The music industry is no stranger to turbulence: from the shift from vinyl to MP3s (via cassettes and CDs) to the rise of digital streaming, it is an industry uniquely capable of adapting to change. Now, generative AI (GenAI) is the latest catalyst; capable of analysing, generating and performing music by ingesting patterns of human creativity. While GenAI’s potential is impressive, concerns remain about its impact on human artistry and the integrity of music rights. The question is clear: how can we harness it harmoniously?

Copyright & Infringement

The main ethical and legal questions about GenAI in music revolve around ownership and copyright. Who owns AI-generated music: the developer, the musician, or the AI itself? Additionally, is training GenAI on existing tracks without consent a copyright breach? Further, perhaps clearer, scope for infringement also arises where AI-generated music closely mimics copyrighted works.

The issue is currently playing out in federal US courts, where major labels are alleging that certain large language models were, without permission, trained on a vast number of copyright-protected sound recordings. The defendants claim that their use of these recordings falls under “fair use”, a creature of US law which acts as a defence to copyright infringement. 

Under UK copyright law, the closest concept to fair use is “fair dealing”; one of a very narrow group of exceptions to copyright protection which permits the copying of copyrighted material for non-commercial research and private study, criticism or review, or news reporting. The application of the fair dealing exception in this context remains untested in the UK, and the Labour government’s promises to strengthen UK AI regulation are yet to bear fruit.

In the EU, the AI Act requires “general purpose” AI models to comply with EU restrictions on training LLMs on copyrighted material without appropriate licences. Transparency obligations will also apply. Questions over whether the UK will follow suit remain unanswered, but there is a strong call for any domestic AI regulation to include robust protections for artists which prevent the use of copyright-protected material without permission. Ensuring that GenAI solutions are transparent and prioritising artist consent will be crucial to addressing these ethical concerns.

Image & likeness protections

In the UK, artists do not currently benefit from any specific protections in respect of their voice, image, name or likeness. While musicians have long dealt with human imitators, the scope of their concerns has swelled on a huge scale, shifting from minor concerns about the odd impression by a talented novice in a karaoke bar to AI-generated deepfakes which can convincingly mimic their voice, name, image and likeness in a music video which can spread like wildfire across the internet in mere hours.

AI-generated deepfakes have exposed serious vulnerabilities in the UK’s regulatory position which undermine artists’ ability to control their brands and protect their artistry. The UK’s All-Party Parliamentary Group on Music has recommended establishing a specific publicity or image right to protect musicians from misappropriation and false endorsement. Any legal framework in this vein will need to clearly define what constitutes a publicity or image right and should consider its interaction with existing intellectual property laws. 

Fair compensation

Traditional royalty systems, based on human authorship, are challenged by AI-generated music, necessitating new models for revenue distribution that fairly and proportionately compensate human artists (including those whose works contribute to AI training datasets), AI developers and other stakeholders. The issue is complicated further by GenAI’s efficiency: its ability to produce vast amounts of music quickly and cheaply can lead to market saturation. This influx of AI-generated content can dilute the availability of royalties for human artists, and introduces a relatively novel scope for AI-generated music to be used as a tool for streaming fraud. Ensuring the fair compensation of human artists should be a priority consideration for legislators in devising future GenAI regulation. 

Authors