Impact of AI Companies on Music Copyright

An important angle to the Universal Music Group vs TikTok debate I haven't seen enough written about: TikTok's massive ambitions to (ultimately) replace much of the music on their platform with Gen AI. So how do we know this is TikTok's ambition? While the acquisition of Jukedeck in 2019 was widely known (a company that uses AI to create royalty-free music), the company has lately staffed up on AI music researchers & ML engineers. They've also published two whitepapers & filed two patents in this area, and are beta testing this tech among a select group of users. This is problematic for a few reasons: - Just as streaming was the great growth driver for the industry the last ten years, the industry has been betting on short form video - primarily TikTok - being the next. The upcoming TikTok licensing deals were *supposed* to return massive amounts of cash to rights holders. - As a Chinese owned company, ByteDance does not have the same constructs around ethical use of training data. They will use western repertoire with no qualms, and there will be no transparency or opting out. And with the news that usership on the platform has largely been unaffected by Universal Music Group's absence, the music industry should be concerned about what their next deal might look like. (Shoutout to Murray Stassen & Music Business Worldwide (MBW) for the great reporting here.) #musicbusiness #musicindustry #tiktok #streaming #musicai #generativeai

The U.S. Copyright Office’s latest report, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability, provides critical insight into how AI-generated works fit—or don’t fit—within existing copyright law. The key takeaway is clear: for a work to be eligible for copyright protection, it must demonstrate human authorship. AI can be used as a tool, much like a camera or a digital editing program, but the final output must be shaped by human creativity to qualify for protection. “After considering the extensive public comments and the current state of technological development, our conclusions turn on the centrality of human creativity to copyright,” said Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office. “Where that creativity is expressed through the use of AI systems, it continues to enjoy protection. Extending protection to material whose expressive elements are determined by a machine, however, would undermine rather than further the constitutional goals of copyright.” The report reinforces the longstanding principle that copyright is designed to protect human creativity, not machine-generated content. This means that if an AI system independently generates an artwork, a piece of music, or a written work without meaningful human input, it is not copyrightable. However, if a human exercises creative control over an AI tool—such as selecting inputs, editing outputs, or structuring the composition in a way that reflects personal expression—the resulting work may qualify for copyright protection. This ruling has broad implications for industries that rely on AI to generate content, including publishing, music, design, and film production. Creators who incorporate AI into their workflows must ensure that they actively contribute to the final creative expression if they wish to secure copyright protection. This could mean curating datasets, fine-tuning prompts, or making substantial modifications to AI-generated outputs. For businesses, this means rethinking AI-driven content strategies. Fully automated content may not be protectable under copyright law, potentially impacting ownership rights and monetization strategies. On the other hand, companies that blend human creativity with AI assistance could maintain strong legal claims to their intellectual property. As generative AI tools become more sophisticated, expect ongoing legal and regulatory scrutiny. The Copyright Office’s stance suggests that future policy will likely continue to emphasize human authorship as the foundation of copyright protection. This raises important questions: How much human involvement is enough? Could AI-generated content be protected under alternative legal frameworks, such as database rights or contractual agreements? For now, businesses and creators using AI should take a cautious and strategic approach—ensuring human authorship is at the core of their creative process to secure legal protection. -s

The US Copyright Office's report on generative AI training is superb - thoughtful, thorough, and clear in rejecting the idea that all gen AI training is fair use. This report is great news for creators and rights holders everywhere - and it's gratifying to see our work at Fairly Trained mentioned. A few of their points are particularly worth calling out: ➡️ 1. A use is less transformative if it ultimately serves the same purpose as the original. 'Transformative', in the context of fair use decisions, doesn't just mean 'something is transformed'. A use is less transformative if it serves essentially the same purpose as the original. They give the example of training audio models on sound recordings: if you do this to create new sound recordings that compete in the same market as the originals, this is clearly less transformative. ➡️ 2. Being 'transformative' is not enough anyway. Even when AI training is transformative, the market effects on the original can outweigh this in the fair use evaluation. ➡️ 3. Market dilution by gen AI weighs against fair use. This is critical. They say: "The speed and scale at which AI systems generate content pose a serious risk of diluting markets for works of the same kind as in their training data. That means more competition for sales of an author’s works and more difficulty for audiences in finding them." They argue that this weighs against a fair use finding, and they remind us that this fourth factor of fair use - the effect on the potential market for or value of the work that's copied - is "undoubtedly the single most important element of fair use", according to the Supreme Court. Many of us have been saying this for a long time, so it's great to see the US Copyright Office - the government body responsible for providing guidance on copyright law - agreeing. And hopefully this will discourage people who promote AI in the UK from repeating the lie that it's established that AI training on copyrighted work without a licence is legal in the US. This report makes it very clear that this view is mistaken. Read the full report here: https://lnkd.in/g_R_gGMK

