The UK music industry’s trade association, British Phonographic Industry (BPI), has initiated legal action against AI “deepfake” music technology.
The BPI have taken action against Voicify, who they allege have improperly used copyrighted material to create technology capable of mimicking the voices of artists such as Rihanna, Chris Martin, and Phil Collins. BPI has so far issued Voicify with a legal notice but is gearing up to bring formal legal proceedings against them. The association is arguing that using copyrighted material to train AI is unlawful.
AI “deepfake” technology
Voicify is the parent of an online service called Jammable, which claims to be “the Number 1 platform for AI music.”[i] This enables users to generate songs by blending the voices of well-known artists and their own personal recordings. By uploading their own vocals to the site, which are then blended with the artists’ voice, the user gets an audio clip which comes out sounding like the artist they are trying to mimic singing their words.
Jammable also allows custom-audio creations which imitate much more than just singers, however, and its website features many actors, politician, cartoon characters, and other celebrities whose voices can be used.
It is not just Voicify who have come under scrutiny recently. Universal Music have said that they have found fraudsters using AI to sell fake pre-release tracks for as much as $30,000, and Sony Music have stated that they have sent almost 10,000 takedown notices concerning AI deepfakes.
Copyright
BPI has raised concerns that the AI technology potentially incorporates elements of the artists’ original copyright works. It is hard to see how the platform intentionally using artists’ voices could have been developed without using these original recordings to train the AI to replicate them.
Such use of copyright materials is unlawful in England where there is no express permission given by the holder of the copyright. There are some exceptions and defences, however, none are applicable to Voicify.
BPI’s general counsel, Kiaron Whitehead, stressed that artists should be compensated for their artistic efforts and their creativity should be valued and protected.
Many artists and music publishers have recently become more protective against AI technologies which are imitating artists’ voices and lyrics without authorisation.
BPI has given Voicify the opportunity to admit the claims and end their infringing activities, in which case they will pursue no further legal action.
Personal data
There are additional concerns which are raised here, beyond copyright. The sound of an artist’s voice itself is not capable of being protected by copyright. However, the sound may qualify as personal data. In such a scenario, unauthorised use might constitute a violation of data privacy regulations.
Conclusion
Currently, the No AI Fraud Act is being considered by Congress in America. The Act proposes fines for unapproved soundalike releases. In the EU, the AI Act, which won’t become fully applicable for another few years, introduced broad new regulations governing the use of AI, and mandatory training disclosures for AI systems.
The hope of the industry is that cases such as, alongside better regulation, will establish a new standard of practice in the industry, whereby such obvious unauthorised use of copyright works to train AI will be recognised as unlawful.
This would set the stage for an efficient system of licensing for artists’ works to be authorised for these uses and allow the artists and their publishers to be paid for their work. It would also ensure a more efficient system of enforcement against unauthorised use of copyright works.
The Me in Media Law 
Leave a comment