Business
Page: 136
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: Prosecutors file a first-of-its-kind criminal case against an alleged streaming fraudster who made $10 million with fake songs; the White Stripes file a copyright case against Donald Trump over use of their music; Spotify wins a strongly-worded ruling dismissing a long-running lawsuit filed by Eminem’s publisher; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Streaming Fraud Finally Goes To Court
When Manhattan federal prosecutors indicted a North Carolina musician named Michael Smith last week, accusing him of stealing $10 million in streaming royalties as part of a “brazen fraud scheme,” they told a story that much of the music industry already knew. Streaming fraud – artificially boosting traffic for certain songs – has been a growing problem for years. One study found that 1% to 3% of plays in France in 2021 were fraudulent; a 2022 report by fraud-detection service Beatdapp estimated that more than 10% of global streams were fake. And this isn’t the scam from “Office Space,” stealing fractions of a penny from a faceless tech giant. Because royalties are calculated as a percentage of a finite pie, every phony stream represents real money being diverted away from music that consumers actually played and the artists who created it. In the first-of-its-kind indictment, the feds say Smith created thousands of fake songs, then used an army of bots to play them billions of times on Spotify and other streamers. At one point, Smith estimated that he could play his songs 661,440 times each day, raking in as much as $1.2 million per year. Prosecutors say Smith’s plot was aided by artificial intelligence – another growing problem for the industry. When he couldn’t create enough fake tracks to make the scam work, Smith allegedly partnered with an unnamed executive at an A.I. music company to produce grist for his mill, funneling money back in the form of percentage cuts. For more details go read Kristin Robinson’s stories – on the filing of the charges, and on an AI company with strong ties to the accused fraudster.
Trending on Billboard
Other top stories this week…
“SUES FASCISTS” – The White Stripes filed a copyright lawsuit against Donald Trump for using their iconic “Seven Nation Army” in a social media post, arguing that any association with the president was “offensive” because they “vehemently oppose” his policies and his bid for another term in the White House. In announcing the case, Jack White included a screenshot of the complaint with the caption “this machine sues fascists” – an allusion to Woody Guthrie’s famous use of a sticker reading “this machine kills fascists” on his guitar during World War II. The White Stripes are the latest in a long list of musical artists to threaten or take legal action against Trump over his use of music. LOSE YOUR CASE – Spotify defeated a long-running lawsuit filed by Eminem’s publisher, Eight Mile Style, that claimed the rapper’s music had been streamed illegally “billions” of times on the platform. Rather than order Spotify to pay, the judge sharply criticized Eight Mile for suing in the first place, ruling that the company had effectively manufactured the lawsuit in an effort to win legal damages. “Eight Mile Style was not a hapless victim,” the judge wrote. DIDDY DAMAGES – A Michigan inmate named Derrick Lee Cardello-Smith won a $100 million default judgment against Sean “Diddy” Combs in a sexual assault lawsuit — an eye-popping figure that was handed down after the rapper did not show up in court or file any formal response to the case. Following the ruling, Combs’ lawyers strongly denied that the rapper was served with the lawsuit and said he “looks forward to having this judgment swiftly dismissed.” GUESS WHO TRUCE – The members of classic rock band The Guess Who settled a bitter trademark lawsuit in which two bandmates (Randy Bachman and Burton Cummings) referred to a recent iteration of the group run by two others (Jim Kale and Garry Peterson) as nothing more than a “cover band.” COPYRIGHT CLAPBACK – Verizon fired back at a lawsuit filed by Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment over allegations of “staggering” piracy on its network. The labels claim Verizon “buried its head in the sand” and enabled illegal filesharing, but in a motion to dismiss, the telecom giant blasted the “legally deficient” premise of the case: “When people do bad things online, their internet service providers are not typically the ones to blame. This lawsuit claims otherwise.”
A Michigan inmate has won a $100 million default judgment against Sean “Diddy” Combs in a sexual assault lawsuit, an eye-popping figure handed down after the rapper did not show up in court or file any formal response to the case.
The huge judgment, confirmed by Billboard from court records, was issued by a Michigan state judge in Lenawee County to Derrick Lee Cardello-Smith – one of numerous people to accuse the embattled rapper of sexual abuse over the past year.
The ruling is a so-called default judgment, a kind of legal award granted when an accused party doesn’t respond to a legal action. At a hearing last month, a judge said that Combs had been properly served with the lawsuit, and court records indicate that he never answered the claims.
Trending on Billboard
In a statement to Billboard, Combs’ attorney Marc Agnifilo strongly denied that his client had ever been served with the lawsuit and said the rapper “looks forward to having this judgment swiftly dismissed.”
“This man is a convicted felon and sexual predator, who has been sentenced on 14 counts of sexual assault and kidnapping over the last 26 years,” Agnifilo said. “His resume now includes committing a fraud on the court from prison, as Mr. Combs has never heard of him let alone been served with any lawsuit.”
If lawyers for the rapper now respond to the lawsuit, they could seek to overturn the default judgment and proceed to normal litigation, where Cardello-Smith would need to prove his allegations to a jury before securing a judgment.
Once one of the most powerful men in the music industry, Diddy has been hit with at least seven civil lawsuits alleging sexual abuse over the past year, including claims by ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura that were later followed by a video showing him assaulting her. The hip-hop mogul is also facing an apparent federal criminal investigation after authorities raided his homes in March.
