While several individuals online express fascination with the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to clone the vocals of some of the biggest dancehall artists from Jamaica, the UK music industry is taking a stand against AI “deepfake” technology.
The first legal action targets a startup, Voicify, for producing songs mimicking the voices of artists like Amy Winehouse, Rihanna, and Drake. The British Phonographic Industry (BPI), representing the industry, accuses Voicify of copyright infringement by using copyrighted works to develop its technology.
Legal action looms as BPI prepares to defend its members’ rights in the record industry, asserting that training AI with copyrighted material is unlawful.
Voicify, operating as Jammable, has been offered a chance to avoid litigation by ceasing copyright infringement. The company lets you create AI music covers with your favorite artists such as Vybz Kartel, Valiant, Kanye West, Drake, Taylor Swift and many more in seconds!
The Kartel, Movado & Aidonia version Sick yffff
— Esteban 🦦 (@smithjr49) March 18, 2024
technology lowkey scary tho pic.twitter.com/v4VWAaU1Jg
The latest action by the BPI comes days after the European Parliament passes the landmark AI Act, where music industry stakeholders get legislation to help with robust enforcement of copyright provisions.
The law’s approval marks a significant step in regulating AI development and usage, aiming to balance innovation with public protection. Notably, it addresses concerns about the unauthorized use of copyrighted material in AI training, a critical issue for the music industry. Jonathan Coote, a music and AI lawyer, from UK law firm Bray & Krais highlights the law’s requirement to label deep fakes as such, although challenges remain in preventing their circulation.
“Crucially, this appears to apply even if the training was carried out in another more lenient jurisdiction,” Coote told Music Business Worldwide.
Several music trade organizations such as CISAC, IFPI, et al, in a joint statement said, “We call on the European Parliament to continue to support the development of responsible and sustainable AI by ensuring that these important rules are put into practice in a meaningful and effective way, aligned with the objectives of the regulation.”
The Italian MEP Brando Benifei, co-rapporteur on the Internal Market Committee added, “We finally have the world’s first binding law on artificial intelligence, to reduce risks, create opportunities, combat discrimination, and bring transparency.”
Romanian MEP Dragos Tudorache, co-rapporteur on the Civil Liberties Committee: “Much work lies ahead that goes beyond the AI Act itself. AI will push us to rethink the social contract at the heart of our democracies, our education models, labor markets, and the way we conduct warfare. The AI Act is a starting point for a new model of governance built around technology.”
The US House of Representatives’ deliberation on the No AI FRAUD Act underscores a global effort to protect intellectual property rights in AI development. While the EU law is a positive step, ambiguities raise concerns, prompting trade organizations to call for effective implementation aligned with the regulation’s objectives.
Despite criticisms and lobbying efforts from tech companies, key lawmakers defend the law’s balance and promote it as a global template for responsible AI governance.
Over in Canada, last Thursday, March 14, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) and Music Canada announced a significant victory in their ongoing campaign against streaming manipulation services, which they say pose a threat to artists’ revenues. Following a successful legal complaint, a group of prominent Canada-based streaming manipulation sites has been taken offline.
IFPI, alongside Music Canada, filed a complaint with the Canadian Competition Bureau concerning nine connected consumer-facing streaming manipulation services, notably operating through the domain MRINSTA.com. As a result, all nine sites and their sub-domains have been shut down.
These sites were found to be involved in selling artificial ‘plays,’ ‘views,’ or ‘streams’ on DSPs, misleading consumers and distorting their impression of content worth their attention. Lauri Rechardt, Chief Legal Officer at IFPI, emphasized that streaming manipulation harms artists, consumers, and distorts the fan experience.
