Generative AI sent to the dock in RIAA ‘BBL Drizzy’ legal action
25 Jun 2024
Intellectual property rights in the age of artificial intelligence (AI) is once again the battleground chosen to stress test the legitimacy of generative models. In the latest skirmish the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has filed copyright infringement lawsuits against two AI music services, Suno and Udio. The lawsuits, filed in US federal courts in Massachusetts and New York, allege that these companies have been using copyrighted sound recordings without permission to train their AI models.
Generative AI is having its legitimacy as an artistic tool tested in the latest recording industry court filing.
RIAA, represents major music labels including Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, and Warner Records, argues that Suno and Udio's actions constitute a “massive infringement” of copyrighted works.
The music industry has long been grappling with the challenges posed by new technologies, with AI, particularly in the realm of music generation, causing the latest round of headaches.
While AI offers exciting possibilities for creativity and innovation, it also raises concerns about the unauthorised use of copyrighted material.
"The music community has embraced AI, and we are already partnering and collaborating with responsible developers to build sustainable AI tools centred on human creativity that put artists and songwriters in charge," said RIAA chairman and CEO Mitch Glazier in the association’s press release.
"But we can only succeed if developers are willing to work together with us. Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it's 'fair' to copy an artist's life's work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or pay set back the promise of genuinely innovative AI for us all."
AI Copyright lawsuit
The two lawsuits seek to stop Suno and Udio from using copyrighted sound recordings without permission and to obtain damages for the alleged infringements.
According to the RIAA, these actions are not meant to stifle AI innovation but rather to ensure that it develops responsibly and ethically, with respect for the rights of artists and copyright holders.
The complaints detail the process by which Microsoft Copilot-affiliated service Suno, and Udio allegedly used copyrighted sound recordings to train their AI models.
This process involves copying massive numbers of sound recordings, "scraping" them from digital sources, and using them to train the AI models to generate music that imitates the qualities of genuine human sound recordings.
The argument here is that this unauthorised copying and use of copyrighted material constitutes a clear violation of copyright law.
Specific examples of instances where Suno and Udio's AI models generated music that closely resembled copyrighted works are also listed.
In the complaint against Suno instances where the AI generated music that closely resembled Chuck Berry's Johnny B. Goode, Bill Haley & His Comets' Rock Around the Clock, and other well-known songs are cited.
While the Udio case similarly cites instances where the AI generated music that closely resembled The Temptations' My Girl, Green Day's American Idiot, and other popular songs.
These examples are presented as evidence that Suno and Udio's AI models were trained on copyrighted material without permission.
What did I just doooooo ������#bbldrizzybeatgiveaway https://t.co/Q00t0trUxt pic.twitter.com/fDKd8x1CRv
— Madison McFerrin (@madmcferrin) May 6, 2024
BBL Drizzy a cornerstone
Legal action against Udio was seemingly sparked by the recent Drake and Kendrick Lamar musical conflict.
A Billboard article discussed the emergence of AI in music production, highlighted by a viral beat called BBL Drizzy created by super producer Metro Boomin using AI-generated vocals and instruments.
The beat gained attention when it was revealed that the soulful singing voice was not real but synthesized by the AI startup.
Metro Boomin put the beat out for free with a global challenge for artists to use the beat with the best judge track winning an additional exclusive production by the producer and a $10,000 cash prize.
update to the contest!
winner gets $10k and a beat
runner up gets a beat as well#bbldrizzybeatgiveaway
— Metro Boomin (@MetroBoomin) May 6, 2024
This event demonstrated the potential of AI to revolutionise music production, especially in creating samples that are often difficult to clear legally.
It also highlights legal and ethical implications of using AI in music. While AI can simplify rights management, it raises questions about copyright and training data.
Typically, artists need to obtain permission from copyright holders to use samples in their music, but AI could potentially bypass this process by creating soundalikes or copycats of existing songs.
This could disrupt the established sample licensing business and potentially harm copyright holders.
Backing from music community
The cases are also facing a swell of support for action against AI scraping from various organisations and individuals within the music community, including the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM), the American Federation of Musicians of the US and Canada, the Artist Rights Alliance (ARA), the Black Music Action Coalition (BMAC), and the Human Artistry Campaign (HAC).
These groups have highlighted the importance of protecting creators' rights and ensuring that AI technology is used in ways that benefit both artists and the industry.
The outcome of these lawsuits could have significant implications for the future of AI in the music industry and may set a precedent for how AI companies interact with copyrighted material and could shape the development of legal frameworks for AI-generated music.
As AI continues to advance, finding a balance between innovation and protecting artists' rights will be crucial for the sustainable growth of the music industry.
