Katie Wilson: Hi, and welcome back to Bop Boundaries, the show about what it means to be human in the age of AI. I'm Katie Wilson and today we'll be talking about one of my favorite topics, music. Well, sort of. And with me as always is my co-host, Jackie Gutierrez.
Jackie: Hey there, Katie. Happy to be here and excited to chat about how the music industry is pushing back on AI.
Katie Wilson: Yeah, absolutely. It's a great topic, something I'm super interested in. And it's changing day by day. So even by the time this goes, there'll probably be more stories about this. but you know, really about the background of this is a couple of different lawsuits that are coming up and not just your average lawsuit. These are lawsuits with Eye of the Tiger and All I Want for Christmas is you quoted in the court filings. so yes, we're calling it a music episode, but it's also a legal episode. so yeah, we'll get we'll we'll get into it.
Jackie: Yeah, well that sounds really interesting. I can't wait to hear what you've researched on this.
Katie Wilson: Yes. So the big big story this week is that Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chapel just filed a joint lawsuit against Anthropic, the company behind behind Claude. So we're gonna get into what that is actually in that complaint. so here's a little breakdown of the timeline. On August twenty-eighth, twenty twenty-six, so very recent, the Northern District of California, 35 music publishing entities, including Sony Music Publishing, Warner Chapel, and a bunch of affiliated catalogs like EMI, And hypnosis filed a joint complaint against anthropic and also naming Daria Modi and Benjamin
Jackie: Wow.
Katie Wilson: Mann.
Jackie: But why name the humans and not just the company? That's really interesting.
Katie Wilson: Yes. It is interesting and and different. So that's really comes to count two of this lawsuit, which is contributory infringement specifically against Emodian man as individuals, not just the company anthropic. So it's a much more aggressive legal strategy than suing the company and saying, you did a bad thing, you stole you know, our lyrics or our music and have have used it in this way that we didn't authorize. You're actually saying that these people knew about this and did this intentionally. So it's it's a much more extreme lawsuit than we've seen before.
Jackie: Yeah, looks like it. So what's the actual allegation? Because, you know, AI companies trained on, you know, all this existing data that it shouldn't have trained on is really the center point of a lot of AI lawsuits that we've covered before. So what's what's different here?
Katie Wilson: Yeah, I think this one is really built by the receipts of a different lawsuit, which makes it interesting. So Anthropic has already settled a massive case with book authors called the Bart's case for $1.5 billion. And that case already settled and it established on the record that Anthropic torrented millions of pirated books from sites like Library Genesis. The music publishers are basically saying, hey, it's the same playbook that they're doing to Our catalog, and you've already settled with them and basically admitted
Jackie: Wow.
Katie Wilson: to doing this. So they allege that lyrics were pulled from those same pirate libraries, plus scraped from licensed lyric sites like Music Match and Lyric Find. so what else is going on here behind the b besides this? So four counts. we talked about the direct infringement via BitTorrent contributory infringement against the individuals. and then also direct infringement spanning, scraping through training and output and stripping copyright information, CMI, copyright management information. and that's really the metadata of who owns that song or those lyrics. So this complaint actually goes on to give examples
Jackie: Mm-hmm.
Katie Wilson: of actual songs that are quoted. So ain't no mountain high enough, All I Want for Christmas is you, I have the tiger, I am the walrus, hallelujah. Like they'll go and list and break down. Each song and how that was scraped by the system. So Anthropic's public response so far per Tech Crunch is that they disagree with these claims and intend to defend them in court. also, there's a bit of a timing question because the complaint cites an August 2026 Ford's Forbes report on Anthropic's projected October IPO. so is that just coincidence that this is coming about now, or is it really a pressure tactic? because they know they have a huge valuation moment coming up and they will want to push this under the rug and not get a lot of press for this. So it's strategic, certainly from a legal standpoint. but then we'll also, you know, get into like the philosophical of copyrighted material and where that lives and and should they settle or not.
Jackie: so it sounds like also Warner Music Group settled its copyright case with Suno, the AI
Katie Wilson: Yes.
Jackie: song generator, so Suno can launch licensed AI models. Universal did something similar with UDO. so the question is why is Warner suing anthropic instead of just doing the licensing deal?
Katie Wilson: Yeah, really good point. So Suno is you know, music creation. You can say, write me a song in the style of Whitney Houston and give it the lyrics, and it would do that for you. So what Warner has settled with that, those groups to say, yes, you can use our artists, but it has to be licensed. And if they use that name, then you're gonna give us a cut of that streams or whatever you create. So they actually set up a proper licensing deal with Sono. The difference is they're they, you know, it's they're all AI companies, but they're doing different things. So Sono Settlement was about any future created paths. So there's a licensing path. They're basically saying there's a legitimate AI-generated music going forward. But if you use
Jackie: Hm.
Katie Wilson: our artists as inspiration, we want a cut of that. The anthropic case is actually about the past. So in the past, you've acquired all this information illegally in the first place, years before we even knew we could license it, or you even came to us for a licensing deal. So it's basically more about the the tools that they've scraped for the training versus the output, if that makes sense.
Jackie: Yeah, that totally makes sense. It's more about you trained on our stuff rather than
Katie Wilson: Yes.
Jackie: we're anti AI. Okay.