Though the rapper has denied the legal allegations against him, he issued an apology in May over his conduct captured on the video of the Ventura attack: “My behavior on that video is inexcusable. I take full responsibility for my actions in that video.”
According to Michigan inmate records, Cardello-Smith, 51, is serving multiple, decades-long sentences for a variety of crimes, including first-degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of kidnapping. The earliest he can be released from prison is 2036.
Cardello-Smith sued Combs in June, claiming the rapper had spiked his drink and sexually assaulted him at a party in 1997. At a court hearing last month, he told a judge that the rapper had personally visited him in prison after he filed the lawsuit and offered him $2.3 million to drop his case.
At that same hearing, the inmate alleged that Combs had told him that he would not appear in court or respond to the lawsuit, saying “You know how we get down.” Cardello-Smith told the judge that he responded by telling Combs “I disagree with how you get down” and rejecting the settlement offer.
The lawsuit against Combs is not the first civil action Cardello-Smith has filed from behind bars. Last year, he sued a Detroit-area Catholic archdiocese, alleging he had been sexually abused by a priest and others between 1979 and 1993. The case was dismissed last month by state appeals court, which ruled that Cardello-Smith’s allegations were barred by the statute of limitations.
Venues across the nation can now show off their independent status. On Tuesday (Sept. 10), the National Independent Venue Association (NIVA) announced the launch of “Live Independent,” a first-of-its-kind certification program for independent venues, promoters and festivals nationwide.
The new initiative, supported by event discovery platform Bandsintown, is aimed at strengthening and unifying the live entertainment community by “offering a seal of certification that recognizes excellence and commitment to the independent ethos,” according to NIVA.
Certified venues will receive physical posters, stickers and decals of the Live Independent seal to display, along with virtual seals and assets for websites, marketing materials and social media. Partnerships with ticketing companies will also enable the Live Independent seal to be displayed on event tickets.
Trending on Billboard
The Live Independent program will include a dedicated website serving as a hub of information and emphasizing the importance of supporting certified Live Independent venues and events. Fans can use the site’s search feature to verify if their favorite venue is certified independent and find shows at certified stages.
“This certification is a testament to the power of independent stages as sanctuaries for human connection. In an era dominated by publicly-traded live entertainment conglomerates, these venues and festivals are the final strongholds of authenticity, where the heart of live performance beats strongest,” said NIVA executive director Stephen Parker in a statement. “When fans and artists choose independent stages, they’re investing in the soul of their community. Live Independent is our collective promise — to the artists, to the fans, and to the communities that cherish these spaces — that the spirit of independent venues will not only endure but will continue to flourish.”
As a partner for the program, Bandsintown is committed to educating fans about what Live Independent means and promoting independent venues through dedicated placements on the Bandsintown app and at Bandsintown.com. Every NIVA-member independent venue will have the Live Independent seal on its Bandsintown venue page while a map of Live Independent-certified venues will be featured on Bandsintown’s homepage to help fans locate and support these independent entities.
“Bandsintown’s ethos is independent at the core, serving artists since day one of their journey,” added Bandsintown co-founder/managing partner Fabrice Sergent. “Independent venues shed light on those artists early in their career and we’re proud to work alongside NIVA to help them find the audience they deserve.”
To become certified, venues, festivals and promoters must demonstrate a mission centered around delivering music, comedy and performance to audiences; maintain fair pay practices for all artists, performers and creators; be independent from multinational conglomerate or publicly traded company ownership or exclusive operation; show support for a transparent, competitive marketplace and a diverse, inclusive community; and be a NIVA member. NIVA members will not pay additional fees to join the program.
More information on the Live Independent certification program, including details on how to apply and the specific benefits of certification, can be found here.
Primary Wave Music and Prince Legacy, two companies with ties to Prince‘s assets, released a statement Monday afternoon in response to reports of an unreleased documentary accusing the late musician of physical and emotional abuse.
“Those with the responsibility of carrying out Prince’s wishes shall honor his creativity and genius,” the statement reads. “We are working to resolve matters concerning the documentary so that his story may be told in a way that is factually correct and does not mischaracterize or sensationalize his life. We look forward to continuing to share Prince’s gifts and celebrate his profound and lasting impact on the world.”
On Sunday, a lengthy report from the New York Times Magazine revealed that an unreleased nine-hour documentary from O.J.: Made in America filmmaker Ezra Edelman featured interviews with dozens of Prince’s former business partners, lovers, friends and associates which included multiple allegations of physical and emotional abuse.
The article chronicled a dense back-and-forth between the film’s production team and Prince’s estate in a battle over the documentary’s release. Per NYT, the project has been in development with Netflix for nearly five years.
The film allegedly includes an interview with Prince’s ex-lover Jill Jones, who recalls a night in which he slapped and repeatedly punched her in the face. Another past relationship, Susannah Melvoin, reportedly told filmmakers that after she moved in with the musician, he monitored her phone calls, told her not to leave the house and tried to keep her separated from her sister. In another interview, his ex-wife Mayte Garcia allegedly recalls being left alone after her and Prince’s child died.
Other interviews allege the famous singer exhibited controlling nature and that he suffered abuse as a child. Additional sources, however, also recall positive memories of the singer, which created what Edelman described as one of the hardest projects of his career.
