Virginie Berger
Why Major Labels Are Suing AI Music Startups Udio and Suno for Mass Copyright Infringement
Major labels are suing AI music startups Udio and Suno for copyright infringement, accusing them of creating music that closely resembles copyrighted songs without authorization. The lawsuit highlights the ongoing battle between the music industry and generative AI companies over the unauthorized use of copyrighted material. Artists and labels are seeking legal precedents to protect their rights and interests in the face of AI-generated content that may infringe on their works.
Why Unauthorized Use is Not Fair Use Central to this case is the debate over fair use. Several key points argue against considering AI training as fair use: • Commercial Purpose: These AI products are designed for commercial gain that competes with the original works. • Market Harm: The AI-generated music undermines existing and potential sales, distribution, and licensing markets for the original recordings. • Precedent: Unlike Google Books, which did not create substitutes for the original works and did not harm the market, Udio and Suno’s outputs directly infringe on the market of the original music. (View Highlight)
Note: fair points
Most artists and independent labels lack the resources to challenge VC-backed AI companies, thus relying on major labels to establish clear legal precedents. (View Highlight)
Note: the inverse is also true - the public often relies on privately funded missions companies to push teh boundaries about what is 'far' - sometimes we push that boundary too much but we're just trying to find what's fair or far - with or without the i - and that's what we did with boundless - we sort of pushed back on what should be fair or not - and we didn't quite win financially but i do fundamentally believe we moved the needle on teh affordabilyt of textooks and uppiding the game a bit - just a bit but def some
plaintiffs are after a settlement; as with previous cases by visual artists, the point seems to be establishing a clear, bright legal line and halting nonconsensual use. (View Highlight)
The outcome of this case could shape the landscape of AI-generated content and copyright law for years to come, determining whether creativity remains a human endeavor or becomes a commodity churned out by machines trained on stolen work. (View Highlight)
The term "democratization" is seen as a misnomer for "access," misleading the public about the true impact of AI on creativity and the distribution of power. OpenAI, Udio, or Suno are doing the exact opposite of "democratizing creativity"—by flooding the market with cheap AI products, they are destroying the market for creative work, making it harder than ever for all but elite creatives to earn a living. (View Highlight)
Note: but i mean yes - the market for creative works i sgetting wy more competitive -