AI Advances Prompt Aggressive Legal Response from Music Industry: $350M Lawsuits Filed
As generative artificial intelligence (AI) technology continues to impact various industries, its influence is particularly evident in the music sector. Record labels are responding aggressively, with over 25 copyright infringement lawsuits filed against AI companies by artists, authors, news publishers, and other creative entities. Record companies, however, have taken the most assertive stance.
On Monday, leading record labels Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music filed lawsuits in federal courts in New York and Massachusetts against AI startups Suno AI and Uncharted Labs Inc., developer of Udio AI. These lawsuits accuse the startups of using copyrighted recordings to power their AI systems and seek nearly $350 million in damages, along with injunctions to prevent further infringement and possibly destroy models trained on their intellectual property.
Suno AI CEO Mikey Shulman defended the company’s technology, claiming it is “transformative” and generates new outputs rather than copying existing content. Shulman expressed disappointment at the record labels’ decision to file lawsuits instead of engaging in discussions.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), representing the labels, views the unregulated creation of AI-generated content as a significant threat. They argue that AI-generated tracks could compete with human-made music and disrupt the market for music samples. An RIAA spokesperson emphasized the importance of proper licensing in the streaming era, contrasting it with the actions of Suno and Udio.
These lawsuits follow last year’s actions by major music publishers against AI companies using their music for training purposes. The outcome of these cases could set important legal precedents. Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, national executive director of SAG-AFTRA, criticized the infringement on recorded music and supported legal actions against AI firms like LOVO, accused of misappropriating the voices of actors.
Suno and Udio, founded by former Google Deepmind researchers, offer tools for creating AI-generated tracks for personal and commercial use. These tools can produce songs in various styles based on user prompts, raising concerns about the potential for AI-generated music to flood the market and devalue original works.
The lawsuits highlight examples where AI tools allegedly produced songs resembling copyrighted works, such as Udio’s “Subliminal Hysteria,” which mirrors Green Day’s “American Idiot,” and an AI-generated clone of Mariah Carey’s “All I Want For Christmas Is You.”
The record companies argue that AI tools undermine the market for licensing sound recordings, potentially eliminating the need for licensing agreements. This legal battle may hinge on the concept of fair use, with the music industry aiming to prove that AI-generated content interferes with their ability to profit from licensing deals.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith may influence these cases. The ruling emphasized that commercial use of copyrighted works must be carefully balanced against fair use defenses.
Hundreds of musicians, including Billie Eilish, Nicki Minaj, and Stevie Wonder, have called on AI companies to respect artists’ rights. Sony Music Group recently sent letters to over 700 AI firms demanding they cease using its intellectual property for training.
As the music publishers’ lawsuit against Amazon’s Anthropic progresses, the industry awaits further legal clarity. Jen Jacobsen, executive director of the Artist Rights Alliance, stressed the importance of protecting artists’ rights against AI-driven infringement.
The outcome of these lawsuits could have far-reaching implications for the use of copyrighted materials in training AI systems and the future relationship between technology and creative industries.
