The BPI is calling for ‘clear’ streaming labels on tracks pumped out with AI. Photo Credit: Omar Lopez-Rincon
Is it time for Spotify and others to begin labeling artificial intelligence music accordingly? British Phonographic Industry (BPI) chief strategy officer Sophie Jones believes so and is calling for “clear” disclaimers on tracks made solely with AI.
Jones just recently voiced that position when speaking with The Guardian, which put out a fresh piece concerning The Velvet Sundown. As many are well aware, the “synthetic music project” is generating millions of streams and, one media wave later, closing in on 1.4 million Spotify monthly listeners.
Of course, The Velvet Sundown certainly isn’t the only AI “artist” pumping out content on DSPs. But it’s already “released” 52 tracks spanning four albums – the exact catalog size varies across services and has even changed several times on Spotify, it’s worth reiterating – in a month and change.
Multiply that by thousands (and eventually millions), factor in prominent playlist spots, and calculate the corresponding streams as well as revenue, and it’s not difficult to see the problem.
And while said problem isn’t going away on its own – ever eager to please its fans, Velvet Sundown actually dropped two albums today, Paper Sun Rebellion and Paper Sun Rebellion II – a partial solution may exist in the mentioned tagging.
We’ve highlighted as much on multiple occasions, and Deezer is ahead of the curve here. Last month, the Access Industries-owned DSP became the first on-demand service to start slapping an AI notice on the relevant uploads.
In the bigger picture, this important step could set the stage for more far-reaching responses – like separating machine-made music from human creations on streaming. As is so often the case in the industry, though, an outwardly simple matter is rather complex beneath the surface.
Enter Jones’ remarks underscoring the belief that AI should enhance but not replace human creativity.
“That’s why we’re calling on the UK government to protect copyright and introduce new transparency obligations for AI companies so that music rights can be licensed and enforced, as well as calling for the clear labelling of content solely generated by AI,” Jones indicated.
The latter adverb raises interesting questions about what an across-the-board labeling system would look like in practice. For obvious reasons, if they do incorporate AI, established artists probably won’t want their music labeled as such – hence the “solely” clarifier.
But many proper musicians look to be pulling the strings behind AI “acts.” What if they rather deliberately added a dash of non-AI audio in an effort to beat the tag? At exactly which point should AI labels kick in?
Those are just two of the many considerations concerning what is, at its core, a good idea against the backdrop of an AI-music avalanche. Time will tell whether the likes of the RIAA and the IFPI rally behind tagging as well.
Furthermore, release-volume limits probably wouldn’t hurt the streaming landscape. This is a temporary answer to a pernicious problem that will presumably fuel the creation of many more “artist” profiles moving forward. But suffice to say that real musicians don’t typically drop an album per week.
Artificial Intelligence (AI), Music Industry News, Music Streaming, Spotify News
This post was originally authored and published by Dylan Smith Digital Music News via RSS Feed. Join today to get your news feed on Nationwide Report®.
