At AI Hearing, UMG Asks Senate Judiciary to Protect Artists From Impersonation With New Regulations

Universal Music Group general counsel/executive vp of business and legal affairs, Jeffery Harleston, spoke as a witness in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on AI and copyright on Wednesday (July 12) to represent the music industry. In his remarks, the executive called for a “federal right of publicity” — the state-by-state right that protects artists’ likenesses, names, and voices — as well as for “visibility into AI training data” and for “AI-generated content to be labeled as such.”

Harleston was joined by other witnesses including Karla Ortiz, a conceptual artist and illustrator who is waging a class action lawsuit against Stability AI; Matthew Sag, professor of artificial intelligence at Emory University School of Law; Dana Rao, executive vp/general counsel at Adobe; and Ben Brooks, head of public policy at Stability AI.

“I’d like to make four key points to you today,” Harleston began. “First, copyright, artists, and human creativity must be protected. Art and human creativity are central to our identity.” He clarified that AI is not necessarily always an enemy to artists, and can be used in “service” to them as well. “If I leave you with one message today, it is this: AI in the service of artists and creativity can be a very, very good thing. But AI that uses, or, worse yet, appropriates the work of these artists and creators and their creative expression, their name, their image, their likeness, their voice, without authorization, without consent, simply is not a good thing,” he said.

Second, he noted the challenges that generative AI poses to copyright. In written testimony, he noted the concern of “AI-generated music being used to generate fraudulent plays on streaming services, siphoning income from human creators.” And while testifying at the hearing, he added, “At Universal, we are the stewards of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of copyrighted creative works from our songwriters and artists, and they’ve entrusted us to honor, value and protect them. Today, they are being used to train generative AI systems without authorization. This irresponsible AI is violative of copyright law and completely unnecessary.”

Training is one of the most contentious areas of generative AI for the music industry. In order to get an AI model to learn how to generate a human voice, a drum beat or lyrics, the AI model will train itself on up to billions of data points. Often this data contains copyrighted material, like sound recordings, without the owner’s knowledge or compensation. And while many believe this should be considered a form of copyright infringement, the legality of using copyrighted works as training data is still being determined in the United States and other countries.

The topic is also the source of Ortiz’s class action lawsuit against Stability AI. Her complaint, filed in California federal court along with two other visual artists, alleges that the “new” images generated by Stability AI’s Stable Diffusion model used their art “without the consent of the artists and without compensating any of those artists,” which they feel makes any resulting generation from the AI model a “derivative work.”

In his spoken testimony, Harleston pointed to today’s “robust digital marketplace” — including social media sites, apps and more — in which “thousands of responsible companies properly obtained the rights they need to operate. There is no reason that the same rules should not apply equally to AI companies.”

Third, he reiterated that “AI can be used responsibly…just like other technologies before.” Among his examples of positive uses of AI, he pointed to Lee Hyun [aka MIDNATT], a K-pop artist distributed by UMG who used generative AI to simultaneously release the same single in six languages using his voice on the same day. “The generative AI tool extended the artist’s creative intent and expression with his consent to new markets and fans instantly,” Harleston said. “In this case, consent is the key,” he continued, echoing Ortiz’s complaint.

While making his final point, Harleston urged Congress to act in several ways — including by enacting a federal right of publicity. Currently, rights of publicity vary widely state by state, and many states’ versions include limitations, including less protection for some artists after their deaths.

The shortcomings of this state-by-state system were highlighted when an anonymous internet user called Ghostwriter posted a song — apparently using AI to mimic the voices of Drake and The Weeknd –called “Heart On My Sleeve.” The track’s uncanny rendering of the two major stars immediately went viral, urging the music business to confront the new, fast-developing concern of AI voice impersonation.

A month later, sources told Billboard that the three major label groups — UMG, Warner Music Group and Sony Music — have been in talks with the big music streaming services to allow them to cite “right of publicity” violations as a reason to take down songs with AI vocals. Removing songs based on right of publicity violations is not required by law, so the streamers’ reception to the idea appears to be voluntary.

“Deep fakes, and/or unauthorized recordings or visuals of artists generated by AI, can lead to consumer confusion, unfair competition against the artists that actually were the original creator, market dilution and damage to the artists’ reputation or potentially irreparably harming their career. An artist’s voice is often the most valuable part of their livelihood and public persona. And to steal it, no matter the means, is wrong,” said Harleston.

In his written testimony, Harleston went deeper, stating UMG’s position that “AI generated, mimicked vocals trained on vocal recordings from our copyrighted recordings go beyond Right of Publicity violations… copyright law has clearly been violated.” Many AI voice uses circulating the internet involve users mashing up one previously released song topped with a different artist’s voice. These types of uses, Harleston wrote, mean “there are likely multiple infringements occurring.”

Harleston added that “visibility into AI training data is also needed. If the data on AI training is not transparent, the potential for a healthy marketplace will be stymied as information on infringing content will be largely inaccessible to individual creators.”

Another witness at the hearing raised the idea of an “opt-out” system so that artists who do not wish to be part of an AI’s training data set will have the option of removing themselves. Already, Spawning, a music-tech start-up, has launched a website to put this possible remedy into practice for visual art. Called “HaveIBeenTrained.com,’ the service helps creators opt-out of training data sets commonly used by an array of AI companies, including Stability AI, which previously agreed to honor the HaveIBeenTrained.com opt-outs.

Harleston, however, said he did not believe opt-outs are enough. “It will be hard to opt out if you don’t know what’s been opted in,” he said. Spawning co-founder Mat Dryhurst previously told Billboard that HaveIBeenTrained.com is working on an opt-in tool, though this product has yet to be released.

Finally, Harleston urged Congress to label AI-generated content. “Consumers deserve to know exactly what they’re getting,” he said.