artificial intelligence
Page: 8
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Mary J. Blige’s 1992 “Real Love” draws a new copyright case over an oft-sampled funk song with a long history in both hip hop and music law; Madonna strikes back against angry fans who sued over delayed concerts; Morgan Wallen is charged with multiple felonies after allegedly throwing a chair from the roof of a Nashville bar; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Sampling Saga
If you’ve listened to any significant amount of rap music over the past 30 years, you’ve probably heard “Impeach the President” by the Honey Drippers — a legendary piece of hip-hop source material with a drum track that’s been sampled or interpolated literally hundreds of times, including by Run-DMC, Biggie, Tupac, Dr. Dre and many others.
Trending on Billboard
And, allegedly, by Mary J. Blige.
In a lawsuit filed last week, Tuff City Records claimed that Blige’s 1992 classic “Real Love,” which spent 31 weeks on the Hot 100 in 1992, featured an unlicensed sample from “Impeach.” The case claims that Universal Music Publishing has “repeatedly refused” to pay for the underlying composition, even though UMG Recordings has already agreed to a deal covering the master.
The new lawsuit is the latest chapter in a story dating back several decades, starting with a seminal 1991 case over an LL Cool J song that also featured “Impeach” – a legal battle that would ultimately prove to be the beginning of fundamental changes to how the music industry and the courts treated sampling.
Other top stories this week…
MADONNA CONCERT CLASH – The Material Girl fired back at a class action lawsuit filed by New York City fans who are angry that her concerts started later than scheduled, asking for the case to be dismissed. Madonna’s attorneys argued that needing to “wake up early the next day for work” is not the kind of “cognizable injury” someone can sue over, and that “no Madonna fan” has a “reasonable expectation” that her shows will start on time.
LAST NIGHT (ALLEGEDLY) – Morgan Wallen was arrested in Nashville and charged with three felony counts of reckless endangerment over accusations that he threw a chair off the six-story roof of a popular bar on the city’s bustling Broadway street, allegedly narrowly missing several police officers. He was later released on bond, and his lawyer told Billboard he was “cooperating fully with authorities.”
RAMONES MOVIE LAWSUIT – Joey Ramone‘s brother (Mickey Leigh) responded to a lawsuit filed by Johnny Ramone’s widow (Linda Cummings-Ramone) over a planned Netflix movie about the pioneering punk band, calling the case “baseless and flimsy” and arguing that she actually signed off on such a project years ago.
AI COPYRIGHT DISCLOSURE BILL – Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced new legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives that would require AI companies to disclose which copyrighted works were used to train their models, or face a financial penalty. The measure would not directly require payment to artists, but would certainly make it easier for copyright owners to file infringement cases against AI companies demanding such compensation.
NEW DIDDY ABUSE CASE – Sean “Diddy” Combs was hit with yet another sexual abuse case, this time centering on allegations that his son Christian “King” Combs assaulted a staffer on a luxury yacht in the Caribbean. The case, one of many against Diddy over the past six months, claimed that he “encouraged an environment of debauchery” that enabled his son’s behavior.
ACCUSER’S LAWYER CRITICIZED – Tyrone Blackburn, an attorney who has filed two of the pending sexual abuse cases against Combs, could be facing potential discipline himself. In a scathing ruling last week, a federal judge in an unrelated lawsuit referred him to the court’s grievance committee over his “pattern of behavior” in which he allegedly “improperly files cases in federal court to garner media attention, embarrass defendants with salacious allegations, and pressure defendants to settle quickly.”
ROD WAVE ARRESTED OVER SHOOTING – The rapper was arrested on gun charges in Florida over alleged connections to a shooting last month at a sports bar in St. Petersburg. At a press conference after the arrest, police claimed that the alleged assailants used a getaway car registered to Wave and fled to a house he had rented, where they later discovered two assault rifles and other evidence.
MORE BIZARRE DONDA CLAIMS – Kanye West was hit with another lawsuit filed by a former employee at his Donda Academy, this time accusing him of discriminating against Black staffers. Like the several previous cases from former staffers, the case included bizarre allegations about conditions inside the school – including that West told students to “shave their heads” and that he “intended to put a jail at the school” where students could be “locked in cages.”
Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced new legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday (April 9) which, if passed, would require AI companies to disclose which copyrighted works were used to train their models, or face a financial penalty. Called the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act, the new bill would apply to both new models and retroactively to previously released and used generative AI systems.
The bill requires that a full list of copyrighted works in an AI model’s training data set be filed with the Copyright Office no later than 30 days before the model becomes available to consumers. This would also be required when the training data set for an existing model is altered in a significant manner. Financial penalties for non-compliance would be determined on a case-by-case basis by the Copyright Office, based on factors like the company’s history of noncompliance and the company’s size.
Generative AI models are trained on up to trillions of existing works. In some cases, data sets, which can include anything from film scripts to news articles to music, are licensed from copyright owners, but often these models will scrape the internet for large swaths of content, some of which is copyrighted, without the consent or knowledge of the author. Many of the world’s largest AI companies have publicly defended this practice, calling it “fair use,” but many of those working in creative industries take the position that this is a form of widespread copyright infringement.
Trending on Billboard
The debate has sparked a number of lawsuits between copyright owners and AI companies. In October, Universal Music Group, ABKCO, Concord Music Group, and other music publishers filed a lawsuit against AI giant Anthropic for “unlawfully” exploiting their copyrighted song lyrics to train AI models.
“In the process of building and operating AI models, Anthropic unlawfully copies and disseminates vast amounts of copyrighted works,” wrote lawyers for the music companies at the time. “Publishers embrace innovation and recognize the great promise of AI when used ethically and responsibly. But Anthropic violates these principles on a systematic and widespread basis.”
While many in the music business are also calling for compensation and the ability to opt in or out of being used in a data set, this bill focuses only on requiring transparency with copyrighted training data. Still, it has garnered support from many music industry groups, including the Recorded Industry Association of America (RIAA), National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), ASCAP, Black Music Action Coalition (BMAC), and Human Artistry Campaign.
It is also supported by other creative industry groups, including the Professional Photographers of America, SAG-AFTRA, Writers Guild of America, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) and more.
“AI has the disruptive potential of changing our economy, our political system, and our day-to-day lives,” said Rep. Schiff in a statement. “We must balance the immense potential of AI with the crucial need for ethical guidelines and protections. My Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act is a pivotal step in this direction. It champions innovation while safeguarding the rights and contributions of creators, ensuring they are aware when their work contributes to AI training datasets. This is about respecting creativity in the age of AI and marrying technological progress with fairness.”
A number of rights groups also weighed in on the introduction of the bill.
“Any effective regulatory regime for AI must start with one of the most fundamental building blocks of effective enforcement of creators’ rights — comprehensive and transparent record keeping,” adds RIAA chief legal officer Ken Doroshow. “RIAA applauds Congressman Schiff for leading on this urgent and foundational issue.”
“We commend Congressman Schiff for his leadership on the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act,” NMPA president/CEO David Israelite said. “AI only works because it mines the work of millions of creators every day and it is essential that AI companies reveal exactly what works are training their data. This is a critical first step towards ensuring that AI companies fully license and that songwriters are fully compensated for the work being used to fuel these platforms.”
“Without transparency around the use of copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence, creators will never be fairly compensated and AI tech companies will continue stealing from songwriters,” ASCAP CEO Elizabeth Matthews said. “This bill is an important step toward ensuring that the law puts humans first, and we thank Congressman Schiff for his leadership.”
“Protecting the work of music creators is essential, and this all begins with transparency and tracking the use of copyrighted materials in generative AI,” Black Music Action Coalition (BMAC) co-chair Willie “Prophet” Stiggers said. “BMAC hopes Rep. Schiff’s Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act helps garner support for this mission and that author and creator rights continue to be protected and preserved.”
“Congressman Schiff’s proposal is a big step forward towards responsible AI that partners with artists and creators instead of exploiting them,” Human Artistry Campaign senior advisor Dr. Moiya McTier said. “AI companies should stop hiding the ball when they copy creative works into AI systems and embrace clear rules of the road for recordkeeping that create a level and transparent playing field for the development and licensing of genuinely innovative applications and tools.”
