAA argues that the training of the models on the label’s songs was illegal because they did not have the copyright holder’s permission to use the recordings. AI compaines argue they are covered under the Fair Use concept which, if true would mean they can use the recordings as they see fit to use them.
Fair use is a legal concept that allows people to use copyrighted material without permission in certain situations. It’s meant to balance the rights of copyright holders with the public interest in sharing and building upon creative works. In the United States, fair use is determined by considering four main factors: the purpose of the use (like education or commentary), the nature of the copyrighted work, how much of the original work is used, and how the use affects the market for the original work.
Here’s an example of fair use related to music: Parody Songs
Weird Al Yankovic is famous for his parody songs, which often use the melodies of popular songs but with completely different, usually humorous lyrics. For instance, his song “Eat It” is a parody of Michael Jackson’s “Beat It.” This is generally considered fair use because:
- It’s clearly transformative, changing the purpose of the original work
- It’s a parody, which courts often view favorably in fair use cases
- It doesn’t replace the market for the original song (people still buy and listen to “Beat It”)
- While it uses the entire melody, the lyrics and context are entirely different
It’s important to note that fair use is always determined on a case-by-case basis, and this is just one example. In the world of AI, there’s ongoing debate about whether using copyrighted material to train AI models should be considered fair use.
The RIAA believes that using recordings to train AI is not fair use because “Fair use is not available when the output seeks to ‘substitute’ for the work copied. And Suno and Udio have, in their own words, conceded that is exactly what they intend.”
What Evidence Does the RIAA Have?
The RIAA claims they have strong evidence of Suno and Udio’s use of copyrighted material without permission. An investor in Suno, Antonio Rodriquez as quoted in the Rolling Stone said he knew they could tbe the target of lawsuits and it was a “risk we had to underwrite when we invested in the company”. He said he didn’t want Suno to sign deals with the recording companies. “Honestly, if we had deals with labels when this company got started, I probably wouldn’t have invested in it. I think that they needed to make this product without the constraints.”
The RIAA also states, according to DailyAI.com, that Suno and Udio were caught using copyrighted material when “producer tags” containing the names of the original artists were found in AI-generated music.
Why It’s a Big Deal
- Scale: This isn’t a small lawsuit. It involves the biggest players in the music industry going after cutting-edge tech companies.
- Precedent: The outcome could set important legal precedents for how AI can be developed and used in creative fields including those outside of the music industry.
- Market Impact: The labels are worried that AI-generated music could flood streaming platforms and compete directly with human-made music. There’s evidence this is already happening, with AI-created songs getting thousands of plays on Spotify.
- Broader AI Debate: This case is part of a larger conversation about AI’s impact on creative industries and copyright law.
- Financial Stakes: Both the music industry and the AI companies have a lot to lose or gain. Suno, for instance, is valued at $125 million.
Ethical AI
This lawsuit highlights the challenges of the creation and policing of Ethical AI. What is Ethical AI?
“Ethical AI refers to the practice of designing, developing, and deploying artificial intelligence systems in a way that adheres to ethical principles and values, such as fairness, accountability, transparency, and respect for user privacy and autonomy. This approach is closely related to copyrights, emphasizing the importance of respecting intellectual property by not using copyrighted data or content without permission, ensuring transparency about data sources, and maintaining fairness to prevent exploitation of copyrighted materials. Ethical AI also involves clear accountability mechanisms to address any misuse and to ensure compliance with copyright laws, thereby protecting creators’ rights while fostering responsible innovation.” – ChatGPT 4o.
If AI technologies are developed with the direct intention of displacing artists, does that constitute an ethical use case? Is it just the inevitability of technological advancement? Or can and should we find ways to limit the use of AI in certain circumstances? What do you think?
More Examples
Jerry Lee Lewis
https://suno.com/song/a5d096df-98f7-4ba8-993b-b1696134e4c3
Jason Derulo
https://suno.com/song/3b1f21b8-c56f-43fd-a858-6d70f0314b67
Galileo (Bohemian Rhapsody)
https://youtu.be/_D3GACF-Bsk
Sources and More Info
Link to Complaint Against Udio
https://www.riaa.com/record-companies-bring-landmark-cases-for-responsible-ai-againstsuno-and-udio-in-boston-and-new-york-federal-courts-respectively/
https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/major-record-companies-sue-ai-music-generators-suno-udio-for-mass-infringement-of-copyright/
https://dailyai.com/2024/06/worlds-biggest-music-labels-shock-the-ai-industry-with-landmark-lawsuit/
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/record-labels-sue-music-generators-suno-and-udio-1235042056/
