The 3 major record labels are suing AI music companies Suno and Udio. Here are the two lawsuits in full. - They accuse Suno & Udio of “willful copyright infringement on an almost unimaginable scale” - They provide evidence that both companies trained on their music, including outputs that closely resemble their recordings (ABBA, Michael Jackson, Green Day, James Brown, & many more) - They outline why this is not fair use - They say this “wholesale theft of… copyrighted recordings threatens the entire music ecosystem and the numerous people it employs” - They include unknown co-defendants who assisted in copying/scraping - They demand a jury trial If you do one thing today, read the full complaints: Suno: https://lnkd.in/g8fWaWpT Udio: https://lnkd.in/gf-scb9U Below is one of many sets of transcriptions included in the lawsuits. 🟥 Red notes: the pitch and rhythm are the same as the original 🟧 Orange notes: the pitch *or* rhythm is the same as the original
Philip Bossonney
2mo
Green Day Songs are like 3.5 chord loops - they don’t own the rights to G D C (Em)
Ryan Dickinson
2mo
The labels will reach a payout or future royalty split with the AI companies, then pocket that into their big fat bank accounts. Other than these blatant copies it will be impossible to tell which AI tracks can be attributed to which original recording reference. Artists wont be rewarded in anyway from this (apart from maybe the top 10% earners for a label who will get some hush money). Labels will win here in the same way as their argument for a bigger chunk of the streaming royalties over song publishing meant they were in a stronger/richer position. Thats a mind blowing carbon copy of American Idiot though 😐
Reading that, the issue the labels have is that they want some of the pie, they attacked Spotify like this at the beginning, give them a % and they'll be best friends.
Hear hear! Let’s see this for art and photography next!
Suno could argue transformative use, claiming their AI doesn't just mimic but reinvents music in ways humans can't, thereby transforming the original works substantially. Additionally, Suno might demonstrate that their service doesn't undercut the market value of the original music but serves a distinct market altogether, potentially mitigating claims of market harm. Furthermore, Suno could leverage the argument that their technology substantially advances knowledge and tech innovation, aligning with broader interpretations of fair use that support societal benefits. With copyright laws evolving, particularly around AI, Suno's alignment with emerging legal standards could further bolster their position. Lastly, the possibility of settling through licensing agreements or royalties could provide a practical resolution, allowing Suno to continue operations while acknowledging the creators' rights.
Thomas Henz
2mo
In my opinion this is not about proving if an AI generated song is based on song A, B or C. This won't be possible anyway. These examples just show that copyright infringement IS the case. Following the AI act it is necessary for AI companies to lay open the training data and tell HOW the results are achieved. If this is not possible, they are either unwilling or just incabable. In either cases a regular high penalty or shut down should follow. If you use other peoples creative output on a repetitive, technically supported way to make a profit, you MUST pay them for it.
Rachael Camp
2mo
I am looking forward to this momentum to coming to the world of photography, art, design and writing next.
This is indeed a complex case... but there are many aspects to it. Yes, it is obvious that these tools were trained on copyrighted data, just like every musician alive today learned music. The legal crux of the issue is whether or not training with copyrighted data is fair use or not; focusing on scale or speed of computers is an emotional stance, not a legal one. THIS is the issue the courts need to focus on... and let's all accept the fact that there is no logical way to compensate copyright owners due to the lineage of musical learning. Suno and Udio are tools that deliver content based on instructions. THey do not generate close copies of pop songs unless they are specifically prompted to do so... and it's not just a matter of saying "give me a RHCP song." Computers follow instructions, and if a human goes through a lot of effort to get the tool to deliver a copy, is the tool legally responsible, or is the human? In my opinion, the person striving to generate a copy is the one attempting to reproduce copyrighted material. Tools don't cause damage, users do. (to be continued...)
Antony Demekhin
2mo
🍿
Lastly... if transparency is being asked of Suno and Udio, I think it is fair to ask for transparency from those able to recreate copyrighted songs. Share the prompts used to do this. Failure to do so would be a little hypocritical in my opinion. Users are responsible for the results of their actions with tools of all kinds. But, this is fodder for a different discussion... the court needs to focus on the singular issue of whether or not training with copyrighted works is legal or not.