Yazılar

Survey Finds 97% of Listeners Can’t Tell AI Music From Human Songs

/in /tarafından

Nearly all listeners can no longer tell when a song has been composed by a machine.
A new Deezer–Ipsos survey revealed that 97% of respondents were unable to distinguish between AI-generated and human-made music, exposing the profound transformation — and disruption — that artificial intelligence is bringing to the global music industry.

The study, which polled 9,000 participants across eight countries, including the U.S., the U.K., and France, underscores how AI tools are reshaping creativity, raising copyright and ethical concerns, and threatening the income of traditional artists.

Despite their inability to detect the difference, most listeners want transparency. About 73% supported clear labelling for AI-generated tracks, 45% wanted filters to exclude them, and 40% said they would skip such songs entirely.

Deezer, which now receives over 50,000 AI-generated song uploads per day—a third of its total submissions—has introduced tagging systems and excluded synthetic tracks from editorial playlists and algorithmic recommendations.
“We believe creativity is a human value, and artists deserve protection,” said Deezer CEO Alexis Lanternier, calling for stronger transparency measures.

The company has also begun removing fake streams from royalty calculations and is exploring how to adjust payment structures for AI-generated music, though Lanternier admitted such changes would be complex.

The debate intensified earlier this year when AI band The Velvet Sundown gained over a million monthly Spotify listeners before being revealed as fully artificial. Meanwhile, Universal Music Group recently settled a copyright case with AI startup Udio and plans to launch a licensed AI-music tool in 2026.

Adding to the controversy, a Munich court ruled this week that OpenAI’s ChatGPT violated German copyright laws by reproducing song lyrics without permission.

Anthropic Wins Early Round in Music Publishers’ AI Copyright Case

/in /tarafından

Artificial intelligence company Anthropic has successfully defended itself against a motion to block its use of lyrics owned by Universal Music Group (UMG) and other publishers in training its AI-powered chatbot, Claude. A California federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the publishers’ request for a preliminary injunction was too broad and did not demonstrate that Anthropic’s actions had caused “irreparable harm.”

The Legal Dispute

The music publishers, including UMG, Concord, and ABKCO, filed a lawsuit against Anthropic in 2023, accusing the company of copyright infringement. The suit claims that Anthropic used lyrics from at least 500 songs—by artists such as Beyoncé, the Rolling Stones, and the Beach Boys—without permission to train its chatbot, Claude, which can generate human-like responses to prompts.

In rejecting the motion, U.S. District Judge Eumi Lee stated that the publishers had not shown that Anthropic’s actions had caused the alleged harm, particularly in terms of a potential impact on their licensing market. Judge Lee emphasized that the question of fair use, which remains a key issue in these lawsuits, was not addressed in this specific ruling.

Publishers’ Response and Future Outlook

While the judge’s decision was a setback, the publishers remained confident in their broader case against Anthropic. They expressed that they are “very confident” in their legal position moving forward.

Anthropic also responded positively, with a spokesperson noting their satisfaction that the court rejected the publishers’ “disruptive and amorphous request.”

Industry Context

This case is part of a broader legal trend involving the use of copyrighted material to train AI systems. Several tech companies, including OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms, have faced similar lawsuits, with defendants arguing that their AI systems’ use of copyrighted works falls under “fair use” provisions of U.S. copyright law, which permits the study of materials to create new, transformative content.

While the legal questions around fair use will likely determine the outcome of these lawsuits, this particular ruling focused on the immediate request for an injunction, not the broader issue of copyright infringement.