Katie Wilson: Exactly. And there's a real example example of the license path and how that's working right now. So for example, there's an act called Inga Rose, and we'll talk about it later in the thing. they've topped the US and global iTunes chart this year, and it was a song entirely built using Sono. So Inga Rose is not a real person, they're an AI artist. with the artist's own team describes it as human written lyrics with AI refined production. So that's a version of this technology that they that Labels are saying they can live with if they label it as AI created. But Claude learning Eye of the Tiger off a torrent site and then like replicating that word for word is not something they want they want to to go go forward with. So it's really a an interesting case where there's like they're starting to be okay with li AI created music it going forward if they're paying the proper licensing. Kind of harkening back to actually how things were with streaming versus physical CDs, right? We have to like create like a world where people are getting credit for it.
Jackie: I see. Yeah, so there's even more recent pushback from artists themselves. we've recently talked about Sza pushing back and other artists.
Katie Wilson: Yes.
Jackie: but more more recently, Jason Isbell just filed a brand new class action against Sunno, the name Sunno that Warner already settled with on that copyright issue. But this is a totally different legal theory. Right of publicity, not copyright. Isbel, along with David Lowry from Camper Van Beethoven, Guy Forsyth, and jazz saxophonist Eduardo Calle are arguing that Sonno encoded their names and vocal identities into the model itself. Oof. if you type Jason Isbel into Sono and according to the complaint, out comes a song called Paper Bell that mimics his voice and his Americana sound. I don't like that.
Katie Wilson: Yeah, this is scary. Yeah. And I'm a huge Jason Isball fan. So big fan. When I saw this story, I I was immediately interested. So yeah, again, he's saying, you know, again, so the the some of the labels are are doing deals with Sono or saying you can use our artists. He's saying, as an artist, I don't agree to this. And basically, you know, you cannot license my voice. My likeness, the kind of music I make to say, like, do this in the style of Jason Isabel or create a brand new song that he hasn't written. so it's really interesting here because, you know, the could potentially we live in a world where his label authorizes his current like stuff to be scraped, but he says, you know, it's my personal copyright or my personal identity. And I as an individual don't agree to this. So now we're getting into like this this kind of like friction between the artists themselves and the labels potentially as well.
Jackie: Yeah, and that's the whole argument. The lawsuit says a musician's identity is their property and Sunno took it without asking. And that a label's copyright deal with Sunno doesn't cover that, right? So just
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: like you said, because the artist owns their name and likeness separately from whatever their label owns. It just sounds like again, we're having a complete upheaval of the music industry and an entertainment industry and all industries in this moment, right?
Katie Wilson: Yeah. Yeah. And there's not like legal word or cases yet for this because it's new. but I think artists, you know, have a right to feel like, no, I don't agree to this. Like I don't want my name or or likeness to be able to even
Jackie: Absolutely.
Katie Wilson: be typed into the system. So I think, you know, licensing deals are not necessarily gonna solve this. and this is more complex than I think some the music industry and and and the AI companies realize.
Jackie: So complex.
Katie Wilson: So complex because you can fix one thing, but then individuals can sue you, right? So they really need to figure out a remedy for this versus saying, you know, for an example with Jason Isabel, like I I shouldn't be able to t type it a sono in the style of Jason Isbell could but I could say modern Americana because that's a th a genre, but it's not his name, right? So like there is like workarounds to this, but you know, they're that's not how their tool is built right now, or what protections They have in place. So it'll be interesting to see this idea of this right of publicity using their name and voice in a prompt, if that's okay within models, or if they're gonna disable that completely. And then this latest lawsuit from Isbell was filed August 31st in Massachusetts federal court. and it has 17 claims under various state publicity laws, including an injunction plus damages. And disorgement from Suno's profits. So they want money from what was already been happening in the tool. So this will be, I think, going forward, a really interesting distinction that the industry has to draw behind like, do we agree to licensing in these AI tools that actually pay us as a label versus AI models training on this pirated data or using likenesses of individual artists? Like, where are we gonna actually draw the line and say no? And where do the artists have control, even if their label has a licensing deal with that? That's where I think it gets really sticky and i is interesting.
Jackie: For sure.
Katie Wilson: And for those of us that are curious that maybe don't work in the music industry or legal, like how does this apply to us and when we're using AI tools? So if you're building anything, I think, you know, content-wise, a brand, a product, using an AI tool, you're really inheriting that tool's data practices, whether you ask to or not. So it's a really good reminder that you don't get a receipt for like, where did AI pull this information from? you don't always know where AI is scraping. And could you be held liable for using data or tools, things that come from an AI output? So, you know, that's really the uncomfortable thing about this category because there isn't legal standing and because it's net new for a lot of us. So, as a user, as a business owner, you can't fully audit the supply chain of this tool that you're using every
Jackie: Right.
Katie Wilson: day and where things came from. So the question isn't like, you know, this AI tool has to be perfect. or like, am I gonna have legal ramifications from this? But you need to be compliant and you need to understand at a basics like how this tool is pulling information. And it's a bit of the Wild West at the moment. So, as business owners, we need to do our due diligence when using some of these tools and understanding what are compliant or whatnot and and what legal precedents are still under review. So for example,
Jackie: Mm-hmm.
Katie Wilson: It might be fun and tempting to go into Sono and build a Jason Isabel like song for a brand campaign on cowboy boots. But if I put that in my ad, like that is that is not something you
Jackie: I wouldn't do that.
Katie Wilson: own outright and you could be sued. So it's really important to understand why these new shiny tools are very cool and fun to play around with when we're using them for commercial purposes or putting them out on a website then and getting streams from it or getting paid from it. you know, there is some legal consequence to that.
Jackie: Yeah, all great points. I mean it it reminds me of, you know, our conversation with Megan Stevenson
Katie Wilson: Yes.