Spotify has launched a new AI playlist feature for premium users in the United Kingdom and Australia, the company revealed in a blog post on Sunday (April 7). The new feature, which is still in beta, allows Spotify users in those markets to turn any concept into a playlist by using prompts like “an indie […]
Stability AI has launched Stable Audio 2.0, adding key new functions to the company’s text-to-music generator. Now, users can generate tracks that are up to three minutes long at 44.1 KHz stereo from a natural language prompt like, “A beautiful piano arpeggio grows to a full beautiful orchestral piece” or “Lo-fi funk.” Stable Audio 2.0 […]
Members of the American Federation of Musicians voted to ratify the union’s agreement with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers. The agreement, which covers basic theatrical motion picture and basic television motion picture contracts, gives musicians streaming residuals for the first time, as well as protections against artificial intelligence, according to AFM. In addition to […]
Billie Eilish, Pearl Jam, Nicki Minaj, Katy Perry, Elvis Costello, Darius Rucker, Jason Isbell, Luis Fonsi, Miranda Lambert and the estates of Bob Marley and Frank Sinatra are among more than 200 signees to an open letter targeting tech companies, digital service providers and AI developers over irresponsible artificial intelligence practices, calling such work an “assault on human creativity” that “must be stopped.”
The letter, issued by the non-profit Artist Rights Alliance, calls on such organizations to “cease the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to infringe upon and devalue the rights of human artists,” stressing that any use of AI be done responsibly. “Make no mistake: we believe that, when used responsibly, AI has enormous potential to advance human creativity and in a manner that enables the development and growth of new and exciting experiences for music fans everywhere. Unfortunately, some platforms and developers are employing AI to sabotage creativity and undermine artists, songwriters, musicians and rights holders.”
Trending on Billboard
Artists, songwriters and producers from all genres, several generations and multiple continents added their names to the letter, from younger artists like Ayra Starr to legends like Smokey Robinson and organizations like HYBE. In particular, the signatories point to the use of AI models trained on unlicensed music, which they call “efforts directly aimed at replacing the work of human artists with massive quantities of AI-created ‘sounds’ and ‘images’ that substantially dilute the royalty pools that are paid out to artists. For many working musicians, artists and songwriters who are just trying to make ends meet, this would be catastrophic.”
“Working musicians are already struggling to make ends meet in the streaming world, and now they have the added burden of trying to compete with a deluge of AI-generated noise,” Jen Jacobsen, executive director of the Artist Rights Alliance, said in a statement accompanying the letter. “The unethical use of generative AI to replace human artists will devalue the entire music ecosystem — for artists and fans alike.”
Over the past year or so, many in the music industry have echoed similar calls for the ethical and responsible use of artificial intelligence, which left unchecked has the potential to undermine copyright law and make issues like streaming fraud, soundalikes and intellectual property theft much more rampant, much more quickly. There have been Congressional hearings on the matter, and states like Tennessee have begun introducing and passing legislation hoping to protect creators and intellectual property owners from deception and fraud, broadening laws and addressing ethical use. Universal Music Group has developed a task force to address the issue, and UMPG has cited TikTok’s AI approach as one of the reasons for the standoff between the two companies that is ongoing, while the RIAA, Warner Music Group and others have all weighed in stressing that protecting IP from unlicensed AI overreach is of utmost importance.
“We must protect against the predatory use of AI to steal professional artists’ voices and likenesses, violate creators’ rights, and destroy the music ecosystem,” the letter concludes. “We call on all digital music platforms and music-based services to pledge that they will not develop or deploy AI music-generation technology, content, or tools that undermine or replace the human artistry of songwriters and artists or deny us fair compensation for our work.”
Read the full letter and see the list of signatories here.
Venice announced the beta launch of a new tool called Co-Manager on Tuesday (April 2nd). The “career assistant” for artists incorporates “insights from top artist managers, marketers, streaming analysts, and digital strategists with OpenAI machine learning and your unique streaming data,” according to a release.
