Viral Song Created with Suno's genAI Removed From Streaming Platforms, Re-Released With Human Vocals (yahoo.com) 27
An EDM song by the British group Haven ran into trouble in October after it shared clips of upcoming song "I Run" on TikTok.
The song "was an overnight viral sensation online," writes Digital Music News — racking up millions of plays "even before it hit streaming services." (Although the Washington Post notes that "Record labels and TikTok users began questioning whether 'I Run' used an AI deepfake, modeled off British R&B singer Jorja Smith, for the vocals.")
Digital Music News picks up the story: The artist says he used his own voice to record the vocals, and then ran it through layers of processing and filtering to turn it into the female-sounding voice heard in the track. However, that filtering also included the use of the controversial genAI platform Suno — and that's what complicates things... [The article says later that Suno "is currently in the middle of a blockbuster lawsuit with the Big Three major labels over allegations of widespread copyright infringement of sound recordings used during the AI model training process."]
Meanwhile, the song was rapidly amassing listenership. It soared to #11 on the U.S. Spotify chart and #25 on Spotify globally. Videos using the song continued going viral on TikTok and Instagram, including one in which rapper Offset had apparently played the song during a Boiler Room set, which later turned out to be falsified. And then, as quickly as it appeared, "I Run" was taken down from streaming services, including Spotify and Apple Music. That was due, in part, to numerous takedown notices from The Orchard, the label to which Jorja Smith is signed, as well as the RIAA and IFPI. The takedown notices alleged various issues with the track, including the "misrepresentation" of another artist, as well as copyright infringement.
As a result, the song has also been withheld from the Billboard charts, including the Hot 100, on which it had been predicted to debut this week before the controversy. Billboard points out that it "reserves the right to withhold or remove titles from appearing on the charts that are known to be involved in active legal disputes related to copyright infringement that may extend to the deletion of such content on digital service providers."
The song itself has now been re-released with an all-human vocal track. But going forward will the music industry ever work with AI platforms? The Washington Post reports: "I Run" has taken off as record labels remain unsure of the extent to which they should welcome generative AI programs such as Suno or Udio into the industry. After the two AI music companies began growing in popularity, the three major labels — Sony Music, Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group — filed lawsuits against Suno and Udio, claiming that the AI companies have used the labels' sound recordings to train their model.
Since then, UMG and Warnerhave reached agreementsto work with Udio, ending their litigation... It comes shortly after all three major labels licensed their catalogue to Klay, a music streaming start-up that allows users to adjust songs using artificial intelligence. Major licensing organizations such as ASCAP and BMI shared that they would register songs that were partially AI-generated — but not fully generated ones.
Haven appears to present an uncomfortable edge case. While some AI-generated songs that sound broadly like other artists have been allowed to remain on streaming platforms, the voice in "I Run" appears to have been deemed too duplicative for comfort.
The song "was an overnight viral sensation online," writes Digital Music News — racking up millions of plays "even before it hit streaming services." (Although the Washington Post notes that "Record labels and TikTok users began questioning whether 'I Run' used an AI deepfake, modeled off British R&B singer Jorja Smith, for the vocals.")
Digital Music News picks up the story: The artist says he used his own voice to record the vocals, and then ran it through layers of processing and filtering to turn it into the female-sounding voice heard in the track. However, that filtering also included the use of the controversial genAI platform Suno — and that's what complicates things... [The article says later that Suno "is currently in the middle of a blockbuster lawsuit with the Big Three major labels over allegations of widespread copyright infringement of sound recordings used during the AI model training process."]
Meanwhile, the song was rapidly amassing listenership. It soared to #11 on the U.S. Spotify chart and #25 on Spotify globally. Videos using the song continued going viral on TikTok and Instagram, including one in which rapper Offset had apparently played the song during a Boiler Room set, which later turned out to be falsified. And then, as quickly as it appeared, "I Run" was taken down from streaming services, including Spotify and Apple Music. That was due, in part, to numerous takedown notices from The Orchard, the label to which Jorja Smith is signed, as well as the RIAA and IFPI. The takedown notices alleged various issues with the track, including the "misrepresentation" of another artist, as well as copyright infringement.
As a result, the song has also been withheld from the Billboard charts, including the Hot 100, on which it had been predicted to debut this week before the controversy. Billboard points out that it "reserves the right to withhold or remove titles from appearing on the charts that are known to be involved in active legal disputes related to copyright infringement that may extend to the deletion of such content on digital service providers."
The song itself has now been re-released with an all-human vocal track. But going forward will the music industry ever work with AI platforms? The Washington Post reports: "I Run" has taken off as record labels remain unsure of the extent to which they should welcome generative AI programs such as Suno or Udio into the industry. After the two AI music companies began growing in popularity, the three major labels — Sony Music, Warner Music Group and Universal Music Group — filed lawsuits against Suno and Udio, claiming that the AI companies have used the labels' sound recordings to train their model.
Since then, UMG and Warnerhave reached agreementsto work with Udio, ending their litigation... It comes shortly after all three major labels licensed their catalogue to Klay, a music streaming start-up that allows users to adjust songs using artificial intelligence. Major licensing organizations such as ASCAP and BMI shared that they would register songs that were partially AI-generated — but not fully generated ones.
Haven appears to present an uncomfortable edge case. While some AI-generated songs that sound broadly like other artists have been allowed to remain on streaming platforms, the voice in "I Run" appears to have been deemed too duplicative for comfort.