“How can you tell the truth about someone who, when you’re talking to people, they all had different things to say?” he said.
In a statement to NYT, Netflix said “this documentary project has proved every bit as complex as Prince himself. We have meticulously archived Prince’s life and worked hard to support Ezra’s series. But there are still meaningful contractual issues with the estate that are holding up a documentary release.”
This article was originally published by The Hollywood Reporter.
As more music industry entrepreneurs rush into the nascent AI sector, the number of new companies seems to grow by the day. To help artists, creators and others navigate the space, Billboard has compiled a directory of music-centric AI startups.
Given how quickly the sector is growing, this is not an exhaustive list, but it will continue to be updated. The directory also does not make judgment calls about the quality of the models’ outputs and whether their training process is “ethical.” It is an agnostic directory of what is available. Potential users should research any company they are considering.
Although a number of the following companies fit into more than one business sector, for the sake of brevity, no company is listed more than once.
Trending on Billboard
To learn more about what is considered to be an “ethical” AI model, please read our AI FAQs, where key questions are answered by top experts in the field, or visit Fairly Trained, a nonprofit dedicated to certifying “ethical” AI music models.
General Music Creation
AIVA: A music generator that also provides additional editing tools so that users can edit the generated songs and make them their own.
Beatoven: A text-to-music generator that provides royalty-free music for content creators.
Boomy: This music generator creates instrumentals using a number of controllable parameters such as genre and BPM. It also allows users to publish and monetize their generated works.
Create: A stem and sample arrangement tool created by Splice. This model uses AI to generate new arrangements of different Splice samples, which are intended to spark the songwriting process and help users find new samples.
Gennie: A text-to-music generator created by Soundation that produces 12-second-long samples.
Hydra II: A text-to-music generator created by Rightsify that aims to create royalty-free music for commercial spaces. It is trained on Rightsify’s owned catalog of songs.
Infinite Album: A music generator that provides “fully licensed” and “copyright safe” AI music for gamers.
Jen: A text-to-music generator created by Futureverse that was trained on 40 licensed music catalogs and uses blockchain technology to verify and timestamp its creations.
Lemonaide: A “melodic idea” generator. This model creates musical ideas in MIDI form to help songwriters get started on their next idea.
MusicGen: A text-to-music generator created by Meta.
Music LM: A text-to-music generator created by Google.
Ripple: A music generator created by ByteDance. This product can convert a hummed melody into an instrumental and can expand upon the result.
Song Starter: A music generator created by BandLab that is designed to help young artists start new song ideas.
Soundful: This company has collaborated with Kaskade, Starrah and other artists and producers to create their own AI beat generators, a new play on the “type-beat.”
SoundGen: A text-to-music generator that can also act as a “musical assistant” to help flesh out a creator’s music.
Soundraw: A generator that creates royalty-free beats, some of which have been used by Trippie Redd, Fivio Foreign and French Montana.
Stable Audio: A text-to-music generator created by Stability AI. This model also offers audio-to-audio generation, which enables users to manipulate any uploaded audio sample using text prompts.
Suno: A text-to-music generator. This model can create lyrics, vocals and instrumentals with the click of a button. Suno and another generator, Udio, are currently being sued by the three major music companies for alleged widespread copyright infringement during the training process. Suno and Udio claim the training qualifies as fair use under U.S. copyright law and contend the lawsuits are attempts to stifle independent competition.
Tuney: A music generator. This model is known for soundtracking brand advertisements and offering “adaptive music” to make a generated track better fit any given project.
Udio: A text-to-music generator that can create lyrics, vocals and instrumentals with a keyboard stroke. This model is best known for generating “BBL Drizzy,” a parody song by comic Willonius Hatcher that was then sampled by Metro Boomin and became a viral hit. Udio, like Suno, is defending itself against a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by the three major music companies. Udio and Suno claim their training counts as fair use and accuse the label groups of attempting to stifle independent competition.
Voice Conversion
Covers.AI: A voice filter platform created by Mayk.It. The platform offers the ability to build your own AI voice, as well as try on the voices of characters like SpongeBob, Mario or Ash Ketcham.
Elf.Tech: A Grimes voice filter created by CreateSafe and Grimes. This tool is the first major artist-voice converter, and Grimes debuted it in response to the virality of Ghostwriter977’s “Heart on My Sleeve,” which deepfaked the voices of Drake and The Weeknd.
Hooky: A voice filter platform best known for its official partnership with Lauv, who used Hooky technology to translate his song “Love U Like That” into Korean.
Kits.AI: A voice filter, stem separation and mastering platform. This company can provide DIY voice cloning as well as a suite of other generic types of voices. It is certified by Fairly Trained.
Supertone: A voice filter platform, acquired by HYBE, that allows users to change their voice in real time. It also offers a tool called Clear to remove noise and reverb from vocal stems.
Voice-Swap: A voice filter and stem separation platform. This company offers an exclusive roster of artist voices to choose from, including Imogen Heap, and it hopes to become an “agency” for artists’ voices.
Vocoflex: A voice filter plug-in created by Dreamtonics that offers the ability to change the tone of a singer’s voice in real time.
Stem Separation
Audioshake: A stem separation and lyric transcription tool. This company is best known for its recent participation in Disney’s accelerator program.