“Co-Manager is designed to educate artists on the business and marketing of music, so artists can spend more time focused on their creative vision,” Suzy Ryoo, co-founder and president of Venice Music, said in a statement. Venice, co-founded by Troy Carter, believes its tool can help artists plan advertising campaigns and album roll-outs.
Many of the most consequential questions related to the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence — whether genAI models need to license training data, for example — have yet to be decided.
Trending on Billboard
“Unfortunately, other than right of publicity laws that vary in effectiveness on a state-by-state basis, there is little current protection for an artist regarding the threats posed by artificial intelligence, and, therefore, governmental action is urgently needed,” Russell L. King, director of the King Law Firm, told Billboard earlier this year.
But the government isn’t known for moving quickly. That means, “whatever we think about the state of AI and its legal treatment, it’s important to stay nimble and try to think several steps out because things may change fast,” Spotify general counsel Eve Konstan said recently.
To that end, the heads of the major labels have all discussed the importance of finding AI-powered tools to help their artists.
“We are at the gateway of a new technological era with AI,” Sony Music CEO Rob Stringer said in 2023. “And unsurprisingly, music will be a core component of this process. AI promises to provide us tools so that our artists and writers can create and innovate. It also heralds greater levels of insight through machine learning, as well as potential new licensing channels and avenues for commercial exploitation.”
Similarly, Universal Music Group CEO Lucian Grainge talked about the company goal of “forg[ing] groundbreaking private-sector partnerships with AI technology companies” in a memo to staff in January.
“In addition, our artists have begun working with some of the latest AI technology to develop tools that will enhance and support the creative process and produce music experiences unlike anything that’s been heard before,” Grainge continued. “And to leverage AI technology that would benefit artists, we continue to strike groundbreaking agreements with, among others, Endel and BandLab.”
As the entertainment attorney Tamara Milagros-Butler put it recently, “don’t be afraid to explore AI as a tool, but maintain human connection.”
In November, I quit my job in generative AI to campaign for creators’ right not to have their work used for AI training without permission. I started Fairly Trained, a non-profit that certifies generative AI companies that obtain a license before training models on copyrighted works.
Mostly, I’ve felt good about this decision — but there have been a few times when I’ve questioned it. Like when a big media company, though keen to defend its own rights, told me it couldn’t find a way to stop using unfairly-trained generative AI in other domains. Or whenever demos from the latest models receive unquestioning praise despite how they’re trained. Or, last week, with the publication of a series of articles about AI music company Suno that I think downplay serious questions about the training data it uses.
Suno is an AI music generation company with impressive text-to-song capabilities. I have nothing against Suno, with one exception: Piecing together various clues, it seems likely that its model is trained on copyrighted work without rights holders’ consent.
Trending on Billboard
What are these clues? Suno refuses to reveal its training data sources. In an interview with Rolling Stone, one of its investors disclosed that Suno didn’t have deals with the labels “when the company got started” (there is no indication this has changed), that they invested in the company “with the full knowledge that music labels and publishers could sue,” and that the founders’ lack of open hostility to the music industry “doesn’t mean we’re not going to get sued.” And, though I’ve approached the company through two channels about getting certified as Fairly Trained, they’ve so far not taken me up on the offer, in contrast to the 12 other AI music companies we’ve certified for training their platforms fairly.
There is, of course, a chance that Suno licenses its training data, and I genuinely hope I’m wrong. If they correct the record, I’ll be the first to loudly and regularly trumpet the company’s fair training credentials.
But I’d like to see media coverage of companies like Suno give more weight to the question of what training data is being used. This is an existential issue for creators.
Editor’s note: Suno’s founders did not respond to requests for comment from Billboard about their training practices. Sources confirm that the company does not have licensing agreements in place with some of the most prominent music rightsholders, including the three major label groups and the National Music Publishers’ Association.
Limiting discussion of Suno’s training data to the fact that it “decline[s] to reveal details” and not explicitly stating the possibility that Suno uses copyrighted music without permission means that readers may not be aware of the potential for unfair exploitation of musicians’ work by AI music companies. This should factor into our thoughts about which AI music companies to support.
