right of publicity
The three major label groups have been in talks with the big music streaming services to find a way to get them to remove recordings with AI-generated vocals created to sound like popular artists, Billboard has learned. The idea under discussion with Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon Music would operate much like the one laid out by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act but would cite violations of rights of publicity, rather than copyright, according to sources at all three majors. Unlike the DMCA, however, this arrangement appears to be voluntary.
The 1998 DMCA gives online services that use, store or transmit copyrighted works a “safe harbor” from secondary liability for copyright infringement as long as they abide by a notice-and-takedown system that allows rightsholders to ask them to remove copyrighted content. That law would not apply to most AI-generated soundalike tracks because they do not infringe protected elements of copyrighted recordings or compositions but rather a trademark or a right of publicity, the protection celebrities may be able to receive to protect their names and likenesses from unauthorized commercial exploitation.
Songs that imitate the voices of big-name talent have become a trend over the past month, reaching widespread attention in mid-April when the track “Heart on My Sleeve,” which apparently used AI to mimic the style and tone of vocals by Drake and The Weeknd, was uploaded to streaming services and then swiftly removed. (The song did not credit those artists, although they were referred to in social media posts about it.)
Citing rights of publicity can be more complicated than copyright, because they are matters of state law in the U.S., backed by limited legal precedent. Rights vary by state, protections for deceased artists vary even more widely, and the use of soundalike vocals for creative purposes may in some cases be protected as free speech. Further complicating matters, these rights almost always belong to artists, not labels, which would presumably file notices on their behalf with authorization. Right now, however, this is the most obvious legal argument with which to keep AI-generated soundalikes off major streaming platforms.
In an April 26 earnings call, UMG CEO and chairman Lucian Grainge seemed to signal this approach to investors. “The recent explosive development in generative AI will… create rights issues with respect to existing copyright law, in the US and other countries, as well as laws governing trademark, name and likeness, voice impersonation, and right of publicity,” he said. “Further, we have provisions in our commercial contracts that provide additional protections.” It is not clear if takedowns issued by the majors would rely on these provisions, state law, goodwill, or some combination.
Some executives have raised concerns that AI soundalikes that imitate the voices of popular artists could result in consumer confusion. Still, a few artists like Grimes and Holly Herndon have embraced the technology, training their own AI voice models and making them available to the public.
Meanwhile, companies like Uberduck, Supertone, Lingyin Engine, and Covers.ai are marketing models with which to replicate voices. Covers.ai, which launched last week, has said that it received over 100,000 sign-ups in anticipation. Tencent Music Entertainment executives announced in November that with the company’s Lingyin Engine they had created and released over 1,000 songs containing synthetic AI voices already, one of which amassed 100 million streams.
This stance taken by the leading streaming services counters a recent announcement from the blockchain-based music platform Audius, which announced that artists can now “opt-in” to allow AI-generated works on their artist page. To organize this new music and avoid confusion, Audius would create a separate tab on the artists’ page especially for user-generated content.
Representatives for Universal, Sony, Warner, Spotify, Apple Music and Amazon Music did not respond to requests for comment.
When does a soundalike song sound a little too much alike?
Rick Astley is suing Yung Gravy over the rapper’s breakout 2022 hit that heavily borrowed from the singer’s iconic “Never Gonna Give You Up,” alleging that the new track — an interpolation that sounded a whole lot like an outright sample — broke the law by impersonating Astley’s voice.
In a lawsuit filed Thursday (Jan. 26) in Los Angeles court, Astley claims that Gravy’s “Betty (Get Money),” which reached No. 30 on the Hot 100 last year, violated the singer’s so-called right of publicity because it closely mimicked the distinctive voice Astley used in the chart-topping 1987 hit.
“In an effort to capitalize off of the immense popularity and goodwill of Mr. Astley, defendants … conspired to include a deliberate and nearly indistinguishable imitation of Mr. Astley’s voice throughout the song,” Astley’s lawyers wrote. “The public could not tell the difference. The imitation of Mr. Astley’s voice was so successful the public believed it was actually Mr. Astley singing.”
Pulling heavily from a song that boomed in recent years thanks to “Rickroll” internet memes, “Betty” was a major hit for Yung Gravy. But it often drew attention largely for its connections to Astley; the New York Times called it “a real-life rickroll that functioned as a comedy song, a TikTok trend and a nostalgia trip all at once.”
In their new lawsuit, Astley’s lawyers said the singer was “extremely protective over his name, image, and likeness,” meaning the unauthorized use of the soundalike voice had caused him “immense damage.”
Representatives for Gravy (real name Matthew Hauri) and Universal Music Group’s Republic Records (also named in the lawsuit as the label that released “Betty”) did not immediately return a request for comment.
Thursday’s new lawsuit raises big questions about the methods used in the music industry to legally borrow from older songs, an ever more popular tactic in a nostalgia-heavy age.
When they created “Betty,” Gravy and his team allegedly cleared the underlying musical composition to “Give You Up.” That gave them the legal right to recreate music and lyrics from the original in their new track — a process known as “interpolating.”
But the lawsuit says Gravy and his team weren’t able to secure a license to use the actual sound recording of the famous track — the better-known process of “sampling.” That would mean they didn’t have any right to directly copy the exact sounds, including Astley’s voice.
Instead, Astley says they hired Popnick (real name Nick Seeley) to imitate Astley’s “signature voice” on the track. At one point, the lawsuit quotes from an Instagram video in which Popnick said he wanted the song to “sound identical” to Astley voice.
By doing so without permission, the lawsuit claims that Gravy and Popnick violated Astley’s right of publicity — the legal right to control how your name, image or likeness is commercially exploited by others.
“A license to use the original underlying musical composition does not authorize the stealing of the artist’s voice in the original recording,” Astley’s lawyers wrote. “So, instead, they resorted to theft of Mr. Astley’s voice without a license and without agreement.”
Astley’s allegations rely heavily on a 1988 federal court ruling, in which Bette Midler successfully sued the Ford Motor Co. for violating her right of publicity by running a series of commercials featuring a Midler impersonator. In that case, the court sided with Midler even though Ford had obtained a license to the underlying song.
The new lawsuit was filed by Richard Busch, a prominent music litigator best known for winning the blockbuster copyright case over “Blurred Lines.” In a statement to Billboard, Busch said: “Mr. Astley owns his voice. California law is clear since the Bette Midler case more than 30 years ago that nobody has the right to imitate or use it without his permission.”
In addition to violating Astley’s right of publicity, the lawsuit also accuses Gravy of violating federal trademark law by making false statements that made it appear that the singer had endorsed the new song. In an interview with Billboard, Gravy said he had spoken with Astley and that the singer had approved of the new song — that he “fucks with the song.”
“These statements were all false,” Astley wrote in his lawsuit.
-
Pages