LALA.AI: A stem separation and voice conversion tool.
Moises AI: A stem separation, pitch-changer, chord detection and smart metronome tool created by Music AI.
Sounds.Studio: A stem separation tool created by Never Before Heard Sounds.
Stem-Swap: A stem separation tool created by Voice-Swap.
Dynamic Music
Endel: A personalized soundscape generator that enhances activities including sleep and focus. The company also releases collaborations with artists like Grimes, James Blake and 6LACK.
Lifescore: A personalized soundtrack generator that enhances activities like driving, working out and more.
Plus Music.AI: A personalized soundtrack generator for video-game play.
Reactional Music: A personalized soundtrack generator that adapts music with actions taken in video games in real time.
Management
Drop Track: An AI-powered music publicity tool.
Musical AI: An AI-powered rights management tool that enables rights holders to manage their catalog and license their works for generative AI training as desired.
Musiio: An AI music tagging and search tool owned by SoundCloud. This tool creates fingerprints to better track and search songs, and it automates tagging songs by mood, keywords, language, genre and lyrical content.
Triniti: A suite of AI tools for music creation, marketing, management and distribution created by CreateSafe. It is best known for the AI voice application programming interface behind Grimes’ Elf.Tech synthetic voice model.
Other
Hook: An AI music remix app that allows users to create mashups and edits with proper licensing in place.
LANDR: A suite of plug-ins and producer services, many of which are powered by AI, including an AI mastering tool.
Morpho: A timbre transfer tool created by Neutone.
From Ghostwriter’s “fake Drake” song to Metro Boomin‘s “BBL Drizzy,” a lot has happened in a very short time when it comes to the evolution of AI’s use in music. And it’s much more prevalent than the headlines suggest. Every day, songwriters are using AI voices to better target pitch records to artists, producers are trying out AI beats and samples, film/TV licensing experts are using AI stem separation to help them clean up old audio, estates and catalog owners are using AI to better market older songs, and superfans are using AI to create next-level fan fiction and UGC about their favorite artists.
For those just starting out in the brave new world of AI music, and understanding all the buzzwords that come with it, Billboard contacted some of the sector’s leading experts to get answers to top questions.
Trending on Billboard
What are some of the most common ways AI is already being used by songwriters and producers?
TRINITY, music producer: As a producer and songwriter, I use AI and feel inspired by AI tools every day. For example, I love using Splice Create Mode. It allows me to search through the Splice sample catalog while coming up with ideas quickly, and then I export it into my DAW Studio One. It keeps the flow of my sessions going as I create. I heard we’ll soon be able to record vocal ideas into Create Mode, which will be even more intuitive and fun. Also, the Izotope Ozone suite is great. The suite has mastering and mixing assistant AI tools built into its plug-ins. These tools help producers and songwriters mix and master tracks and song ideas.
I’ve also heard other songwriters and producers using AI to get started with song ideas. When you feel blocked, you have AI tools like Jen, Melody Studio and Lemonaide to help you come up with new chord progressions. Also, Akai MPC AI and LALA AI are both great for stem splitting, which allows you to separate [out] any part of the music. For example, if I just want to solo and sample the drums in a record, I can do that now in minutes.
AI is not meant to replace us as producers and songwriters. It’s meant to inspire and push our creativity. It’s all about your perspective and how you use it. The future is now; we should embrace it. Just think about how far we have come from the flip phones to the phones we have now that feel more limitless every day. I believe the foundation and heart of us as producers and songwriters will never get lost. We must master our craft to become the greatest producers and songwriters. AI in music creation is meant to assist and free [up] more mental space while I create. I think of AI as my J.A.R.V.I.S. and I’m Iron Man.
How can a user tell if a generative AI company is considered “ethical” or not?
Michael Pelczynski, chief strategy and impact officer, Voice-Swap: If you’re paying for services from a generative AI company, ask yourself, “Where is my money going?” If you’re an artist, producer or songwriter, this question becomes even more crucial: “Why?” Because as a customer, the impact of your usage directly affects you and your rights as a creator. Not many companies in this space truly lead by example when it comes to ethical practices. Doing so requires effort, time and money. It’s more than just marketing yourself as ethical. To make AI use safer and more accessible for musicians, make sure the platform or company you choose compensates everyone involved, both for the final product and for the training sources.
Two of the most popular [ways to determine whether a company is ethical] are the Fairly Trained certification that highlights companies committed to ethical AI training practices, and the BMAT x Voice-Swap technical certification that sets new standards for the ethical and legal utilization of AI-generated voices.
When a generative AI company says it has “ethically” sourced the data it trained on, what does that usually mean?
Alex Bestall, founder and CEO, Rightsify and Global Copyright Exchange (GCX): [Ethical datasets] require [an AI company to] license the works and get opt-ins from the rights holders and contributors… Beyond copyright, it is also important for vocalists whose likeness is used in a dataset to have a clear opt-in.
What are some examples of AI that can be useful to music-makers that are not generative?
Jessica Powell, CEO, AudioShake: There are loads of tools powered by AI that are not generative. Loop and sample suggestion are a great way to help producers and artists brainstorm the next steps in a track. Stem separation can open up a recording for synch licensing, immersive mixing or remixing. And metadata tagging can help prepare a song for synch-licensing opportunities, playlisting and other experiences that require an understanding of genre, BPM and other factors.