New laws (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Why? What problem is not covered by a law we already have?
Music is made by musicians, playing live (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a huge fan of AI. I predict that it will help us solve previously intractable problems in science, engineering, medicine and maybe even politics. Artists and musicians already do what they do beautifully. We need AI that does things we can't do.
Unfortunately, some are misusing AI tech to make "art" and "music". I accept the possibility that some of it may actually be good, but strongly suspect that most of it will be artless, mercenary slop. Even worse, the general public tends to follow silly fads, and this one may be no different. I hope it fades fast.
Viewed from a different perspective, this is not new. Pop music has effectively been made by a system that acts very much like AI. A highly skilled team of trendmongers figures out what's popular and hires a team of composers, lyricists, arrangers, engineers, choreographers, video directors and studio players to copy it almost exactly, including just enough difference to avoid copyright lawsuits. This is very nearly the same method that LLMs use.
Musicians will continue making music, it's part of our essence. The music business is a different story
Re: (Score:1)
Presumably you mean LLMs. LLMs cannot think; cannot synthesize new ideas; thus cannot solve unsolved problems. LLMs are not the path to AGI.
Recording music for audiences is dead (Score:2)
Recording music will still have a place as a hobby where the artists engage in this activity because they enjoy the process, and it can be helpful in connecting with the audience who attends live performances.
But recording music for the purpose of creating music that people will listen to is over. The people listening to music don't care if it was created by AI or not, and AI can do a better job of appealing to their tastes than a human can.
Re: (Score:2)
But recording music for the purpose of creating music that people will listen to is over. The people listening to music don't care if it was created by AI or not, and AI can do a better job of appealing to their tastes than a human can.
Nonsense. Many of us who listen to music enjoy being surprised. Simply having our known tastes endlessly catered to becomes tedious.
Re: (Score:2)
But recording music for the purpose of creating music that people will listen to is over. The people listening to music don't care if it was created by AI or not, and AI can do a better job of appealing to their tastes than a human can.
Nonsense. Many of us who listen to music enjoy being surprised. Simply having our known tastes endlessly catered to becomes tedious.
Surely you must understand that puts you in a very small minority. Even the briefest of a perusal of popularity charts should make that obvious. Check out Rick Beato's latest take on this subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's Rick Beato and why would I care what he says? I think your "very small minority" is a lot bigger than you think. Look at the size of audiences that people like Taylor Swift draws to concerts. She may be something of an outlier, but there are other "outliers" who can also fill multiple stadiums for concerts. People like good music. I followed a link mentioned below for the "I Run" and found it to be garbage and killed the tab about 30 seconds in ... not my kind of music and I like to think I enjoy a fa
Re: Recording music for audiences is dead (Score:1)
I wonder if the AI is trying to tell us something with the song title. It's a little similar to "it puts the lotion on its skin". Perhaps the next song will be "Human runs from Robot" ?
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, Google [spreadprivacy.com], YouTube, Facebook/Twitter/etc, should be the worst possible place for you?
It's constantly learning from you, and serving the content that reaffirms your views and biases to keep you engaged [youtu.be].
In essence, living in a filter bubble [ted.com].
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, Google [spreadprivacy.com], YouTube, Facebook/Twitter/etc, should be the worst possible place for you?
It's constantly learning from you, and serving the content that reaffirms your views and biases to keep you engaged [youtu.be].
In essence, living in a filter bubble [ted.com].
Exactly, which is why I listen to human-curated free-form radio.
Re: (Score:2)
AI can do a better job of appealing to their tastes than a human can.
AI has its place in replacing live music. I don't really want to share an elevator with a symphony orchestra.
But that's about it.
The song (Score:3, Informative)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Thanks for the link to check it out. Yuck, whoever did that can keep it. I had to close the tab after only 30 seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I believe that's the re-released non-AI version, which sounds awful.
The only fix is to hire Jorja (Score:2)
Come on, Haven, do the right thing and hire Jorja to sing on your track. Split the profits. Don't rip off talented musicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Just wondering if there's a correlation: did you take Apple's side in the "look and feel" lawsuit vs Microsoft?
\o/ (Score:1)
\o/ (Score:1)
I just listened to it - IMO, complete removal of the vocal track would make for a better song.
What's one more mutilation on top of the others? (Score:1)
The "Pop" genre is so damn weird. I remember hearing a song by Cher (I think about 20 years ago?) and she was totally roboticized, turned into some bizarre inhuman machine (*), and the above quote just tickles the fuck out of me. Within that con
Session vocalists (Score:2)
Singing is pretty much a commodity service now. With autotune almost anyone can do it, but you can hire a professional for not a lot of money. It's good that people get work instead of AI slop, but also the rates are very low and it's a side gig at most.
The people who making a living from it tend to have other talents too. Song writing, stage performance, looking conventionally attractive, building up a social media following, etc.
AI probably won't change much in that respect.
Re: (Score:2)
Who gets the royalties? (Score:2)
If AI-generated music can't be copyrighted, who gets to collect royalties?
Re: (Score:3)
No one. Except maybe a minor amount to the person who wrote the prompt (the only copyrightable part of the process). That's why streaming services are so keen to promote it heavily as it means they don't have to pay anything for the song.
That's probably the real reason why the song is being re-recorded. The AI generated version would technically not be under copyright, which means this very popular song could be used freely as it was
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree. But...somebody is getting paid. Without royalties, it's the streaming services themselves.