Jackie: a couple episodes ago. she's a ghostwriter, publisher. And, you know, the publishing industry is really just been cracking down the most. rightfully so, I think. And right now, just recently, she's getting from publishers asking her what part of this Did you use AI on? Not even the writing, like in the entire process, where did you use AI? Cause they are so being extremely mindful about copyright issues that just any part of that writing process is being fully examined by publishers. So,
Katie Wilson: Absolutely.
Jackie: so you know, for creators specifically, songwriters, authors, artists, this is the first real test of whether we'll sue you into a settlement. Actually if that ac actually protects anyone's income or whether it's just a very expensive way of arriving at the licensing deal. you could have started with if they wish to license their likeness to AI tools. And what if they don't? Is there a way to ban its use across platforms without researching and s suing each provider? some questions that we should all be thinking about for creators and artists first. does litigation actually recover value or does it mostly fund lawyers while the platforms keep operating during the case? for AI companies, especially these big LLMs, you know, it's do you ask for forgiveness and not permission? I feel like we're past that. I think that's how they
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: launched all these LLMs, they just built it, break things and Pay for it later. Is that still a viable strategy? I don't think so, especially once the settlements start stacking into billions and all of us now the users are being affected. And you know, if you serve clients and customers, it's now our responsibility. As Katie and I both have clients and customers,
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: it's our responsibility to be very careful where we're sourcing any generations from LLMs and let's get back to our human creativity and ex expertise. So this could be a win win that we're, you know, heading into this new era.
Katie Wilson: Yeah, and I think it uncovers some really important questions we're we're continuing to see unfold in real time about AI. And it's really not this isn't just about music. Like you said, it can apply to publishing, it can apply to other industries as well. But it's really a story about every AI tool we touch and you know, has a back end and a paper trail of like where that information came from, right? And if you're called upon to like, if you don't know that, could you be called upon in court? could the company be held liable? Right. We really need to pay attention to how these tools work and what data they're scraping. because you know, it it is convenient, but that's not always consent. and it's not legal consent for if it's created as an art or from an artist. So just because it can do something instantly and you could make a cool song, doesn't mean everyone whose work, voice, or likeness or name agreed to that. and that's where it becomes a legal issue and more complex. So I do think it's up to us as users and consumers of these products to really un understand both the ethical and potentially legal implications of their use when you like stream that song or hear something that's created by Suno to think about some of these questions and think about whether you want to support it or not. Awesome. All right, now for something a little more fun, our Love It and League It Leave It segment segment with pop culture moments. And I have thrown in some AI music examples to go along with our theme today. So the first example I mentioned earlier in the pod, Inga Rose, is a Suno-built pop act. They topped the US and global iTunes charts with the artist team describing it as human-written lyrics with AI production. So being very upfront that it's AI production. unlike the Jason Isabel example, it's not saying it's borrowing or in the style of any particular artist. So they're saying it's organically created. love it, a real chart hit, celebrate me, was was charting both on TikTok as well as the global charts. it has made been made with licensed and transparent AI workflow. So is this what doing it right in AI music l looks like? Or is the line between AI assisted and AI generated? yeah, d yes, that's in the Instagram bio. Who's really reading that? Is this still like, you know, real music? Would love to hear your take.
Jackie: So I'm gonna leave it. I love the transparency though, but
Katie Wilson: Yes.
Jackie: I'm leaving it. We don't need it. I you know, music is just one of the most like human experiences we have,
Katie Wilson: Totally.
Jackie: and it is the best, right? It's something that we can all share. so I I'm just leaving it, but thank you for the transparency.
Katie Wilson: Yeah, appreciate the labeling. And I actually think all AI music should be labeled with like a very big label in YouTube or streaming, just so you know. listen to the song. It was fine. Like, wasn't anything special,
Jackie: Yeah.
Katie Wilson: did it move me in any way? wasn't my jam. So yeah, no, I'm a big, you know, fan of human creative music and lyrics, and I I don't like maybe as background music when I'm going through the grocery store. If I heard this, it wouldn't be offensive to me. But am I gonna seek it out and stream it? No.
Jackie: Yeah, I'm with you. all right. So let's throw it back to Biebercella for a moment. Justin Bieber's surprise, deeply candid Coachella set became one of the most talked-about viral music moments of the year. with fans reliving their teenage years in real time. yeah, I remember. Remember he like
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: came to life when they started, like he started off as like old Bieber.
Katie Wilson: On his laptop. Yeah.
Jackie: And then and then all of a sudden he heard the fans start like singing along and then he turned into like the real Justin Bieber. All of a sudden he he brightened
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: up and started getting into it. I love that that video of
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: that. Anyway, so he played it he played and sang along to videos and songs on his laptop, performing without a backing band. so it looked like really minimalistic the production
Katie Wilson: Yes.
Jackie: of it. and really it kind of brought us back to his YouTube era and definitely pre-AI music era. so it was very, yeah, l like low production, really focused, even though he was using a laptop, so that's kind of interesting. But anyway, so
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: is it a love it because the nostalgia unfiltered, no AI involved whatsoever? or leave it, you know, the internet turning someone's vulnerable moment into a meme. I mean, I like the meme. The meme was hilarious.
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: so love it or leave it, that approach to that performance.
Katie Wilson: You know, when I was watching it and over streaming in real time, I was like, what is this? But then the more I like I got into it, like you said, and saw it and saw his reaction, it actually was really sweet. And I loved like
Jackie: Yeah.
Katie Wilson: the the stripped-down version of it. I loved like him singing along. I actually think it was a lot more scripted than people gave it credit for. People are like, he just went up there with his laptop, was like searching
Jackie: Yeah now.
