When faced with a lawsuit, many technology companies instinctively turn to disclaimer strategies as their primary defense mechanism. Present a cost-effective justification for the company’s actions that complies with all applicable laws and regulations. Music AI startups Udio and Suno have taken an unorthodox approach by publicly acknowledging and taking responsibility for the very issues they were initially accused of, thereby potentially diffusing tension and uncertainty surrounding their practices.
Audio and Suno were accused of infringing copyrights in June, after music labels including Common Music Group, Warner Music Group, and Sony Music Group claimed that the AI models developed by these companies scraped copyrighted content from the internet. In court, Suno candidly admitted its neural networks scrape copyrighted materials: “It’s no secret that tens of thousands of recordings our model was trained on likely included copyrighted works owned by this case’s plaintiffs.” This is because its training data consists mainly of low-quality music files readily available on the open web, which almost certainly comprise millions of unlawful copies of songs.
Despite the controversy surrounding its practices, the company argues that its data scraping activities fall under the broad umbrella of fair use.
“It’s legitimate under copyright law to create a copy of a protected work as part of a behind-the-scenes technological process, hidden from the public, for the purpose of developing an ultimately non-infringing new product,” the statement claims. While arguing that AI-generated tracks lack samples, the claim suggests it’s permissible to obtain and use all such tracks without legal concern, as they don’t contain copyrighted material?
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which launched the legal action, characterized the defendants’ conduct as “calculatingly evasive” and “deceptively manipulative,” reflecting a predictably stern reaction to their submissions. “Their massive-scale copyright infringement lacks the legitimacy of ‘fair use’.” The notion of pilfering an artist’s masterpiece, distilling its essence, and rebranding it to directly rival the authentic creations is nothing short of dishonest. The defendants had a straightforward, legitimate means of getting their products and tools to market: obtain permission beforehand, just like many of their competitors have already done? Competitors who are not playing by the rules will face immediate challenges.
Regardless of what lies ahead in this ongoing legal dispute, get ready to settle in with a bucket of popcorn. It ought to be wild.
