Over the past year, record labels and several technology companies have partnered to facilitate the creation of new artificial intelligence (AI) products. There’s just one problem: Artists haven’t agreed to participate.
While Universal Music Group NV, Sony Music and Warner Music Group Corp own millions of songs and can license their catalogues to the highest bidder, AI companies can’t manipulate those tracks without the assent of the artists who initially recorded them.
Many musicians, including Madonna and SZA, remain uninterested in the technology, if not outright hostile toward it. They are reluctant to license their voices and likenesses to power new tools with uncertain futures.
“Madonna does not want her music trained on,” manager Guy Oseary said on the Tim Ferriss podcast. “Don’t care what you want to pay her. She’s very clear. I do not want my music to be trained on. I want my music to be its own thing.”
Even those artists who are open to working with AI aren’t rushing to do deals. They and their representatives want to first establish the financial and legal framework for a new technology to ensure artists get paid for new products and have the power to protect their name, image and likeness.
Streaming services and record labels have been racing to prove to investors that they have a winning AI strategy. Concerns about the technology’s potential impact on the business have led to a steep drop in the share prices of Universal, Warner and Spotify Technology SA.
Warner, Universal and Merlin, which represents independent distributors and labels, have signed agreements with Udio, an AI-powered platform that lets users generate songs through a typed prompt. Warner also made a deal with Suno Inc, which offers similar features but allows users to download and share their music.
Universal and Merlin are working with Spotify to launch its AI remix feature. Prior to inking these agreements, both Universal and Warner had sued the startups over alleged copyright infringement. Sony Music has taken a more judicious approach to dealmaking and is still in active litigation against both AI companies.
These companies made all these announcements without first securing commitments from artists. While executives say the talent has agreed to participate, they haven’t disclosed any names. Universal Music Group chief digital officer Michael Nash said on a July 30 call with analysts that the company has “been in conversations with thousands of our artists and their estates for a long time,” and has convinced many to opt in, while Warner Music Group chief executive officer Robert Kyncl told analysts on August 5 that the company is trying to create an easy process for securing artist permission.
“It’s a bit complex, and it’s laborious, and we’re all working through it,” Kyncl said. “But it is something that we all have to go through, and we are going through.”
The labels likely can license music that they own for training without artist permission, though some rightsholders are still seeking artist permission given the sensitivities around the technology. In June, The Atlantic published standard training data that AI companies use for their music models. The searchable database exposed the many artists whose works built popular AI technology. SZA, a prominent R&B singer, bashed the tech companies and artists that use AI in response.
“There’s nothing you could ever say to me to make this okay,” she wrote on Instagram.
These AI companies don’t just want to train their products. They want to allow users to generate new music based on popular songs. Companies want to enable users to invoke artists’ names and likenesses, like, “Write a song about a day at the beach in Taylor Swift’s voice.” Artists have been even more hesitant to allow this, partially because their voices are singular and because they worry about control over what people could use their voices to say.
“This whole thing could be a pet rock. How many people want to pay extra to make weird remixes of Time After Time or American Pie?” said Jordan Bromley, the head of the entertainment practice at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, which represents many top artists and music companies. “It provides a moment to discuss and set the market as it relates to artist consent, clarity and compensation.” – Bloomberg