The UK wants to rewrite copyright law—for AI companies, not for creators. Their latest proposal? A shiny new exception that allows AI companies to train models on copyrighted works by default. Opt-out? Sure, if you enjoy wasting your life filling out forms and fighting a system that barely works. And we know that opt-out doesn't work. Opt-out is an illusion. A huge percentage of people don’t even realize their works have been used. For instance, according to #ALCS UK, only 8% of writers knew their work had been used as training data. My new article for Forbes! The government says this will attract tech investment and “boost innovation.” Translation: creators' work will be scraped, exploited, and fed into machines to build competitors that devalue their original creations. AI doesn’t just use its training data—it competes with it. It’s hard to call this a win for innovation when it dismantles a £126 billion creative industry. Music, films, art, books—the foundation of culture, turned into free training data. As Ed Newton-Rex puts it: “Generative AI competes with its training data. This would allow AI companies to exploit people's work to build highly scalable competitors to them.” Meanwhile, creative industries are fighting back. From Paul McCartney to Getty Images, creators are calling this out for what it is: a massive giveaway to big tech that threatens livelihoods, originality, and the future of creativity. We’re at a crossroads. Will the UK lead the way in balancing AI innovation with creator protection? Or will it sacrifice its creative economy to appease AI companies? This isn’t just about copyright reform. It’s about the value of human creativity in an AI-driven world. https://lnkd.in/gr7UYBwz #AITrainingData #CopyrightReform #OptOutSystem #AIandCopyright #CreatorsRights #CopyrightReform #AIandCopyright #IntellectualProperty #GenerativeAI #UKPolicy

key update today from the US Copyright Office for protection of AI-generated works - tldr: - a work can be copyrighted as long as human authorship is a core part of the final work - this includes modifying or arranging AI-generated inputs - humans using AI to generate drafts, edit/refine text, images, music, video, even use AI as a production or creative assistant all qualify for protection - however just providing text prompts to an AI system is not enough to establish authorship this aligns with historical precedent where copyright law has supported adoption of new technologies assisting in the creative process such as typewriters, cameras, film recorders, computers, etc the office will release a third report on copyrights and training data, but this is still a great step in the right direction for creators who might have been using AI under the table up to now

I just published a new, members-only analysis on Water & Music on one of the hottest and most complex topics in the music business right now: Music AI content and copyright detection. When it comes to the value of music AI, data is like oil — and rights holders are determined to control the pumps. Over 350 music industry organizations have signed ethics statements on music AI, emphasizing the importance of data transparency and artist consent in the model training process. Meanwhile, lawsuits and cease-and-desist letters against music AI startups are piling up, involving every major rights holder. The next six months will define the future of the music business, as we move beyond philosophical and ethical debates to practical solutions for IP protection in an AI-led market. In my analysis, I break down: - How each step of the music AI detection supply chain works, from auditing training data for copyrights to detecting AI-generated deepfakes. - Who the key players are at each stage, and how their detection models work. - Why these developments matter for the future of music, and have a direct tie to the latest lawsuits against Suno and Udio. This piece was several weeks in the making — involving background conversations with several kind people at Audible Magic, BMAT Music Innovators, Pex, Deezer Research, MatchTune, Ircam amplify, and more, along with meticulous fact-checking and research help from my team (Yung Spielburg & Alex Flores). While my resulting analysis only scratches the surface on the topic from a technical and legal standpoint, I'm quite proud of how it turned out, and I hope it helps you make sense of an otherwise quite complex and noisy landscape. Let me know what you think in the comments! 😊 #music #musicindustry #musicai #copyright #legal #ai #futureofmusic https://lnkd.in/eaMB4AQm

Securing rights to music catalogs has been a consistent business model in the industry: Buy up the hits, collect royalties for life. And it’s still a viable option. Catalog music is the most streamed online, accounting for 72.6% of total album-equivalent music consumption in 2023. But AI poses a unique threat. A lot of money made off these catalogs comes from sync licensing (background music, B-roll, or international campaigns). Using even a short snippet of a popular song can be costly. So, if you're a brand, and want something like “Bohemian Rhapsody” but don’t want to pay a fortune, AI may be able to get you 90% of the way there for next to nothing. Especially for music that’s only getting 10 seconds of air time, brands may think twice before they invest in the real deal. Of course, there will always be a difference between “sounds like” and “is.” The original work carries weight, and as long as that still matters to people, catalogs will hold value. But the economics around music are shifting. If you're investing in catalogs—or building a business around them—don't just look at historical returns. Factor in where technology is headed.