If Suno is training on copyrighted music without permission, this is likely the technological factor that sets it apart from other AI music products. The Rolling Stone article mentions some of the tough technical problems that Suno is solving — having to do with tokens, the sampling rate of audio and more — but these are problems that other companies have solved. In fact, several competitors have models as capable as Suno’s. The reason you don’t see more models like Suno’s being released to the public is that most AI music companies want to ensure training data is licensed before they release their products.
The context here is important. Some of the biggest generative AI companies in the world are using untold numbers of creators’ work without permission in order to train AI models that compete with those creators. There is, understandably, a big public outcry at this large-scale scraping of copyrighted work from the creative community. This has led to a number of lawsuits, which Rolling Stone mentions.
The fact that generative AI competes with human creators is something AI companies prefer not to talk about. But it’s undeniable. People are already listening to music from companies like Suno in place of Spotify, and generative AI listening will inevitably eat into music industry revenues — and therefore human musicians’ income — if training data isn’t licensed.
Generative AI is a powerful technology that will likely bring a number of benefits. But if we support the exploitation of people’s work for training without permission, we implicitly support the unfair destruction of the creative industries. We must instead support companies that take a fairer approach to training data.
And those companies do exist. There are a number — generally startups — taking a fairer approach, refusing to use copyrighted work without consent. They are licensing, or using public domain data, or commissioning data, or all of the above. In short, they are working hard not to train unethically. At Fairly Trained, we have certified 12 of these companies in AI music. If you want to use AI music and you care about creators’ rights, you have options.
There is a chance Suno has licensed its data. I encourage the company to disclose what it’s training its AI model on. Until we know more, I hope anyone looking to use AI music will opt instead to work with companies that we know take a fair approach to using creators’ work.
To put it simply — and to use some details pulled from Suno’s Rolling Stone interview — it doesn’t matter whether you’re a team of musicians, what you profess to think about IP, or how many pictures of famous composers you have on the walls. If you train on copyrighted work without a license, you’re not on the side of musicians. You’re unfairly exploiting their work to build something that competes with them. You’re taking from them to your gain — and their cost.
Ed Newton-Rex is the CEO of Fairly Trained and a composer. He previously founded Jukedeck, one of the first AI music companies, ran product in Europe for TikTok, and was vp of audio at Stability AI.
Tennessee governor Bill Lee signed the ELVIS Act into law Thursday (Mar. 21), legislation designed to further protect the state’s artists from artificial intelligence deep fakes. The bill, more formally named the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act of 2024, replaces the state’s old right of publicity law, which only included explicit protections for one’s “name, photograph, or likeness,” expanding protections to include voice- and AI-specific concerns for the first time.
Gov. Lee signed the bill into law from a local honky tonk, surrounded by superstar supporters like Luke Bryan and Chris Janson. Lee joked that it was “the coolest bill signing ever.”
The ELVIS Act was introduced by Gov. Lee in January along with State Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson (R-27) and House Majority Leader William Lambert (R-44), and it has since garnered strong support from the state’s artistic class. Talents like Lindsay Ell, Michael W. Smith, Natalie Grant, Matt Maher and Evanescence‘s David Hodges have been vocal in their support for the bill.
Trending on Billboard
It also gained support from the recorded music industry and the Human Artistry Campaign, a global initiative of entertainment organizations that pushes for a responsible approach to AI. The initiative has buy-in from more than 180 organizations worldwide, including the RIAA, NMPA, BMI, ASCAP, Recording Academy and American Association of Independent Music (A2IM).
Right of publicity protections vary state-to-state in the United States, leading to a patchwork of laws that make enforcing one’s ownership over one’s name, likeness and voice more complicated. There is an even greater variation among right of publicity laws postmortem. As AI impersonation concerns have grown more prevalent over the last year, there has been a greater push by the music business to gain a federal right of publicity.