In the last year, several lawsuits have been filed between artists of various fields and generative AI companies, primarily concerning the training process. What is the controversy about?
Shara Senderoff, co-founder, Futureverse and Raised in Space: The heart of the controversy lies in generative AI companies using copyrighted work to train their models without artists’ permission. Creators argue that this practice infringes on their intellectual property rights, as these AI models can produce content closely resembling their original works. This raises significant legal and ethical questions about creative ownership and the value of human artistry in the digital age. The creator community is incensed [by] seeing AI companies profit from their efforts without proper recognition or compensation.
Are there any tools out there today that can be used to detect generative AI use in music? Why are these tools important to have?
Amadea Choplin, COO, Pex: The more reliable tools available today use automated content recognition (ACR) and music recognition technology (MRT) to identify uses of existing AI-generated music. Pex can recognize new uses of existing AI tracks, detect impersonations of artists via voice identification and help determine when music is likely to be AI-generated. Other companies that can detect AI-generated music include Believe and Deezer; however, we have not tested them ourselves. We are living in the most content-dense period in human history where any person with a smartphone can be a creator in an instant, and AI-powered technology is fueling this growth. Tools that operate at mass scale are critical to correctly identifying creators and ensuring they are properly compensated for their creations.
Romain Simiand, chief product officer, Ircam Amplify: Most AI detection tools provide only one side of the coin. As an example, tools such as aivoicedetector.com are primarily meant to detect deepfakes for speech. IRCAM Amplify focuses primarily on prompt-based tools used widely. Yet, because we know this approach is not bulletproof, we are currently supercharging our product to highlight voice clones and identify per-stem AI-generated content. Another interesting contender is resemble.ai, but while it seems their approach is similar, the methodology described diverges greatly.
Finally, we have pex.com, which focuses on voice identification. I haven’t tested the tool but this approach seems to require the original catalog to be made available, which is a potential problem.
AI recognition tools like the AI Generated Detector released by IRCAM Amplify and the others mentioned above help with the fair use and distribution of AI-generated content.
We think AI can be a creativity booster in the music sector, but it is as important to be able to recognize those tracks that have been generated with AI [automatically] as well as identifying deepfakes — videos and audio that are typically used maliciously or to spread false information.
In the United States, what laws are currently being proposed to protect artists from AI vocal deepfakes?
Morna Willens, chief policy officer, RIAA: Policymakers in the U.S. have been focused on guardrails for artificial intelligence that promote innovation while protecting all of us from unconsented use of our images and voices to create invasive deepfakes and voice clones. Across legislative efforts, First Amendment speech protections are expressly covered and provisions are in place to help remove damaging AI content that would violate these laws.
On the federal level, Reps. María Elvira Salazar (R-FL), Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Nathaniel Moran (R-TX), Joe Morelle (D-NY) and Rob Wittman (R-VA) introduced the No Artificial Intelligence Fake Replicas and Unauthorized Duplications Act to create a national framework that would safeguard Americans from their voice and likeness being used in nonconsensual AI-generated imitations.
Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) released a discussion draft of a bill called Nurture Originals, Foster Art and Keep Entertainment Safe Act with similar aims of protecting individuals from AI deepfakes and voice clones. While not yet formally introduced, we’re hopeful that the final version will provide strong and comprehensive protections against exploitive AI content.
Most recently, Sens. Blackburn, Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) introduced the Content Origin Protection and Integrity From Edited and Deepfaked Media Act, offering federal transparency guidelines for authenticating and detecting AI-generated content while also holding violators accountable for harmful deepfakes.
In the states, existing “right of publicity” laws address some of the harms caused by unconsented deepfakes and voice clones, and policymakers are working to strengthen and update these. The landmark Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act made Tennessee the first state to update its laws to address the threats posed by unconsented AI deepfakes and voice clones. Many states are similarly considering updates to local laws for the AI era.
RIAA has worked on behalf of the artists, rights holders and the creative community to educate policymakers on the impact of AI — both challenges and opportunities. These efforts are a promising start, and we’ll continue to advocate for artists and the entire music ecosystem as technologies develop and new issues emerge.
What legal consequences could a user face for releasing a song that deepfakes another artist’s voice? Could that user be shielded from liability if the song is clearly meant to be parody?
Joseph Fishman, music law professor, Vanderbilt University: The most important area of law that the user would need to worry about is publicity rights, also known as name/image/likeness laws, or NIL. For now, the scope of publicity rights varies state by state, though Congress is working on enacting an additional federal version whose details are still up for grabs. Several states include voice as a protected aspect of the rights holder’s identity. Some companies in the past have gotten in legal trouble for mimicking a celebrity’s voice, but so far those cases have involved commercial advertisements. Whether one could get in similar trouble simply for using vocal mimicry in a new song, outside of the commercial context, is a different and largely untested question. This year, Tennessee became the first state to expand its publicity rights statute to cover that scenario expressly, and other jurisdictions may soon follow. We still don’t know whether that expansion would survive a First Amendment challenge.
If the song is an obvious parody, the user should be on safer ground. There’s pretty widespread agreement that using someone’s likeness for parody or other forms of criticism is protected speech under the First Amendment. Some state publicity rights statutes even include specific parody exemptions.
