Music Industry Sues 2 AI Startups; Defendants Cite Taylor Swift in Defense

When the music startup Suno first launched its AI-based music-creation tool a few months ago, it allowed users to transform simple text prompts into professionally polished songs. I jumped on the opportunity and created a reggaeton track that I shared with BGR’s editor-in-chief, and a cumbia track for a friend in Argentina, who was so impressed that she played it for her mom.

But even then, I thought: It’s only a matter of time before these guys face a lawsuit.

Suno’s tool is software, not an artist. It lacks consciousness or a human understanding of music genres. So, how could an AI tool produce a genuine synth-pop vibe, for instance? By repurposing existing music, of course. That’s why Suno, alongside Udio, another AI music startup, is now embroiled in a lawsuit filed by major record labels for “trampling the rights of copyright owners.”

The major record labels were quick to accuse these startups of copyright infringement.

What caught my attention was Suno’s bold response. The startup not only admitted to training its AI model on copyrighted music but also argued that it was legal under fair-use doctrine. In its defense, Suno invoked none other than Taylor Swift.

The Swift angle goes like this:

Suno acknowledged using copyrighted music to train its AI tool, which users can then employ to create entirely new and non-infringing music. This is similar to what Taylor Swift did when she re-recorded her old songs after losing the rights to the original masters.

As Matt Belloni of Puck News explained, “If copyright laws allow Swift to re-create and release nearly identical versions of her songs, how can record labels protest AI software that produces pop star-esque tunes? The industry has already accepted the reality of cover songs and soundalikes.”

In essence, nobody is suing Taylor for recording new versions of songs she no longer owns. Her new recordings are almost identical to the originals. On the other hand, Suno is arguing that it used copyrighted music to create entirely new, original music. The point is: If what Taylor did is legal under copyright law, then Suno’s actions should also be permissible.

Whether one agrees with this perspective or not, it’s clear that this case will set important precedents for generative AI. According to Suno’s response to the lawsuit, “The outputs of tools like Suno are not and cannot be even prima facie copyright infringements. The outputs generated by Suno are new sounds, informed by the ‘styles, arrangements, and tones’ of previous ones. They are per se lawful.”

This lawsuit promises to be a fascinating legal battle, one that will potentially shape the future rules for AI in the music industry.

Source: BGR, Puck News