The U.S. Copyright Office has provided essential guidance regarding the registration of works containing material generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI). With more artists thinking about using AI as a part of their creative process, this is a critical document for not only for music lawyers but also for music managers who are helping their clients navigate the use of AI in music. Here are the key takeaways from the Copyright Office's policy statement (full paper is attached below for those who are interested): 🎵 Human Authorship Requirement: Works exclusively generated by AI without human involvement do not qualify for copyright protection as "original works of authorship" must be human-created. 🎵 Significant Human Contribution: The use of AI-generated content that is significantly modified, arranged, or selected by a human artist may be eligible for copyright protection, but only for the human-authored parts of the work. 🎵 AI as a Tool: While AI is acknowledged as a valuable tool in the creative process, using AI does not confer authorship. The extent of creative control a human exercises over the work's output is the key factor in determining copyright eligibility. 🎵 Registration of Works with AI-generated Material: Applicants must disclose the use of AI-generated content in their copyright applications, distinguishing between human-created aspects and AI-generated content. 🎵 Correcting Prior Submissions: If a work containing AI-generated content has already been submitted without appropriate disclosure, it should be corrected to ensure the registration remains valid. 🎵 Consequences of Non-disclosure: Applicants who fail to disclose AI-generated content could face the cancellation of their registration or the registration could be disregarded in court during an infringement action. 🎵 Ongoing Monitoring: The Copyright Office continues to monitor developments in AI and copyright law, indicating the possibility of future guidance and adjustments to the policy. #musicindustry #musicbusiness #musicpublishing #copyrightlaw

YouTube has recruited Frank Sinatra’s estate and other Universal Music Group UMG acts to influence how artists are paid when their work is used by artificial-intelligence tools. Universal artists including country singer Rosanne Cash, composer Max Richter and rapper Yo Gotti will work with Google’s YouTube on an effort to explore the future of music royalties and creative expression as generative AI tools make it easier than ever for internet users to manipulate art. The partnership is an attempt by Universal to ensure its artists are compensated appropriately as the technology develops, after the music industry found itself at a disadvantage during the rise of streaming and other new services. Universal and YouTube plan to collaborate on product development, principles guiding the use of music in AI programs and new ways to pay artists whose work is used in AI-generated content. Artists in the YouTube program will get early access to AI products under development and provide feedback to the video service. “This is about having the option to design how their music is actually used,” said Universal CEO Lucian Grainge. “Artists have never had that before, to this extent, leaning into a new technology.” In February, the day YouTube promoted Neal Mohan to CEO, Grainge called him, asking to talk about his approach to generative AI. They spent the following months developing guidelines for how the video service would work with artists on content and products using generative AI. As part of principles released Monday, YouTube said it would embrace AI responsibly together with music partners, include appropriate protections when designing products, and invest in systems to fight misuse of the technology. Any agreement between Universal and YouTube, the largest online video-hosting provider, has the potential to create standards for the rest of the music industry and other creative fields dealing with the spread of generative AI products. #generativeai #universalmusic #brand #artist #youtube #product

The courts in various countries are determining how to navigate AI model training and copyright, particularly concerning both consent and compensation for creators. You may have seen that 1,000 artists—including Kate Bush, Imogen Heap, Annie Lennox, Cat Stevens, and Hans Zimmer—released a silent album this week in protest of the UK’s potential law changes favoring Big Tech. Additionally, various petitions are circulating, with creators signing en masse. However, Big Tech has tremendous lobbying power, and Microsoft and Amazon have signaled their stance by partnering with companies currently being sued by major music labels/publishers. While these companies are currently adversaries, they may ultimately end up working together (as we’ve seen before) as data attribution models mature and legal challenges are addressed. Public sentiment also plays a role; and as the technology becomes normalized and ubiquitous through trusted partners like Microsoft and Amazon, what once sparked public outcry may gradually fade into the background. See below for Amazon’s Alexa announcement. Noting they are also an investor in Anthropic (who are being seeing by music publishers), so this is not really a surprise. “We’re working with Suno, an agent for generative music,” announced Amazon. Suno is currently being sued by major labels for copyright infringement, alongside rival AI music startup Udio. Suno celebrated its inclusion in yesterday’s announcement with a cheery SpongeBob SquarePants meme, but music rights holders may not be quite as pleased about Amazon partnering with the startup while the lawsuits are still ongoing. https://lnkd.in/duEpkamW