Katie Wilson: for things. I'm like, no, that was all scripted out. you know, there's a moment where he pulls up Billy Eilish, who was like a huge fan as a kid and like sings a song to her. And that was amazing and like memed across like so many things. But it was also like a super genuine moment. Like, and so I I loved that. And I I kind of liked it being pared down to just him. His his voice is
Jackie: Hmm.
Katie Wilson: still great. you know, I would have maybe liked to see a backing band there or some like, you know, people want some choreo and stuff, but like that's not where he is in his life now, like to do like choreographed dancing. So I thought it was a very clever and interesting take on a headlining set of Coachella, which is usually lots of bells and whistles.
Jackie: Mm-hmm.
Katie Wilson: And it's kind of bringing, like you said, it involves technology in that the laptop's there, but he's really like scrolling YouTube and like showing you where he got his start, which was YouTube. So I like that connection. I thought it was like a pretty clever way to do that. I did see a lot of pushback though, in terms of like him being a male pop star. Like if a female pop star did this, like she would have gotten reamed. Like if you look at like the female ch pop stars they owe, like Sabrina Carpenter was the other headliner. Huge set, costumes,
Jackie: My gosh, right?
Katie Wilson: like Whatever, but like that is also kind of her vibe and aesthetic. So, but like could a female pop star do this? And I would say yes, like someone like a Billie Eilish probably could. it just depends
Jackie: You're right.
Katie Wilson: on the style of music and kind of like how personal it was.
Jackie: Yeah, I'ma love it too, but that's an interesting point. Women do have to do so much more professionally.
Katie Wilson: Bar is high.
Jackie: Right. I mean you and I arrive here with lip lip gloss on and everything, you know, we have to. But no, I loved it. And I think
Katie Wilson: Yeah. Yeah.
Jackie: it was modern, showing how, you know, the next generation really just scrolls through YouTube, yet a throwback at the same time to his, you know, start on YouTube. So I loved it.
Katie Wilson: Yeah, and I thought it was a good like as we're talking about AI created music, like it was a good back to basics of like someone in their room creating music, which at the end of the day is like how a lot of musicians start.
Jackie: Yeah, cool.
Katie Wilson: Awesome. All right. Next story. Can we train ourselves to identify AI music? I've definitely thought about this a lot as I hear AI music and as a lover of music, and my husband's a musician, and I'm a singer. and I think I can, but I didn't really have the words or like the criteria until I read this article. So it's a a recent article on Consequence of Sound, which is a music site I really like. And they had a piece where they outlined some key tells of What AI
Jackie: Mm-hmm.
Katie Wilson: produced music is and how you can tell it versus organically produced music. It was super interesting to me. So a couple of the things like I always notice this lack of texture in the sound, and what does that actually mean for someone who's not a musician?
Jackie: Yeah.
Katie Wilson: It could be like everything is very clean sounding, like the the way an actual drum might sound is a little bit more dampered, or a voice might have a crack to it. So everything's gonna sound too polished and not with like the low end and the high end, it's gonna be very mid in terms of like the sound you're getting. instruments coming in and out and not playing fully through the song is one tell. Like you might hear drums in one piece, but then like, where did they go? They just went away. Versus a regular pop song, like if if it's a band, the drummer is going to be playing throughout the song. It's a real tell if an instrument comes in and out and is not supporting like bass through the whole thing. so that's another one that they noticed because in computer programming, like it might just come in for like flares, but it's not actually upholding the melody, which is a big tell. this was one for me as a singer is optimized vocal loops with really long drawn-out phrasing that could not be done by a person because they need to
Jackie: Without breath.
Katie Wilson: take a breath. So if you see long phrasing where if you yourself try to say it or sing it, you're gonna need a moment to go and breathe out. And like in pop music, yes, they might filter out breaths, but there still will be a pause because there's a real person singing it. So that's a big tell in terms of like the run is way too long that no person could have done this. and of course for me a big tell like lame or generic lyrics. I'm a big lyrics person when I listen to music and I can definitely tell when something is like sitting in the cafe, drinking a coffee, like just super lame generic stuff that doesn't have any like larger meaning to it. So, love it or leave it, with these tips, Jackie, do you love do you think you'd be able to identify AI music? and do you like this kind of criteria going into knowing that? or if you're like, who cares if it sound good sounds good, it's music.
Jackie: No, I love it. I love having this criteria to help us all figure out how to spot it since, there's many of us out there that value human creativity. So I love that list. It's really telling. And I think like right now the easiest ones to spot, actually it may not be the easiest ones to spot, are are the country music AI generated ones,
Katie Wilson: Hmm. yes.
Jackie: especially on TikTok. They're they're easy to spot because it sounds generic, but then you hear an actual country song. A pop one and it sounds generic too. So they're
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: actually hard to decipher because they both sound so generic, the lyrics.
Katie Wilson: Yeah, and I I'm a lover of like modern country music and like maricana, but I do think there's like pop country is like definitely in its own vertical. but I do think like the phrasing thing is one where like the person's like singing too long and the instrumentation sometimes you can hear it and are just like this isn't a full band setup, like this is just like coming in and out. yeah.
Jackie: But TikTok country is so obvious. It's hilarious. The AI TikTok Country songs are so funny.