The ELVIS Act replaces the Personal Rights Protection Act of 1984, which was passed, in part, to extend Elvis Presley‘s publicity rights after he passed away. (At the time, Tennessee did not recognize a postmortem right of publicity). Along with explicitly including a person’s voice as a protected right for the first time, the ELVIS Act also broadens which uses of one’s name, image, photograph and voice are barred.
Previously, the Personal Rights Protection Act only banned uses of a person’s name, photograph and likeness “for purpose of advertising,” which would not include the unauthorized use of AI voices for performance purposes. The ELVIS Act does not limit liability based on context, so it would likely bar any unauthorized use, including in a documentary, song or book, among other mediums.
The federal government is also working on solutions to address publicity rights concerns. Within hours of Gov. Lee’s introduction of the ELVIS Act in Tennessee back in January, a bipartisan group of U.S. House lawmakers revealed the No Artificial Intelligence Fake Replicas And Unauthorized Duplications Act (No AI FRAUD Act), which aims to establish a framework for protecting one’s voice and likeness on a federal level and lays out First Amendment protections. It is said to complement the Senate’s Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act (NO FAKES Act), a draft bill that was introduced last October.
While most of the music business is aligned on creating a federal right of publicity, David Israelite, president/CEO of the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), warned in a speech delivered at an Association of Independent Music Publishers (AIMP) meeting in February that “while we are 100% supportive of the record labels’ priority to get a federal right of publicity…it does not have a good chance. Within the copyright community, we don’t even agree on [it]. Guess who doesn’t want a federal right of publicity? Film and TV. Guess who’s bigger than the music industry? Film and TV.”
The subject of AI voice cloning has been a controversial topic in the music business since Ghostwriter released the so-called “Fake-Drake” song “Heart On My Sleeve,” which used the AI technology without permission. In some cases, this form of AI can present novel creative opportunities — including its use for pitch records, lyric translations, estate marketing and fan engagement — but it also poses serious threats. If an artist’s voice is cloned by AI without their permission or knowledge, it can confuse, offend, mislead or even scam fans.
There is no shortage of AI voice synthesis companies on the market today, but Voice-Swap, founded and led by Dan “DJ Fresh” Stein, is trying to reimagine what these companies can be.
The music producer and technologist intends Voice-Swap to act as not just a simple conversion tool but an “agency” for artists’ AI likenesses. He’s also looking to solve the ongoing question of how to monetize these voice models in a way that gets the most money back to the artists — a hotly contested topic since anonymous TikTok user Ghostwriter employed AI renderings of Drake and The Weeknd‘s voices without their permission on the viral song “Heart On My Sleeve.”
In an exclusive interview with Billboard, Stein and Michael Pelczynski, a member of the company’s advisory board and former vp at SoundCloud, explain their business goals as well as their new monetization plan, which includes providing a dividend for participating artists and payment to artists every time a user employs their AI voice — not just when the resulting song is released commercially and streamed on DSPs. The company also reveals that it’s working on a new partnership with Imogen Heap to create her voice model, which will arrive this summer.
Trending on Billboard
Voice-Swap sees the voice as the “new real estate of IP,” as Pelczynski puts it — just another form of ownership that can allow a participating artist to make passive income. (The voice, along with one’s name and likeness, is considered a “right of publicity” which is currently regulated differently state-to-state.)
In addition to seeing AI voice technology as a useful tool to engage fans of notable artists like Heap and make translations of songs, the Voice-Swap team also believes AI voices represent a major opportunity for session vocalists with distinct timbres but lower public profiles to earn additional income. On its platform now, the company has a number of session vocalists of varying vocal styles available for use; Voice-Swap sees session vocalists’ AI voice models as potentially valuable to songwriters and producers who may want to shape-shift those voices during writing and recording sessions. (As Billboard reported in August, using AI voice models to better tailor pitch records to artists has become a common use-case for the emerging technology.)
“We like to think that, much like a record label, we have a brand that we want to build with the style of artists and the quality we represent at Voice-Swap,” says Stein. “It doesn’t have to be a specific genre, but it’s about hosting unique and incredible voices as opposed to [just popular artists].”
Last year, we saw a lot of fear and excitement surrounding this technology as Ghostwriter appeared on social media and Grimes introduced her own voice model soon after. How does your approach compare to these examples?
