Spotify has been beaten with another controversy after publishing songs generated by computer under the names of dead musicians.
An investigation by 404 media discovered that Spotify is launching songs generated by AI in the pages of deceased artists, without the approval of its properties or labels.
One of those songs, “Together”, recently appeared on the official Blake Foley page, a country singer who was killed in 1989. The song sounds vaguely similar to Foley’s style, but the accompanying image presents a blond and young man who does not look like him.
404 Media linked the track to a company account called syntax error, which was also responsible for several other apparently manufactured numbers. One included “Has You”, a song supposedly played by the singer and composer of Country winner of Grammy, Guy Clark, who died in 2016.
Spotify eliminated the unauthorized clues after the 404 media report was published. However, although this is a particularly gloomy example of music generated by AI on the Swedish transmission platform, it is not the first, and it is unlikely to be the last.
Last month, a band generated by the so -called The Velvet Sundown appeared in Spotify. Your upper track, “Dust on the Wind” – which sounds similar to the success of Kansas of 1977 “Dust in the Wind”, almost 2 million times has been played since its launch on June 20.
Spotify Bio of Velvet Slown now describes the band as a “synthetic music project”, but the platform does not label the clues, or no other music, as AI generated.
Daniel EK, CEO of Spotify, has adopted a constant approach to Laissez-Faire to administer content generated by AI. EK previously saying Those clues created with AI were a game right on the platform, unless they imitated real artists. However, Spotify seems to be doing a lousy job by identifying and eliminating these imitations of ia too, according several information.
The emergence of music generated by AI in Spotify has caused a generalized reaction for several reasons. One implies the frequent use of AI tools such as Suno or Udio, which generate entire clues based on a simple text message. While the companies behind them claim that training their models on music with copyright falls into “fair use“The opponents argue that it is equivalent to a copyright violation. Critics also warn that the clues generated by IA compete for the currents, reducing the proportion of royalties available to human artists.
Sophie Jones, Director of Strategy of the Music Agency, the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), requested new protections in An interview with The guardian last week.
“The emergence of bands and music generated by AI that enters the market points to the fact that technological companies have been training AI models using creative works, in large part without authorization or payment to creators and rights holders, to compete directly with human art,” She said.
Another concern is that deceiving listeners with profiles and songs generated by AI is a form of erroneous information that runs the risk of ruining the reputation of human artists.
To give creators a fair photo, Jones and others argue that the transmission platforms should begin by clearly marking the content generated by the AI. That is a movement Pioneer for the Rival Transmission ApplicationthatH has developed an algorithm that You can identify artificially made songs made using several popular generative models, including Suno and Udio.
“AI is not inherently good or bad, but we believe that a responsible and transparent approach is key to generating confidence with our users and the music industry,” said Deezer CEO, Alexis Lanternier, in June.
“We are also clear about our commitment to safeguard the rights of artists and composers at a time when the copyright law is being questioned in favor of the training of AI models.”
#Spotifys #songs #dead #artists #outrage #exploitation