Katie Wilson: And the lyrics are just so cringe. Yeah. Like you're like, okay. But like, I mean, I think we're even seeing this with real artists, right? Coming out on and they're saying, like, they're taking from other artists. It's not AI, but I know there was like that big controversy, I believe, around Ella Langley in Boston being actually credited to Noah Khan because the melody is too similar to like what he did. And then another one of her songs just came out and they said they have to credit it to another songwriter. So like I'm like, is this actually influencing how humans make music now where they're just taking bits and pieces of other things and not creating organically, or has this always been happened? Or are are people using AI to like write the first drafts of songs, unknowingly pulling from other artists? So I think it like does like call up a lot of questions of like, I'm sorry, Stella Lefty, not Ella Langley, is is the artist that they were the Boston song that that is like Noah Khan. So yeah, I think it calls up a lot of questions of like how we create music and is AI like kind of ruining that pro unique creation process, ideation,
Jackie: The ideation and creative process.
Katie Wilson: yeah, and making it harder to identify.
Jackie: Yeah, I guess that's the big question across all creative fields at the moment, even. Well, that was really
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: fun. Yeah. So thank you for thank you for diving into that with me today. So we'll see where this all goes. so good seeing you today, Katie, as always. just a reminder, where can everyone find you?
Katie Wilson: Yeah, you can find me on LinkedIn at Katie Wilson or Serious Moonlight Consulting on both LinkedIn and Instagram and subscribe to my newsletter. Sales isn't a dirty word on Beehive. And how about you, Jackie?
Jackie: Yeah, please find me on LinkedIn at Jackie Gutierrez and on Instagram and TikTok at Business Growth Gal. And follow bot boundaries at bot boundaries on Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and LinkedIn. Thanks for listening, everyone. Make sure to subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Leave us a review. We're available on all platforms and also on YouTube. Bye, Katie.
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: Hey there, Katie. Happy to be here and excited to chat about how the music industry is pushing back on AI.
Katie Wilson: Yeah, absolutely. It's a great topic, something I'm super interested in. And it's changing day by day. So even by the time this goes, there'll probably be more stories about this. but you know, really about the background of this is a couple of different lawsuits that are coming up and not just your average lawsuit. These are lawsuits with Eye of the Tiger and All I Want for Christmas is you quoted in the court filings. so yes, we're calling it a music episode, but it's also a legal episode. so yeah, we'll get we'll we'll get into it.
Jackie: Yeah, well that sounds really interesting. I can't wait to hear what you've researched on this.
Katie Wilson: Yes. So the big big story this week is that Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chapel just filed a joint lawsuit against Anthropic, the company behind behind Claude. So we're gonna get into what that is actually in that complaint. so here's a little breakdown of the timeline. On August twenty-eighth, twenty twenty-six, so very recent, the Northern District of California, 35 music publishing entities, including Sony Music Publishing, Warner Chapel, and a bunch of affiliated catalogs like EMI, And hypnosis filed a joint complaint against anthropic and also naming Daria Modi and Benjamin
Jackie: Wow.
Katie Wilson: Mann.
Jackie: But why name the humans and not just the company? That's really interesting.
Katie Wilson: Yes. It is interesting and and different. So that's really comes to count two of this lawsuit, which is contributory infringement specifically against Emodian man as individuals, not just the company anthropic. So it's a much more aggressive legal strategy than suing the company and saying, you did a bad thing, you stole you know, our lyrics or our music and have have used it in this way that we didn't authorize. You're actually saying that these people knew about this and did this intentionally. So it's it's a much more extreme lawsuit than we've seen before.
Jackie: Yeah, looks like it. So what's the actual allegation? Because, you know, AI companies trained on, you know, all this existing data that it shouldn't have trained on is really the center point of a lot of AI lawsuits that we've covered before. So what's what's different here?
Katie Wilson: Yeah, I think this one is really built by the receipts of a different lawsuit, which makes it interesting. So Anthropic has already settled a massive case with book authors called the Bart's case for $1.5 billion. And that case already settled and it established on the record that Anthropic torrented millions of pirated books from sites like Library Genesis. The music publishers are basically saying, hey, it's the same playbook that they're doing to Our catalog, and you've already settled with them and basically admitted
Jackie: Wow.
Katie Wilson: to doing this. So they allege that lyrics were pulled from those same pirate libraries, plus scraped from licensed lyric sites like Music Match and Lyric Find. so what else is going on here behind the b besides this? So four counts. we talked about the direct infringement via BitTorrent contributory infringement against the individuals. and then also direct infringement spanning, scraping through training and output and stripping copyright information, CMI, copyright management information. and that's really the metadata of who owns that song or those lyrics. So this complaint actually goes on to give examples
Jackie: Mm-hmm.
Katie Wilson: of actual songs that are quoted. So ain't no mountain high enough, All I Want for Christmas is you, I have the tiger, I am the walrus, hallelujah. Like they'll go and list and break down. Each song and how that was scraped by the system. So Anthropic's public response so far per Tech Crunch is that they disagree with these claims and intend to defend them in court. also, there's a bit of a timing question because the complaint cites an August 2026 Ford's Forbes report on Anthropic's projected October IPO. so is that just coincidence that this is coming about now, or is it really a pressure tactic? because they know they have a huge valuation moment coming up and they will want to push this under the rug and not get a lot of press for this. So it's strategic, certainly from a legal standpoint. but then we'll also, you know, get into like the philosophical of copyrighted material and where that lives and and should they settle or not.
Jackie: so it sounds like also Warner Music Group settled its copyright case with Suno, the AI
Katie Wilson: Yes.
Jackie: song generator, so Suno can launch licensed AI models. Universal did something similar with UDO. so the question is why is Warner suing anthropic instead of just doing the licensing deal?
