Spotify was hit with another AI controversy after computer-generated songs were released under the names of dead musicians.
An investigation of 404 media found that Spotify publish ai-generated songs on the pages of late artists without the consent of their goods or labels.
Such a track, “Together”, recently appeared on the official page of Blake Foley, a country singer who was murdered in 1989. The song sounds vague similar to Foys style, but the accompanying picture shows a blonde, young man who looks nothing.
404 media linked the track with a corporate account called Syntax, which was also responsible for several other apparently manufactured numbers. One includes “bucket of ereatic you”, a song that Grammy allegedly performed by Grammy was performed by Country-Singer songwriter Guy Clark, who died in 2016.
Spotify removed the non -authorized tracks after the report of 404 media was published. Although this is a particularly dark example of the music of AI-generated music on the Swedish streaming platform, it is not the first and it is unlikely that it is the last.
The 💜 the EU technology
The latest rumors from the EU -Tech scene, a story of our wise old founder Boris and some questionable KI art. It is free of charge every week in your inbox. Register now!
An AI gener band called the the the the Velvet Sundown appeared on Spotify. His upper track, “dust on the wind” – This sounds similar to the 1977 Kansas hit “Dust in the Wind” – almost 2 million times since its release on June 20.
Spotify Bio from Velvet Sundown now describes the band as a “synthetic music project”, but the platform identifies the tracks or no other music.
Daniel EK, CEO of Spotify, has followed a consistent Laissez-Faire approach to manage content of AI-generated content. EK before said These tracks created with AI were a fair game on the platform – unless they imitated real artists. However, Spotify seems to do lousy task, to identify and remove these AI imitations. accordingly several Report.
The rise of music on Spotify has triggered a widespread counter -reaction for several reasons. One includes the frequent use of AI tools such as Suno or Udio, created the whole traces based on a simple text request. While the companies behind them claim that the training of their models ends up in copyrighted music ”, falls under”fair use“Opponents argue that these are copyright infringement. Critics also warn that AI-generated tracks compete for streams and reduce the proportion of license fees that are available to human artists.
Sophie Jones, the Chief Strategy Officer of the Musikhandelspages the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), called for new protective measures in An interview with The guardian Last week.
“The rise of AI-generated bands and music that enter the market indicates that technology companies have trained AI models with creative work-mainly without approval or payment to creators and legal rights, in order to compete directly with human art, in order to compete directly with human art.” she said.
Another problem is that the deceived listeners with ai-generated profiles and songs are a form of misinformations that risk the call of the call of human artists.
In order to give the creators a fair recording, Jones and others argue that streaming platforms should begin to clearly mark AI-generated content. This is a step Pioneering work of competing streaming -app deezerWhicH has developed an algorithm that Can identify artificially created songs made with several popular generative AI models, including Suno and Udio.
“AI is not inherently good or bad, but we believe that a responsible and transparent approach is the key to building up trust with our users and the music industry,” said Alexis Lanternier, CEO von Deezer.
“We are also clearly in our commitment to securing the rights of artists and songwriters at a time when the copyright law is questioned in favor of training AI models.”
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.