The AI Drake track, which mysteriously went viral over the weekend, is the beginning of a problem that is somehow turning Google upside down.
The basics are: There’s a new track called “Heart on My Sleeve” by his TikTok user named @ghostwriter877, which includes his AI-generated vocals that sound like Drake or The Weeknd. The song mysteriously blew up out of nowhere over the weekend. This is fishy for a variety of reasons.
After the song went viral on TikTok, the full version was released on music streaming services like Apple Music and Spotify, as well as on YouTube. This prompted Drake and The Weeknd’s label, Universal Music Group, to release a harshly worded statement about the dangers of AI. Specifically, it states that the use of generative AI infringes copyright. A statement from James Murtah-Hopkins, UMG’s Senior Vice President of Communications, reads:
UMG’s success is due in part to embracing new technology and leveraging it for artists. This is something we have been doing for some time already with our own innovations in AI. But that being said, training generative AI with an artist’s music (which means both a breach of contract and a violation of copyright law) and infringing content created with generative AI on DSPs Questions arise about the availability of . As for which side of history all stakeholders in the music ecosystem want to be on: the side of artists, fans, and human creative expression, or the side of deepfakes, fraud, and denial of just compensation to artists.
These examples illustrate why platforms have a fundamental legal and ethical responsibility to prevent the use of their services in a way that harms artists. Platform Her partners recognize that they need to be part of the solution and are encouraged to work on these issues.
what happened Next is a bit of a mystery. The track was leaked from streamers like Apple Music and Spotify, who keep their libraries strictly under control and for whatever reason can pull the track, but user generated content with an established DMCA removal process. It is still available on the platforms YouTube and TikTok. According to a source familiar with the situation, UMG has not actually issued any takedowns to music streamers, and the streaming service has so far said nothing to the industry trade press. No Drake, no The Weeknd.it’s weird – it is Seem Like Ghostwriter977 pulled the track themselves to create hype, especially while the song remained on YouTube and TikTok.
but after that TikTok and YouTube have also removed the track. YouTube in particular removed it with a statement that it was removed due to a copyright notice from UMG.and this To file a copyright claim against YouTube, you need a copyright in something. “Heart on My Sleeve” is an original song and is not owned by UMG. It’s not a copy of a song in the label’s catalog.
So what did UMG claim?I was told the label was considering Metro Boomin Producer Tag An unauthorized sample at the beginning of the song, and that a DMCA takedown notice was issued specifically for that sample and only that sample.Not sure if that tag is actually a sample Or is it AI-generated itself, but YouTube doesn’t want to push the discussion any further.
“We removed the video after receiving a valid copyright notice for the samples contained in the video,” YouTube spokesperson Jack Malon said of the situation. “Whether or not the video was generated using artificial intelligence is our legal responsibility to provide an avenue for rightsholders to remove content that allegedly infringes their copyrighted language. does not affect the
As a follow-up, UMG issued separate per-URL takedowns to YouTube each time a copy of the song popped up. This is all based on Metro Boomin tags. Another music industry source said the company can’t really use his YouTube’s automated ContentID. Again, the system does not own the song and cannot claim it for that system to initiate a match. (Bizarrely, Ghostwriter977 reuploaded the track to its YouTube page after its initial removal, but it’s still there. Again, lots of fishy stuff going on here.)
If Ghostwriter977 uploads “Heart on my sleeve” without it Tagging that Metro Boomin would start a copyright war between Google’s future and YouTube’s future
Got it all? Well, here’s the problem: If Ghostwriter977 just uploaded “Heart on my sleeve” without it By tagging this Metro Boomin, you are starting a potentially zero-sum copyright war between the future of Google and the future of YouTube. Google needs to kneel for all generative AI projects, including Bard and the future of search. again It pisses off major YouTube partners like Universal Music, Drake, and The Weeknd. Let’s see it.
The first legal issue with using AI to create songs with vocals that sound like Drake’s is that the final product It’s not a copy of anything. Copyright law is very much based on the idea of making copies. As with melody interpolation, samples are copies. Music copyrights, in particular, are expanding aggressively in the streaming age, but are still based on all copies. actual songFake Drake is not a copy of a song from the Drake catalog, so there is absolutely no need to claim copyright. No copy.
Instead, UMG and Getty Images and publishers around the world are claiming it. Collect all training data AI is a copyright infringement, so ingesting the entire Drake catalog, all Getty photos, or any content is wall street journal An article (or whatever) to train the AI to produce more photos, Drake songs, or news articles. Reprinted without permissionThen the fake Drake song created by that AI would be an unauthorized “derivative work”. (or, well, pretend to understand. )
The problem is that Google, Microsoft, StabilityAI, and all the other AI companies have all decided that these training copies fair use — and by “fair” I don’t mean “fairness determined by discussion in the comments section of the internet”, but something like “fairness determined by a court for the case-by-case application of 17 U.S. Code” means “fair”. §107 presents his four-factor test of fair use, which is the most controversial and unpredictable in American political life. ”
I asked Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella about this when we talked about the new Bing powered by ChatGPT. “At the end of the day, the search is about fair use,” he said. “Other places need to think hard about what fair use is.
because there is no actual Precedent that scraping data to train AI is a fair use. All of these companies rely on ancient Internet lawsuits that enabled search engines and social media platforms to exist in the first place. It’s troubling, and it feels like all of these decisions can be picked up in what promises to be a decade-long lawsuit.
Now imagine you are Google. Google runs YouTube on one side and is racing to develop generative AI products like Bard on the other. Bard is… trained by scraping large amounts of data from the internet under the permissive interpretation of fair use. It will no doubt be challenged in a series of lawsuits. AI Drake is here and Universal Music Group, one of the world’s biggest labels, has made a strong-worded statement about generative AI and the need for his streaming partners to respect their copyrights and artists. announced. What is your occupation?
- if google agree Universal claims AI-generated music is an unauthorized derivative work based on unauthorized copying of training data, and YouTube should remove songs flagged as sounding like the artist and undermines its own fair use argument for Bard and all other products. The AI products it makes — it ruins the future of the company itself.
- if google Disagree Because even just training AI on existing works is fair use and protects their own AI efforts and the company’s future, but it could also lead to a number of lawsuits from Universal and potentially other labels. there is. , and indeed, you run the risk of losing access to Universal’s music on YouTube, putting YouTube at risk.
When I asked Google’s Maron about this dilemma, he said: This is a stakeholder issue, providing copyright owners with tools to make copyright claims and uploaders with tools to contest claims they believe were made in error. That’s why. Issues that cannot be resolved through our dispute process may ultimately require a court decision. ”
YouTube only exists because of a delicate dance that pleases rightsholders, but Google’s future depends on a broad interpretation of copyright law.
That’s the idea, but copyright claims on YouTube have been troublesome and controversial Before It’s an AI explosion, and there’s basically no way for Google to avoid major lawsuits.
YouTube exists because it’s the delicate dance that continues to please copyright holders and reward the music industry. But Google’s own future is betting on a broad interpretation of copyright law that every creative industry, from music to movies to news, detests and contests. until death. because, teeth Death: Generative AI tools promise to completely upend the market for nearly every commodity creative work, and these companies don’t have to sit back and let it happen.
The difference here is that last When this sort of thing happened, Google and YouTube were disruptive startups with killer products and little to lose. And we accepted lawsuits from Viacom and others as compensation for winning.Well, they… well, YouTube is literally cable companyAnd navigating the thorny world of content partnerships while chasing AI startups with more freedom to break things forces Google to make near-impossible choices at every turn.
