The emergence of AI systems that can compose songs brings new challenges to the music industry.
This phenomenon has sparked numerous debates on concepts such as creativity, copyright and the evolution of the music industry. Some artists, recording studios and legal experts have taken an interest in the issue, raising important questions that highlight the need to find the optimal balance between technology and human work.
Recent example: AI tries to imitate Grammy nominees
To illustrate the current state of AI in music, let’s take the example of country musician Tift Merritt. Her song “Traveling Alone” is her best-known work, due to it being available on Spotify. The song is a ballad that contemplates the wide road and the ability to travel alone. When AI music site Udio was asked to create a “Tift Merritt Americana Song,” Udio quickly sent the author back “Holy Grounds.” Specifically, the song includes lyrics about “driving down the old back roads” and “watching the fields and skies shift and sway.” Naturally, Tift Merritt’s work couldn’t have been entirely unique.
Merritt, the Grammy-nominated singer-songwriter, isn’t particularly pleased with the results. She said the “knockoffs” made by Udio “will not be on any of my albums.” But she has a more serious indictment of the generated content: she doesn’t see it as a sign of creativity; in her opinion, it’s more like theft. “This is a great demonstration that this technology is not transformative at all,” Merritt declared. “It’s theft.”
Artists unite in their concerns
Merritt’s stance has resonated with many in the music industry: in April, she joined other high-profile artists, including Billie Eilish, Nicki Minaj, and Stevie Wonder, to sign an open letter warning that AI-generated music trained on their recordings could “stifle creativity” and alienate human artists.
Industry takes legal action
This issue isn’t just limited to individual singers, it’s also affecting major record companies: Sony Music, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music recently sued Udio and another music AI company, Suno, the first companies in the music industry to join a copyright battle over AI-created songs, and the legal battle is just beginning.
The importance of the situation was highlighted by Mitch Glazer, CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), who called the lawsuit a response to “the shameless copying of mass recordings, flooding the market with cheap knockoffs, and depriving real artists and songwriters of views and revenue.” But he also spoke of the potential of AI: “AI holds great promise, but only if it is built on sound, responsible, and licensed foundations.”
AI companies’ responses
In their initial court responses, Suno and Udio defended their technology. They also cited past industry fears and concerns that synthesizers, drum machines, and other technological advances were expected to destroy the music industry by replacing all human musical talent. The companies maintained their original position, pleading not guilty, and explaining that the lawsuit was a way to attack lower-tier players in the market, as the apps they offered could not emulate top artists.
Legal Complexity and New Issues
These cases raise new questions for the courts, such as whether AI can create original works using copyrighted material and whether the law should create exceptions in such cases. In music, the situation becomes even more complicated, as the text, melody, harmony and rhythm of the created material can be mixed, making cases of plagiarism much more difficult to adjudicate.
“Music is more than just a stream of words,” says Brian McBrearty, a musicologist who specializes in copyright litigation. “It has pitch, it has rhythm, it has harmonic context. Music is a rich mix of different elements, so it’s a bit more complex.”
The fair use debate
One key element in these two cases appears to be the concept of “fair use” in copyright law. Fair use is a provision of the law that permits unauthorized use of copyrighted works under a few different conditions, one of which is usually whether the new use alters the original work. The AI companies argue that using existing musical recordings is a “quintessential ‘fair use.'” However, legal experts suggest that fair use may not be as easy to prove with music-generating AI as it is with text-generating AI.
The Road Ahead
If these cases reach a court decision, they will likely set important precedents for the future of AI in the creative industries. Depending on the outcome, the issues discussed above could have far-reaching implications for art makers, technology companies, and consumers.
From the perspective of Tifft Merritt, a musician and longtime musician activist on a variety of legal issues, the concerns seem justified: “It’s not creative to take a lot of creative labor and copy it. It’s stealing in order to be our competitor and replace us.”
The music industry is currently at a critical juncture with ongoing debates and legal disputes. The main question is whether and how the current issues will be resolved. In addition, a decision must be made as to whether it will be possible to allow technological developments in AI music creation while preserving the copyrights of human artists.
(Photo: Lechon Kirub)
Also read: Elon Musk restarts legal battle with OpenAI with new allegations
Want to learn more about AI and Big Data from industry leaders? Check out the AI & Big Data Expo in Amsterdam, California, and London. This comprehensive event will be held alongside other major events such as Intelligent Automation Conference, BlockX, Digital Transformation Week, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo.
Find out about upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars hosted by TechForge here.