Pelczynski: This technology did stoke a lot of fear at first. This is because people see it as a magic trick. When you don’t know what’s behind it and you just see the end result and wonder how it just did that, there is wonder and fear that comes. [There is now the risk] that if you don’t work with someone you trust on your vocal rights, someone is going to pick up that magic trick and do it without you. That’s what happened with Ghostwriter and many others.
The one real main thing to emphasize is the magic trick of swapping a voice isn’t where the story ends, it’s where it begins. And I think Grimes in particular is approaching it with an intent to empower artists. We are, too. But I think where we differentiate is the revenue stream part. With the Grimes model, you create what you want to create and then the song goes into the traditional ecosystem of streaming and other ways of consuming music. That’s where the royalties are made off of that.
We are focused on the inference. Our voice artists get paid on the actual conversion of the voice. Not all of these uses of AI voices end up on streaming, so this is important to us. Of course, if the song is released, additional money for the voice can be made then, too. As far as we know, we are the first platform to pay royalties on the inference, the first conversion.
Stein: We also allow artists the right to release their results through any distributor they want. [Grimes’ model is partnered exclusively with TuneCore.] We see ourselves a bit like an agency for artists’ voices.
What do you mean by an “agency” for artists’ voices?
Stein: When we work with an artist at Voice-Swap we intend to represent them and license their voice models created with us to other platforms to increase their opportunities to earn income. It’s like working with an agent to manage your live bookings. We want to be the agent for the artists’ AI presence and help them monetize it on multiple platforms but always with their personal preferences and concerns in mind.
What kinds of platforms would be interested in licensing an AI voice model from Voice-Swap?
Stein: It is early days for all of the possible use cases, but we think the most obvious example at the moment is music production platforms [or DAWs, short for digital audio workstation] that want to use voice models in their products.
There are two approaches you can take [as an AI voice company.] We could say we are a SaaS platform, and the artist can do deals with other platforms themselves. But the way we approach this is we put a lot of focus into the quality of our models and working with artists directly to keep improving it. We want to be the one-stop solution for creating a model the artist is proud of.
I think the whole thing with AI and where this technology is going is that none of us know what it’s going to be doing 10 years from now. So for us, this was also about getting into a place where we can build that credibility in those relationships and not just with the artists. We want to work with labels, too.
Do you have any partnerships with DAWs or other music-making platforms in place already?
Pelczynski: We are in discussions and under NDA pending an announcement. Every creator’s workflow is different — we want our users to have access to our roster of voices wherever they feel most comfortable, be that via the website, in a DAW or elsewhere. That’s why we’re exploring these partnerships, and why we’ve designed our upcoming VST [virtual studio technology] to make that experience even more seamless. We also recently announced a partnership with SoundCloud, with deeper integrations aimed at creators forthcoming.
Ultimately, the more places our voices are available, the more opportunities there are for new revenue for the artists, and that’s our priority.
Can some music editing take place on the Voice-Swap website, or do these converted voices need to be exported?
Pelczynski: Yes, Dan has always wanted to architect a VST so that it can act like a plug-in in someone’s DAW, but we also have the capability of letting users edit and do the voice conversion and some music editing on our website using our product Stem-Swap. That’s an amazing playground for people that are just coming up. It is similar to how BandLab and others are a good quick way to experiment with music creation.
How many users does Voice-Swap have?
Pelczynski: We have 140,000 verified unique users, and counting.
Can you break down the specifics of how much your site costs for users?
Pelczynski: We run a subscription and top-up pricing system. Users pay a monthly or one-off fee and receive audio credits. Credits are then used for voice conversion and stem separation, with more creator tools on the way.
How did your team get connected with Imogen Heap, and given all the competitors in the AI voice space today, why do you think she picked Voice-Swap?
Pelczynski: We’re very excited to be working with her. She’s one of many established artists that we’re working on currently in the pipeline, and I think our partnership comes down to our ethos of trust and consent. I know it sounds trite, but I think it’s absolutely one of the cornerstones to our success.