Major labels and distribution companies were once distinct entities with different ways of doing business. In today’s music industry, however, “distributors are starting to look like labels, and labels are starting to look like distributors,” says entertainment attorney David Fritz.
Each of the major label groups has its own distribution arm: Sony relies on The Orchard, Universal leans on Virgin, Warner has ADA. Confusingly, at varying points in the last five years, many of the frontline labels have launched distribution offerings too, whether that’s Republic (Imperial), 300 (Sparta), Alamo (which is affiliated with both Santa Anna and another distribution company, Foundation), or Interscope. Sony also has AWAL, which focuses more on nurturing individual artists, whereas The Orchard usually looks to sign and support labels. These companies are all in competition with each other — and often with the various frontline labels as well.
For Kirk Harding, a veteran artist manager and co-owner of the Bad Habit label, the meaning of all this activity is clear. “Everyone knows what the future is,” he says. “The major labels are going to be distribution companies with really big catalogs.”
Trending on Billboard
This would have been hard to fathom just five years ago. “It’s a fundamental change in how we’re operating,” acknowledges one major label A&R executive.
Frontline major label deals typically come with budgets — for recording, marketing and more — along with access to teams of people who can theoretically help artists find new songwriting partners, polish their TikTok clips and find money to support a tour. Since the label invests resources and services in the artists, it takes a significant chunk of the money that they earn, as well as rights to the songs they make.
Distribution deals are often the polar opposite. They typically come with far less money up front, few, if any, services, and significantly shorter terms. Since the company offering the deal doesn’t commit much, it doesn’t take much.
The frontline major labels were historically opposed to offering distribution agreements precisely because they tend to be short-term deals where the majority of the money made goes to the artist. That severely limits the upside for the record companies, which through the decades built their multi-billion-dollar valuations via long-term agreements — often five albums or more — in which they obtained artists’ recordings in perpetuity. Each major label group maintained a distribution arm for acts that insisted on a different arrangement, or for independent labels that needed help to get to market, but the frontline labels almost always signed the stars, and were thus seen as the real engines of growth.
Now, thanks to streaming, social media and advances in music production technology, artists can record songs, distribute them and amass fans on their own, meaning they have the luxury of turning down unappealing deals. And it turns out that, given the choice, many artists want to maintain flexibility — and make the majority of the money from their art. “Every artist we talk to is asking for a distro situation,” the A&R says.
This puts major labels in a bind. The long duration of traditional recording agreements allowed them to build up massive catalogs. This in turn ensured they had leverage in negotiations with streaming platforms — and protected them as catalog listening grew in the streaming era. The rise of short-term distribution deals, then, seems likely to erode the size of their catalogs over time even quicker than 35-year termination rights, meaning major labels are effectively mortgaging their future for short-term gains.
But like politicians looking to win re-election, they may feel they have no other choice. Even executives who believe distribution deals don’t make sense for them say they’re now feeling pressured to offer them anyway. “Majors have had to adapt and start offering different types of agreements just to even be in the ring on some of these potential signings,” says Gandhar Savur, a music lawyer.
Not only that, but the major labels have been losing market share to an array of new digital distributors that undercut them by allowing artists to upload songs to streaming platforms for a negligible fee or small percentage of royalties. This forces the majors to play defense. “They see some indie artists that come out of distribution systems and think, ‘I want that too,’” says Joie Manda, a former major label executive who launched Encore Recordings in 2021.
Offering distribution deals isn’t just about playing defense, though. They can help the majors limit risk by signing artists earlier, when they have smaller fan bases, which makes deals cheaper. Artists who do well and need additional support can later be “upstreamed” to a more traditional frontline arrangement. (And if the majors want to sign a viral act that lucked into one big song but has little other music of promise, a distribution deal may be the best way to do that.)
For artists, all the major label forays into distribution mean they potentially have a lot of different options at their disposal. “Artists want choices; they want the option for high service or low service, long term or short term,” says Mike Caren, founder of Artist Partner Group. “The choices are out there, and some companies want to provide all the choices under a single banner.”
Making the right choice remains a challenge, however.
A distribution deal “is not a label deal,” Harding emphasizes — even if it’s with a label. “All you can expect them to do is distribute. If you want them to do more, you have to pay more.”
Young artists in particular may not understand these distinctions, or know which option is better for them. Caren cautions that distribution agreements “can become traps where confusing pitches lead to false promises of short term with high service,” he says, adding, “This can be an unsustainable and dangerous territory that may lead to a lot of frustrated artists.”
Distribution offers will often come with one advance to cover all of an artist’s needs, according to Matt Buser, a music lawyer. “It forces artists to budget out all these different buckets of money,” he explains. “It gives them a lot of autonomy. But if you don’t know what you’re doing, and you blow all the money, and you have to ask for more, the record company gets more rights, or a longer deal, or something in exchange.”
It’s not uncommon for artists to be messaged distribution agreements via Instagram the moment they start to show growth — some companies don’t even pretend to want to meet the acts they sign. There are distributors who “play moneyball where they send very low-risk, low-effort offers to kids at scale,” says Eric Parker, who manages the rising U.K. act Myles Smith, among others. “I’ve seen one distributor send the exact same agreement to over 10 different kids.”
Parker calls this approach “race to the bottom A&R-ing in the age of data analytics.” It’s like using artists as lottery tickets — buy as many as possible as cheaply as possible, and pray one gets lucky.