Katie Wilson: Yeah, really good point. So Suno is you know, music creation. You can say, write me a song in the style of Whitney Houston and give it the lyrics, and it would do that for you. So what Warner has settled with that, those groups to say, yes, you can use our artists, but it has to be licensed. And if they use that name, then you're gonna give us a cut of that streams or whatever you create. So they actually set up a proper licensing deal with Sono. The difference is they're they, you know, it's they're all AI companies, but they're doing different things. So Sono Settlement was about any future created paths. So there's a licensing path. They're basically saying there's a legitimate AI-generated music going forward. But if you use
Jackie: Hm.
Katie Wilson: our artists as inspiration, we want a cut of that. The anthropic case is actually about the past. So in the past, you've acquired all this information illegally in the first place, years before we even knew we could license it, or you even came to us for a licensing deal. So it's basically more about the the tools that they've scraped for the training versus the output, if that makes sense.
Jackie: Yeah, that totally makes sense. It's more about you trained on our stuff rather than
Katie Wilson: Yes.
Jackie: we're anti AI. Okay.
Katie Wilson: Exactly. And there's a real example example of the license path and how that's working right now. So for example, there's an act called Inga Rose, and we'll talk about it later in the thing. they've topped the US and global iTunes chart this year, and it was a song entirely built using Sono. So Inga Rose is not a real person, they're an AI artist. with the artist's own team describes it as human written lyrics with AI refined production. So that's a version of this technology that they that Labels are saying they can live with if they label it as AI created. But Claude learning Eye of the Tiger off a torrent site and then like replicating that word for word is not something they want they want to to go go forward with. So it's really a an interesting case where there's like they're starting to be okay with li AI created music it going forward if they're paying the proper licensing. Kind of harkening back to actually how things were with streaming versus physical CDs, right? We have to like create like a world where people are getting credit for it.
Jackie: I see. Yeah, so there's even more recent pushback from artists themselves. we've recently talked about Sza pushing back and other artists.
Katie Wilson: Yes.
Jackie: but more more recently, Jason Isbell just filed a brand new class action against Sunno, the name Sunno that Warner already settled with on that copyright issue. But this is a totally different legal theory. Right of publicity, not copyright. Isbel, along with David Lowry from Camper Van Beethoven, Guy Forsyth, and jazz saxophonist Eduardo Calle are arguing that Sonno encoded their names and vocal identities into the model itself. Oof. if you type Jason Isbel into Sono and according to the complaint, out comes a song called Paper Bell that mimics his voice and his Americana sound. I don't like that.
Katie Wilson: Yeah, this is scary. Yeah. And I'm a huge Jason Isball fan. So big fan. When I saw this story, I I was immediately interested. So yeah, again, he's saying, you know, again, so the the some of the labels are are doing deals with Sono or saying you can use our artists. He's saying, as an artist, I don't agree to this. And basically, you know, you cannot license my voice. My likeness, the kind of music I make to say, like, do this in the style of Jason Isabel or create a brand new song that he hasn't written. so it's really interesting here because, you know, the could potentially we live in a world where his label authorizes his current like stuff to be scraped, but he says, you know, it's my personal copyright or my personal identity. And I as an individual don't agree to this. So now we're getting into like this this kind of like friction between the artists themselves and the labels potentially as well.
Jackie: Yeah, and that's the whole argument. The lawsuit says a musician's identity is their property and Sunno took it without asking. And that a label's copyright deal with Sunno doesn't cover that, right? So just
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: like you said, because the artist owns their name and likeness separately from whatever their label owns. It just sounds like again, we're having a complete upheaval of the music industry and an entertainment industry and all industries in this moment, right?
Katie Wilson: Yeah. Yeah. And there's not like legal word or cases yet for this because it's new. but I think artists, you know, have a right to feel like, no, I don't agree to this. Like I don't want my name or or likeness to be able to even
Jackie: Absolutely.
Katie Wilson: be typed into the system. So I think, you know, licensing deals are not necessarily gonna solve this. and this is more complex than I think some the music industry and and and the AI companies realize.
Jackie: So complex.
Katie Wilson: So complex because you can fix one thing, but then individuals can sue you, right? So they really need to figure out a remedy for this versus saying, you know, for an example with Jason Isabel, like I I shouldn't be able to t type it a sono in the style of Jason Isbell could but I could say modern Americana because that's a th a genre, but it's not his name, right? So like there is like workarounds to this, but you know, they're that's not how their tool is built right now, or what protections They have in place. So it'll be interesting to see this idea of this right of publicity using their name and voice in a prompt, if that's okay within models, or if they're gonna disable that completely. And then this latest lawsuit from Isbell was filed August 31st in Massachusetts federal court. and it has 17 claims under various state publicity laws, including an injunction plus damages. And disorgement from Suno's profits. So they want money from what was already been happening in the tool. So this will be, I think, going forward, a really interesting distinction that the industry has to draw behind like, do we agree to licensing in these AI tools that actually pay us as a label versus AI models training on this pirated data or using likenesses of individual artists? Like, where are we gonna actually draw the line and say no? And where do the artists have control, even if their label has a licensing deal with that? That's where I think it gets really sticky and i is interesting.
Jackie: For sure.
Katie Wilson: And for those of us that are curious that maybe don't work in the music industry or legal, like how does this apply to us and when we're using AI tools? So if you're building anything, I think, you know, content-wise, a brand, a product, using an AI tool, you're really inheriting that tool's data practices, whether you ask to or not. So it's a really good reminder that you don't get a receipt for like, where did AI pull this information from? you don't always know where AI is scraping. And could you be held liable for using data or tools, things that come from an AI output? So, you know, that's really the uncomfortable thing about this category because there isn't legal standing and because it's net new for a lot of us. So, as a user, as a business owner, you can't fully audit the supply chain of this tool that you're using every
Jackie: Right.
