Warner Music Group has sent a letter to tech companies declaring that its content can only be used to train AI with the music company’s permission.
According to Warner’s letter, which can be read in full here, “All parties must obtain an express license from WMG to use… any creative works owned or controlled by WMG or to link to or ingest such creative works in connection with the creation of datasets, as inputs for any machine learning or AI technologies, or to train or develop any machine learning or AI technologies (including by automated means).”
Warner’s move indicates that a common strategy could be blossoming amongst the major music companies in their approach to AI, after Sony Music Group sent a letter to some 700 AI developers and digital service providers (DSPs) in May.
Sony notified those companies that it is officially “opting out” of having its proprietary content used in the training of artificial intelligence models.
Warner says this includes, but is not limited to, “reproducing, distributing, publicly performing, ripping, scraping, crawling, mining, recording, altering, making extractions of, or preparing derivative works” of its content.
The letter adds that Warner “will take any necessary steps to prevent the infringement or other violations of our artists’ and songwriters’ creative works and rights.”
In both the case of Warner and Sony, the “opt-out” letters are in reaction to a European Union regulation that allows “reproductions and extractions of lawfully accessible works” for data mining, unless the owners of those works explicitly state they are opting out of having their content used in this way.
“We will take any necessary steps to prevent the infringement or other violations of our artists’ and songwriters’ creative works and rights.”
Warner Music Group
This “opt-out rule,” which the EU passed into law in 2019, was recently adopted as part of the EU’s AI Act, the democratic world’s first comprehensive set of laws regulating the development and use of AI technology.
For the music industry, such an opt-out rule is something of a consolation prize. Many in the industry have been calling for an “opt-in” rule, under which the law assumes that copyrighted materials can’t be used to train AI, unless a rights holder grants permission.
Such a rule would take the burden off of rights holders to protect their copyrights, and place the burden on AI developers to ensure that they are complying with copyright laws in training their AI models.
“Opt-out regimes fundamentally undermine copyright protections by shifting the burden to obtain a license away from users,” the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) said in a submission last year to the US Copyright Office.
However, the opt-out rule only applies to AI companies working in or providing their services in the European Union. In the US and other jurisdictions, laws on the use of copyrighted materials in training AI haven’t been adopted, leaving it to copyright holders to pursue the matter through the courts.
One key development in this took place last month, when recording companies owned by the three major music companies – Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group– sued AI music generation platforms Suno and Udio for allegedly infringing their copyrights in training their AI models.
The complaints filed in US federal courts included music sheets showing striking similarities between Suno- and Udio-generated music and copyrighted works by such artists as Michael Bublé, Mariah Carey, James Brown, B.B. King, ABBA and the Beach Boys, among others.
The lawsuits have been described as the first of their kind to be filed by music recording companies, although publishers have previously filed copyright lawsuits against AI developers, most notably a lawsuit from Universal Music Publishing Group, ABKCO and Concord against AI developer Anthropic.
In their statements of defense, and in submissions to the US Copyright Office, AI companies have argued that the use of copyrighted materials to train AI should be granted a “fair use” exemption to copyright laws.
Music companies and their legal teams have vehemently opposed this, arguing that AI developers whose technologies replicate copyrighted works, or whose products compete with music companies in the market, can’t be granted a “fair use” exemption to use copyrighted works.
So far, US courts haven’t ruled on the question of whether or not training AI on copyrighted works amounts to fair use.
“If artists and songwriters want to lean into [AI], they should benefit from their participation. If they want to be protected, that should be their right too.”
Robert Kyncl, Warner Music Group
Warner Music Group CEO Robert Kyncl has addressed the issue of AI on numerous occasions, making it clear that Warner sees AI technology as an opportunity to improve artists’ creative processes, and potentially to create new revenue streams, but that artists must retain the right to choose whether their music is used in any way by AI.
“Our position on AI is simple. If artists and songwriters want to lean into it, they should benefit from their participation. If they want to be protected, that should be their right too,” Kyncl wrote in an op-ed published by MBW late last year.
With Sony and Warner now both taking the opportunity, under EU law, to declare their IP off-limits to AI training without permission, one question comes to mind: Will Universal Music Group be next?Music Business Worldwide