Manda also believes some artists “are not getting the right guidance” when they’re evaluating different offers from labels and distributors. “Artists need to spend time with, and talk with, the people they might partner with,” he says.
He has a dim view of the major labels’ decision to throw themselves headlong into distribution. The majors “need to lean more into their superpower, which is signing, developing and breaking superstars over the long term,” Manda says. It’s notable that, even as the majors expand their distribution webs, most of the recent breakout artists this year — Sabrina Carpenter, Chappell Roan, Benson Boone, Teddy Swims — have come via traditional label deals.
Despite this, the major label scramble to get artists into distribution deals continues. “Everyone is competing now in the space of, ‘It’s no longer wait and see what this becomes — stick it into distribution,’” says one senior executive. “Every artist has two or three distro offers after one video.”
Meow Wolf, the arts and entertainment company known for its fantastical immersive installations, will open its newest location in Houston’s Fifth Ward neighborhood on Oct. 31.
News of the Halloween opening comes alongside the reveal of the theme for the venue: Radio Tave, an explorable radio station that will transmit visitors to, a press release says, “unexpected frequencies.” A play off of “radio wave,” the installation is set in a radio station in an alternative dimension and thus has a special focus on sound. Radio Tave will be made up of dozens of rooms designed by more than 100 artists, more than half of whom are based in Texas.
“Music and sound play an even bigger role in this exhibition than before,” Meow Wolf’s senior creative producer Susie Cowan tells Billboard. “We’ve got some incredible interactives that transform how people experience sound — things you can play with and explore that are just as fun to listen to as they are to look at. It’s a true audiovisual feast — it’s vibrant, one-of-a-kind and totally captivating.”
Trending on Billboard
Cowan adds that the space plans to “host musical performances and special events, just like what you’ve seen in our Denver and Santa Fe exhibitions” with programming announcements forthcoming. (The upcoming music calendars at the Denver and Santa Fe spaces include bands and DJs including The Polyphonic Spree and Tycho.)
Meow Wolf Houston
Tarick Foteh | Courtesy of Meow Wolf
Meow Wolf Houston marks the fifth Meow Wolf location in the U.S. and the second in Texas; its Dallas/Fort Worth installation opened in July 2023. The original Meow Wolf in Santa Fe, N.M., opened in 2016, with subsequent expansions to Denver, Las Vegas and Los Angeles, where an installation inside a movie theater is set to open in 2026. Each installation has a theme, with visitors working to unravel the storyline and mystery built into the design of each venue.
These concepts each typically take two to four years to create, with artists, storytellers, engineers and more contributing to each one. “For Radio Tave specifically,” Cowan says, “we wanted to create something that expanded the worlds we’ve built in Dallas with The Real Unreal and Santa Fe with House of Eternal Return. Starting with the idea of a community radio station, we used sound — music, audio, voice and sonic energy — as the central theme, driving the story and shaping the participant’s experience.”
Tickets for Radio Tave open to the general public on Oct. 1, with season pass holders and email subscribers able to get earlier pre-sale tickets later this month.
Meow Wolf Houston
Tarick Foteh/Courtesy of Meow Wolf
The space will also feature Cowboix Hevvven, a honky-tonk inspired working bar and restaurant with a jukebox offering 30 licensed songs by Texas artists. The Texas influence runs deep in the project, with many Texans working on the project and the team fabricating a fictional small East Texas town as the setting for the radio station.
“On top of that,’ says Cowan, “we’ve got 35 collaborating artists from Texas who have contributed to their own unique spaces, drawing inspiration from their roots, plus an additional 10 Houston artists who are part of our Art Team Task Force.” The space will also feature a plethora of Houston-specific Easter eggs for guests to discover.
“Houston is such a cultural hub, and we were immediately drawn to its vibrant complexity and rich artistic scene,” adds Cowan. “The city’s deep love for art really aligns with what Meow Wolf is all about — there’s creativity everywhere you look. We’re always inspired by the places we go, but working with Texas artists has been something special.”
The White Stripes have filed a copyright lawsuit against Donald Trump for using “Seven Nation Army” in a social media post, making good on threats to sue the Republican presidential candidate.
In a complaint filed Monday in Manhattan federal court, Jack White and Meg White accused Trump and his campaign of “flagrant misappropriation” of one of the “most well-known and influential musical works of all time.”
The lawsuit accuses Trump not only of infringing the band’s rights to the song, but also of violating federal trademark law by falsely suggesting the duo support his bid for another presidential term.
“The new association with Defendant Trump that Defendants have foisted upon Plaintiffs through the Infringing Trump Videos is even more offensive to Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs vehemently oppose the policies adopted and actions taken by Defendant Trump when he was President and those he has proposed for the second term he seeks,” attorneys for the White Stripes wrote.
In a social media post announcing the lawsuit, White included a screenshot of the complaint with a one-line caption: “This machine sues fascists.”
The filing of the case came less than two weeks after White blasted Trump over the apparent use of his song. In the disputed clip, posted by the former president’s deputy director of communications, Trump ascends the stairs of a plane as the iconic bass riff of “Seven Nation Army” plays.
“Oh….Don’t even think about using my music you fascists,” White began. “Law suit coming from my lawyers about this (to add to your 5 thousand others.)”