Katie Wilson: day and where things came from. So the question isn't like, you know, this AI tool has to be perfect. or like, am I gonna have legal ramifications from this? But you need to be compliant and you need to understand at a basics like how this tool is pulling information. And it's a bit of the Wild West at the moment. So, as business owners, we need to do our due diligence when using some of these tools and understanding what are compliant or whatnot and and what legal precedents are still under review. So for example,
Jackie: Mm-hmm.
Katie Wilson: It might be fun and tempting to go into Sono and build a Jason Isabel like song for a brand campaign on cowboy boots. But if I put that in my ad, like that is that is not something you
Jackie: I wouldn't do that.
Katie Wilson: own outright and you could be sued. So it's really important to understand why these new shiny tools are very cool and fun to play around with when we're using them for commercial purposes or putting them out on a website then and getting streams from it or getting paid from it. you know, there is some legal consequence to that.
Jackie: Yeah, all great points. I mean it it reminds me of, you know, our conversation with Megan Stevenson
Katie Wilson: Yes.
Jackie: a couple episodes ago. she's a ghostwriter, publisher. And, you know, the publishing industry is really just been cracking down the most. rightfully so, I think. And right now, just recently, she's getting from publishers asking her what part of this Did you use AI on? Not even the writing, like in the entire process, where did you use AI? Cause they are so being extremely mindful about copyright issues that just any part of that writing process is being fully examined by publishers. So,
Katie Wilson: Absolutely.
Jackie: so you know, for creators specifically, songwriters, authors, artists, this is the first real test of whether we'll sue you into a settlement. Actually if that ac actually protects anyone's income or whether it's just a very expensive way of arriving at the licensing deal. you could have started with if they wish to license their likeness to AI tools. And what if they don't? Is there a way to ban its use across platforms without researching and s suing each provider? some questions that we should all be thinking about for creators and artists first. does litigation actually recover value or does it mostly fund lawyers while the platforms keep operating during the case? for AI companies, especially these big LLMs, you know, it's do you ask for forgiveness and not permission? I feel like we're past that. I think that's how they
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: launched all these LLMs, they just built it, break things and Pay for it later. Is that still a viable strategy? I don't think so, especially once the settlements start stacking into billions and all of us now the users are being affected. And you know, if you serve clients and customers, it's now our responsibility. As Katie and I both have clients and customers,
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: it's our responsibility to be very careful where we're sourcing any generations from LLMs and let's get back to our human creativity and ex expertise. So this could be a win win that we're, you know, heading into this new era.
Katie Wilson: Yeah, and I think it uncovers some really important questions we're we're continuing to see unfold in real time about AI. And it's really not this isn't just about music. Like you said, it can apply to publishing, it can apply to other industries as well. But it's really a story about every AI tool we touch and you know, has a back end and a paper trail of like where that information came from, right? And if you're called upon to like, if you don't know that, could you be called upon in court? could the company be held liable? Right. We really need to pay attention to how these tools work and what data they're scraping. because you know, it it is convenient, but that's not always consent. and it's not legal consent for if it's created as an art or from an artist. So just because it can do something instantly and you could make a cool song, doesn't mean everyone whose work, voice, or likeness or name agreed to that. and that's where it becomes a legal issue and more complex. So I do think it's up to us as users and consumers of these products to really un understand both the ethical and potentially legal implications of their use when you like stream that song or hear something that's created by Suno to think about some of these questions and think about whether you want to support it or not. Awesome. All right, now for something a little more fun, our Love It and League It Leave It segment segment with pop culture moments. And I have thrown in some AI music examples to go along with our theme today. So the first example I mentioned earlier in the pod, Inga Rose, is a Suno-built pop act. They topped the US and global iTunes charts with the artist team describing it as human-written lyrics with AI production. So being very upfront that it's AI production. unlike the Jason Isabel example, it's not saying it's borrowing or in the style of any particular artist. So they're saying it's organically created. love it, a real chart hit, celebrate me, was was charting both on TikTok as well as the global charts. it has made been made with licensed and transparent AI workflow. So is this what doing it right in AI music l looks like? Or is the line between AI assisted and AI generated? yeah, d yes, that's in the Instagram bio. Who's really reading that? Is this still like, you know, real music? Would love to hear your take.
Jackie: So I'm gonna leave it. I love the transparency though, but
Katie Wilson: Yes.
Jackie: I'm leaving it. We don't need it. I you know, music is just one of the most like human experiences we have,
Katie Wilson: Totally.
Jackie: and it is the best, right? It's something that we can all share. so I I'm just leaving it, but thank you for the transparency.
Katie Wilson: Yeah, appreciate the labeling. And I actually think all AI music should be labeled with like a very big label in YouTube or streaming, just so you know. listen to the song. It was fine. Like, wasn't anything special,
Jackie: Yeah.
Katie Wilson: did it move me in any way? wasn't my jam. So yeah, no, I'm a big, you know, fan of human creative music and lyrics, and I I don't like maybe as background music when I'm going through the grocery store. If I heard this, it wouldn't be offensive to me. But am I gonna seek it out and stream it? No.
Jackie: Yeah, I'm with you. all right. So let's throw it back to Biebercella for a moment. Justin Bieber's surprise, deeply candid Coachella set became one of the most talked-about viral music moments of the year. with fans reliving their teenage years in real time. yeah, I remember. Remember he like
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: came to life when they started, like he started off as like old Bieber.
Katie Wilson: On his laptop. Yeah.
