Generative AI: The future of the Music Industry?

What if the next Grammy is awarded to an artist that is completely generated using AI, from their voice, personality traits to images used for promotion, instead of Taylor Swift or Kendrick Lamar? How does AI generate these new songs? Is AI generated music the future of the music industry? Can these songs be copyrighted and who owns the copyright of these songs? Do the existing laws address songs generated using AI?

With AI advancing rapidly and its ability to produce quality output at a speed that is faster than humans, it is important to recognize how AI works to generate output. AI is trained to recognize patterns from various datasets and analysis them to rearrange the existing patterns in the dataset to generate something new. The use of AI is not limited to technological fields but it extends to art, literature, music, media, etc. which bring us to the question of whether the way that these AI softwares generate work infringes upon the copyright laws in place, or do the copyright laws even address AI generated work? Copyright protects original work of authorship. It is granted as a legal right that protects the original author and gives the creator rights to reproduce, distribute, perform, display their work. These laws are in place to protect the original artists from having their work used by others without their consent.

Generative AI does not make content from scratch the way we expect humans to create, with their knowledge and creativity but it creates content based on the prompts that the user puts in. They are trained to recognize patterns from the available datasets. These datasets include all the work that is available and usually that also includes the original copyrighted work of other artists. For example, if an AI is trained on songs of Taylor Swift, and I ask it to make a new song, it will not paste the exact same song of Taylor Swift, instead it will break down all the existing songs to understand the beats, and the way the chords of the song are arranged and then rearrange it to generate a new song.

AI does not understand creativity as it is a tool that is trained to understand patterns, which bring us to the question of derivative work. So, when you ask AI to generate something, it will be based on the prompt that the user puts in but the output generated will be based on or drawn inspiration from the work that already exists. Therefore, there needs to be a distinction between AI generated work and the original work created by artists. Which also brings us to the question of who owns the copyright of AI generated songs, is it the software company, the user that puts the prompt in, or will it still remain with the original artist that it has drawn inspiration from? There are also questions about if an artist trains AI on their previous works and uses it as a tool to help assist them for generating newer song will that be protected by Copyright.

In May 2023, a song had gone viral on TikTok and Spotify called ‘Heart on my Sleeve’ with the vocals of Drake and The Weeknd, it was neither created nor sung by either, but a user had generated this song using AI and had trained it on the previous works of these singers. Within a few days from its release, it gained over 9 million views but it was taken down when the Universal Music Group (UMG) had issued copyright takedown notices claiming that it infringed on the copyright of Drake and The Weeknd. Copyright gives owners the right to use, distribute, reproduce or perform their work but when it comes to AI generated works, it is hard to recognize if it will be copyrighted. In USA, the Copyright Office in 2023 had clarified that if a song is made completely with the use of AI and no human intervention then it cannot be copyrighted, but it also mentioned that, only if part of it is generated by AI and is used it for creative purposes, then it can qualify for Copyright.

The Velvet Sundown is a band that has recently gone viral for its catchy lyrics and tunes, but it was later revealed that it was all generated using AI from their songs to the images used for promotion. The band describes themselves as ‘a synthetic music project guided by human directive intervention’ but the situation got more complex as it was later revealed that the songs were created using AI and the project was a hoax. Some users questioned the creative authenticity and said that if a song is generated using AI, then streaming platforms should be obligated to put an AI tag in the description of the song. But since there are no legal obligations as of yet, one would not be able to tell if a song was AI generated, which continues to raise concerns on its authenticity. It also raises questions about authorship and the voices it has trained on without giving due credit.

Copyright Law, 1957, protects the original literary, artistic, musical, sound recordings, dramatic works from unauthorized use. The Indian law in section 2(d)(vi) defines “author” as “in relation to any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the person who causes the work to be created” which already anticipates the use of computer generated work but the question of who owns the copyright of AI generated music still remains unaddressed as it maybe be the software company, the user or the person who trained the model. The law also addresses when copyrighted material can be used without permission in Section 52 of the Act, and these situations include; for research, education, review or criticise, and report. It clearly does not talk about the use of commercial AI trained on copyrighted material. In 2024, Arijit Singh had filed a case against Codable Ventures LLP, where he sued them for using his voice to train AI to generate songs similar to his voice which is also known as voice cloning. Though it is a case about protection of personality rights, where the judge said that Mr. Singh had the right to protect his voice, persona, images and traits, it sets up a stage for future cases concerning AI.

As AI continuous to develop, it is important that the legal systems adequately address its use in creative fields so that it does not infringe on the rights of the authors and the artists. There also need to clarity regarding Copyright granted if AI is used in part of the work. If an artist trains AI on their previous work to help them generate new work using AI as a creative tool, will that work be able to qualify for copyright, and clarifying these confusions would help interpret Copyright laws and better protect artists. There need to be a classification on drawing inspiration and originality, which is essential to the laws of Copyright.

Thus, addressing the involvement of AI in creative fields help us to efficiently inspect the laws in place regarding Copyright and will also help us understand where law need to adapt to safeguard the rights of authors and artists so it does not leave them vulnerable to unauthorize use or benefit others at the expense of these artists. Generative AI is shaping the way Copyright laws are interpreted. Copyright laws also need to address the growing use of AI so there is transparency, and clarity regarding authorship.

Author: Aayushi Singh, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to [email protected] or at IIPRD. 

References:

• Generative AI Has an Intellectual Property Problem — HBR
• AI Created a Song Mimicking the Work of Drake and The Weeknd — Harvard Law School
• An AI-generated Band Got 1M Plays on Spotify — The Guardian
• AI Voice Cloning: How a Bollywood Veteran Set a Legal Precedent — WIPO
• S. Copyright Office on AI: Human Creativity Still Matters Legally — WIPO
• The Copyright Act, 1957 (India)