AI disrupts music industry: copyright suit highlights risks for labels, artists

This threatens their ability to maintain control over intellectual property and profit from it. For musicians, vocalists, and songwriters whose works are used to train AI models, there is a risk of being denied rightful compensation. Additionally, artists may lose control over how their music is utilized, including creating derivative works or new content generated by AI systems using their original material.

The Indian Music Industry (IMI), representing major music labels that have filed the suit, declined to comment on Mint’s queries since the case is sub judice. T-Series, Sony, and Saregama also declined to comment.

“The use of copyrighted music by OpenAI raises important legal and financial concerns for the music industry. For music labels, unauthorized AI training threatens their core revenue streams, as labels rely on licensing fees and royalties for sustainability. If AI models can freely train on copyrighted content without consent, labels risk losing control over their assets,” Bharadwaj Jaishankar, partner at IndusLaw, said. For artists and composers, the issue is both financial and creative. 

Read more: Clothes maketh the fan: India’s concert boom is music to apparel startups’ ears

AI-generated music trained on copyrighted tracks could undermine originality and under-value their work by flooding the market with AI-generated compositions that mimic existing styles. This could dilute artistic identity and lead to fewer opportunities for musicians, Jaishankar pointed out. Additionally, producers and sound engineers, who earn from licensing and music production fees, may see a decline in demand if AI-generated music becomes widely accessible.

AI disruptor in music industry

AI has demonstrated that it’s the biggest disruptor to the music industry and has the potential to fundamentally alter how it functions, according to Abhay Chattopadhyay, partner at Economic Laws Practice. “The manner in which the term ‘copyright’ is defined is liable to undergo a sea change in the immediate future, with debates taking place on who the first owner of copyright will be and the manner in which it can be exploited when the work is the product of AI,” he said. 

OpenAI’s use of copyrighted music strikes at the very heart of intellectual property rights administration, and without proper authorization from content or copyright owners, clearly has significant legal implications across various industries. “Content owners would contend that the unchecked proliferation of AI vis-à-vis utilization of copyrighted works without authorization or licensing could lead to an irreversible devaluation of their intellectual property, as the widespread, unlicensed use of their work diminishes its exclusivity and market value,” Chattopadhyay said. 

He cited the example of Canadian singer and rapper Drake, who released a song last year using an AI-generated version of Tupac Shakur’s voice, which was met with an immediate notice from the estate of Tupac Shakur. Drake took down the song from all platforms.

Zubin Morris, partner at Little & Co., said the primary ethical concern is that music labels and artists have not given explicit permission for their work to be used for AI training. This undermines the principle of fair compensation for creators, especially in an industry built on the labour and creativity of individuals. 

OpenAI’s defence of “fair use” could be viewed as a justification for exploiting creators’ work without offering fair compensation. This raises the question of whether AI companies can profit from using content they did not create, which can be seen as exploiting the labour of human creators for commercial gain without recognition. The ability of AI to mimic the style or output of a particular artist or music producer can be seen as diluting the originality of music, Morris said.

Copyright infringement

AI models can infringe on copyrights by generating music similar to existing works, Anupam Shukla, partner, Pioneer Legal, said. AI could automate many tasks in the music industry, leading to job losses for artists, producers, and other stakeholders. “This may also lead to AI’s monopoly over the music industry. AI models can perpetuate bias and discrimination if they are trained on data that is not representative of the diversity of the music industry,” Shukla said. 

He referred to the OpenAI copyright lawsuit as a landmark case that could have far-reaching implications for the news, media and music industry, and the broader AI landscape.

Read more: HC asks OpenAI to respond to plea by Indian music industry in ANI copyright case

“The usage of AI-generated music by OpenAI presents enormous challenges to music companies, musicians, and the entire value chain. AI copying existing works eliminates originality and artistic uniqueness, lowering the value of human innovation. The lack of human skill in writing and production weakens the status of composers, lyricists, and instrumentalists,” said Miket Kanakia, director of Novex Communications, a music licensing company. 

The main fear is loss of employment and opportunities for human creators since music produced by AI reduces demand for composers, lyricists, and performers and directs demand towards quick engineers instead of artists, Kanakia said. This undercuts creative talent and derails conventional composing methods. 

Additionally, deepfake technology and AI voice cloning threaten authenticity, with unauthorized duplication of an artist’s voice and style becoming possible. This can confuse consumers and be used for propaganda and deception, damaging an artist’s reputation.