Numerous artists have spoken out about in recent weeks about Trump’s use of their music. Beyoncé, Celine Dion, the Foo Fighters, ABBA and Sinead O’Connor‘s estate have all spoken out against the former president’s use of their songs.
Most of the complaints have come as public statements or cease-and-desist letters, but others have taken legal action before the White Stripes. In August, the estate of Isaac Hayes sued in federal court, accusing the campaign of using his “Hold On, I’m Coming” at rallies and in video recordings of those events. Last week, the Hayes estate won an injunction barring the use of the song while the case plays out.
The use of copyrighted music at campaign rallies is a sometimes murky issue, with candidates often claiming that they secured a blanket license from ASCAP or BMI to perform the track. But the use of a song in a video is more straightforward; if a candidate hasn’t secured a sync license directly from the artist or their label, it is copyright infringement to use it.
In their lawsuit on Monday, the White Stripes said that Trump knew or should have known that he needed a license to play their song in his video — citing the fact that he has been “on the receiving end of numerous copyright claims by musical artists whose work he used without permission.”
The band also cited its previous opposition to his use of their music. Back in 2016, the White Stripes “publicly denounced” Trump for using their songs, saying that they were “disgusted by that association.”
A representative for the Trump campaign did not immediately return a request for comment.
Scalpers hoping to earn a big payout flipping Chappell Roan tickets likely just watched their profits vanish after the singer announced she was shutting down resellers charging outrageous markups for her Oct. 1 show in Franklin, Tenn.
The news was greeted with praise by fans who have watched the “Good Luck, Babe!” singer’s star rise to new heights this summer — as well as by questions from ticket buyers wondering how the singer was able to call a mulligan on tickets she’d already sold to ensure actual fans get to attend her show instead.
The answer isn’t totally clear — Roan’s reps did not respond to Billboard‘s requests for comment — but there’s enough information already available about the Franklin show to tell part of the story. It’s also worth noting that Roan isn’t the first artist to deal with scalpers trying to mark up fan-friendly $30 lawn tickets to as high as $900; in years past, major artists like Ed Sheeran and Eric Church, among others, have utilized the same strategy. And while not a perfect system, it’s still an impactful way to ensure that more fans have access to affordable tickets.
Trending on Billboard
In many ways, for a breakthrough artist like Roan, there are worse problems to have. Over the last year, thanks to the success of her 2023 album The Rise and Fall of a Midwest Princess, her work as a supporting act on Olivia Rodrigo‘s Guts World Tour and her breakout performances this summer at Lollapalooza and Coachella, Roan, as some say in music business parlance, is the blowing the f— up. Now, as with any big star, scalpers are taking advantage.
In one less extensive example of this, tickets for Roan’s Oct. 2 show at Walmart Amphitheatre near Rogers, Ark., were originally priced between $30 and $80 when they went on sale in June. Now, they’re selling for $300 to $1,200 on StubHub and other secondary sites — though in that case, only a couple dozen tickets, out of 11,000 total capacity, appear to be listed on StubHub.
But in Franklin, there were dozens, maybe hundreds, more resale tickets on sale for the show at the 7,500-capacity FirstBank Amphitheater. Located just 20 miles south of Nashville, Franklin is a much bigger music market than Rogers, and the price gouging for tickets apparently prompted someone from her team to work with reps from Ticketmaster to find out who is scalping those tickets and take them away from those responsible.
Catching scalpers on Ticketmaster, especially after a sale has been made, isn’t particularly complicated. While there are laws governing ticket ownership and rights, in most cases ticketing companies treat tickets like revocable licenses, meaning they have the right to disable tickets that a fan purchased and refund them their money if they are caught violating Ticketmaster’s terms of service.
For example, many scalpers will try to buy up as many tickets as possible using multiple credit cards. That’s a violation of Ticketmaster’s “limit per order” policy, which limits the number of tickets that can be purchased per order based on the event and demand for tickets.
Ticketmaster prohibits users from using multiple IP addresses or email addresses when buying tickets, so if someone successfully completed a purchase of a Chappell Roan ticket but was later found to have used multiple email addresses or a VPN to hide their IP addresses, that could be grounds for their tickets to be canceled and refunded. It wouldn’t take long for a couple of Ticketmaster executives to comb through the transactions for a 15,000-capacity show and find purchases tied to bots with no IP addresses, or large purchases from newly-created accounts linked to free email services.
Once those transactions are identified, most are investigated and the purchases canceled. In Roan’s case, the canceled tickets were pooled and sold via lottery to fans who had to register in advance for a shot at buying them. Though it’s unclear how many tickets were canceled and reissued to fans, it’s unlikely that more than a few hundred tickets were involved.
While this practice is popular with fans and punishes amateur scalpers, there is an argument to be made that, in some cases, it enriches professional scalpers who are better at avoiding detection by reducing the number of tickets available on resale sites and in turn driving up the price for those tickets that aren’t taken down.
But the effort isn’t specifically aimed at eliminating all ticket scalping. Instead, it’s about randomly disrupting the predatory practices of scalpers targeting vulnerable shows by rising artists like Roan who don’t want to charge fans hundreds of dollars to see their concerts. And by focusing on high-margin shows where scalpers are set to make big paydays, artists like Roan really can impact the pocketbooks of professional ticket resellers and help keep more of their tickets affordable for fans.