In June this year, controversial artificial intelligence music startups Suno and Udio were sued by major record labels for allegedly using recordings from major record labels to train their systems without permission.
Now, in answers filed in a U.S. federal court on Thursday (August 1), two artificial intelligence companies all but admitted that they used copyrighted recordings from the record labels that sued them.
For example, Suno explains that its “training data consists essentially of all music files of reasonable quality accessible on the open internet, subject to paywalls, password protection, etc., combined with similar available text descriptions.”
However, both Suno and Udio argued that the copyrighted material they used – owned by Sony Music Group, universal music group and Warner Music Group – It falls within the “fair use” exemption of U.S. copyright law.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which represents the U.S. recorded music industry, quickly pushed back, calling the companies’ admission of using copyrighted music to train artificial intelligence a “significant concession” in a high-stakes legal battle.
“After months of evasion and misinformation, the defendants finally admitted that they had mass-copied artists’ recordings without permission. This was a significant concession to the facts they had spent months trying to conceal, An admission is only made when forced by litigation,” an RIAA spokesman said.
“Their industrial-scale infringement does not qualify as ‘fair use.’ As the Supreme Court just held in its landmark Warhol Foundation case, stealing an artist’s life’s work, extracting its core value, and then repackaging it In direct competition with the original, that’s unfair.
Suno and Udio argued that their use of the material fell within the “fair use” exemption and accused the record companies of filing the lawsuit to stifle competition.
“What the major labels really don’t want is competition,” said Suno’s response, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and can be read in full here.
“Suno sees musicians, teachers and everyday people using new tools to create original music, while record labels see a threat to their market share.”
Suno’s response added that the lawsuits are “an attempt to abuse intellectual property rights to protect existing businesses from competition and reduce the scope of talent capable of creating new forms of expression.”
Udio’s response was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and can be read in full here.
The RIAA spokesperson added that Suno and Udio “have an existing legal path to bringing their products and tools to market – obtaining consent before using their work, as many of their competitors already do. In these cases, unfair competition is the immediate issue.
“Their vision for the ‘future of music’ is clearly one where fans will no longer appreciate the music of their favorite artists because those artists can no longer make a living.”
“After months of evasion and misinformation, the defendants finally admitted that they had made mass copies of artists’ recordings without permission.”
Spokesperson for the Recording Industry Association of America
They continue: “While the defendants continue to intentionally mislead, this case involves the unlicensed copying to train their model, not the created output. Even if they misled, they committed deception. Suno claims that using artist-specific cues “Does not represent what real people do with Suno” and “flagrantly violates the platform’s rules of use” and instead “encourages originality”.
“But if that’s true, then why, in this presentation to venture capitalists, did Suno’s co-founder use “Hendrix” in the video as a cue for his own use of his platform to demonstrate its capabilities?”
Both Suno and Udio’s answers were submitted by attorneys representing artificial intelligence companies. Latham & Watkinsthe same law firm is defending Spotify in a lawsuit filed against it Machinery Licensing CollectiveSpotify has decided to reduce the amount of mechanical royalties it pays in the U.S. because it now considers its premium premium music subscriptions “bundled” with audiobooks.
The Suno and Udio lawsuits share much of the same language and make similar arguments.
They argue that artificial intelligence music generators like Suno and Udio make “intermediate” copies that are “never seen or heard by anyone,” and courts have previously ruled that such intermediate copies fall within the scope of fair use.
They cited precedents, including a ruling that it was legal to create thumbnails of copyrighted photos for the purpose of creating an image search engine and that it was legal to incorporate student papers into plagiarism tools.
“Make no mistake: the output here is generally non-infringing,” Suno’s response said.
While music publishers, authors and news organizations have previously filed copyright lawsuits against AI developers, the lawsuits against Suno and Udio are believed to be the first brought by recorded music rights holders.
In a lawsuit filed in late June, the record company Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and Warner Recordset al provided evidence that both Suno and Udio produced material that was in some cases almost identical to the copyrighted tracks, e.g. Michael Brayof swing and Chuck Berryof Johnny B. Goode.
“What the major labels really don’t want is competition.”
Suno responds to copyright lawsuit filed by record label
In its response, the AI company claimed that the record label violated the AI generator’s terms of service and may have infringed the publishing copyright of those songs by prompting the tool to create output similar to existing songs.
“For example, the plaintiff apparently entered the complete lyrics of the song Johnny B. Goode, following the prompt, “1950s rock ‘n’ roll, rhythm and blues, 12-bar blues, rock ‘n’ roll, energetic male vocalist, singer-guitarist,” and found that the output “replicates the highly distinctive rhythm of the original choir and uses the same Rhythm”. Suno responded with the melodic shape of the phrase “Go Johnny, go, go.”
But that doesn’t mean the version of the song Suno trained on is a recording owned by UMG Recordings, since “there are countless other recordings of the song,” Suno said.
“When the plaintiff’s lawyer prompted Suno to provide the lyrics of the musical work, Johnny B. Goodethey…obviously committed prima facie evidence Infringement of the rights of these third-party publishers.
“Make no mistake: the output here is generally non-infringing.”
Suno responds to copyright lawsuit filed by record label
The response cited a 1971 change in copyright law that protected sound recordings (previously only published music was protected by copyright law), but Suno and Udio claimed that created significant leeway for record companies to create music with similar Sounds a cover of the song to the original recording.
Suno responded: “What’s interesting is that the fundamental reason this legal provision exists is because the record labels want it.”
Both lawsuits show record companies are fighting a losing battle against technological advancement.
Suno and Udio responded: “When records first began to gain commercial traction in the 1930s, musicians lobbied aggressively against their use, warning that replacing orchestras with pre-recorded performances would alienate real musicians ‘Into the ‘human scrapheap’.
“When synthesizers became popular in the 1960s, leaders of the American Federation of Musicians passed a resolution banning the technology out of concern that it would ‘be used to replace instrumentalists.'”global music business