Jackie: And then and then all of a sudden he heard the fans start like singing along and then he turned into like the real Justin Bieber. All of a sudden he he brightened
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: up and started getting into it. I love that that video of
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: that. Anyway, so he played it he played and sang along to videos and songs on his laptop, performing without a backing band. so it looked like really minimalistic the production
Katie Wilson: Yes.
Jackie: of it. and really it kind of brought us back to his YouTube era and definitely pre-AI music era. so it was very, yeah, l like low production, really focused, even though he was using a laptop, so that's kind of interesting. But anyway, so
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: is it a love it because the nostalgia unfiltered, no AI involved whatsoever? or leave it, you know, the internet turning someone's vulnerable moment into a meme. I mean, I like the meme. The meme was hilarious.
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: so love it or leave it, that approach to that performance.
Katie Wilson: You know, when I was watching it and over streaming in real time, I was like, what is this? But then the more I like I got into it, like you said, and saw it and saw his reaction, it actually was really sweet. And I loved like
Jackie: Yeah.
Katie Wilson: the the stripped-down version of it. I loved like him singing along. I actually think it was a lot more scripted than people gave it credit for. People are like, he just went up there with his laptop, was like searching
Jackie: Yeah now.
Katie Wilson: for things. I'm like, no, that was all scripted out. you know, there's a moment where he pulls up Billy Eilish, who was like a huge fan as a kid and like sings a song to her. And that was amazing and like memed across like so many things. But it was also like a super genuine moment. Like, and so I I loved that. And I I kind of liked it being pared down to just him. His his voice is
Jackie: Hmm.
Katie Wilson: still great. you know, I would have maybe liked to see a backing band there or some like, you know, people want some choreo and stuff, but like that's not where he is in his life now, like to do like choreographed dancing. So I thought it was a very clever and interesting take on a headlining set of Coachella, which is usually lots of bells and whistles.
Jackie: Mm-hmm.
Katie Wilson: And it's kind of bringing, like you said, it involves technology in that the laptop's there, but he's really like scrolling YouTube and like showing you where he got his start, which was YouTube. So I like that connection. I thought it was like a pretty clever way to do that. I did see a lot of pushback though, in terms of like him being a male pop star. Like if a female pop star did this, like she would have gotten reamed. Like if you look at like the female ch pop stars they owe, like Sabrina Carpenter was the other headliner. Huge set, costumes,
Jackie: My gosh, right?
Katie Wilson: like Whatever, but like that is also kind of her vibe and aesthetic. So, but like could a female pop star do this? And I would say yes, like someone like a Billie Eilish probably could. it just depends
Jackie: You're right.
Katie Wilson: on the style of music and kind of like how personal it was.
Jackie: Yeah, I'ma love it too, but that's an interesting point. Women do have to do so much more professionally.
Katie Wilson: Bar is high.
Jackie: Right. I mean you and I arrive here with lip lip gloss on and everything, you know, we have to. But no, I loved it. And I think
Katie Wilson: Yeah. Yeah.
Jackie: it was modern, showing how, you know, the next generation really just scrolls through YouTube, yet a throwback at the same time to his, you know, start on YouTube. So I loved it.
Katie Wilson: Yeah, and I thought it was a good like as we're talking about AI created music, like it was a good back to basics of like someone in their room creating music, which at the end of the day is like how a lot of musicians start.
Jackie: Yeah, cool.
Katie Wilson: Awesome. All right. Next story. Can we train ourselves to identify AI music? I've definitely thought about this a lot as I hear AI music and as a lover of music, and my husband's a musician, and I'm a singer. and I think I can, but I didn't really have the words or like the criteria until I read this article. So it's a a recent article on Consequence of Sound, which is a music site I really like. And they had a piece where they outlined some key tells of What AI
Jackie: Mm-hmm.
Katie Wilson: produced music is and how you can tell it versus organically produced music. It was super interesting to me. So a couple of the things like I always notice this lack of texture in the sound, and what does that actually mean for someone who's not a musician?
Jackie: Yeah.
Katie Wilson: It could be like everything is very clean sounding, like the the way an actual drum might sound is a little bit more dampered, or a voice might have a crack to it. So everything's gonna sound too polished and not with like the low end and the high end, it's gonna be very mid in terms of like the sound you're getting. instruments coming in and out and not playing fully through the song is one tell. Like you might hear drums in one piece, but then like, where did they go? They just went away. Versus a regular pop song, like if if it's a band, the drummer is going to be playing throughout the song. It's a real tell if an instrument comes in and out and is not supporting like bass through the whole thing. so that's another one that they noticed because in computer programming, like it might just come in for like flares, but it's not actually upholding the melody, which is a big tell. this was one for me as a singer is optimized vocal loops with really long drawn-out phrasing that could not be done by a person because they need to
Jackie: Without breath.
Katie Wilson: take a breath. So if you see long phrasing where if you yourself try to say it or sing it, you're gonna need a moment to go and breathe out. And like in pop music, yes, they might filter out breaths, but there still will be a pause because there's a real person singing it. So that's a big tell in terms of like the run is way too long that no person could have done this. and of course for me a big tell like lame or generic lyrics. I'm a big lyrics person when I listen to music and I can definitely tell when something is like sitting in the cafe, drinking a coffee, like just super lame generic stuff that doesn't have any like larger meaning to it. So, love it or leave it, with these tips, Jackie, do you love do you think you'd be able to identify AI music? and do you like this kind of criteria going into knowing that? or if you're like, who cares if it sound good sounds good, it's music.
Jackie: No, I love it. I love having this criteria to help us all figure out how to spot it since, there's many of us out there that value human creativity. So I love that list. It's really telling. And I think like right now the easiest ones to spot, actually it may not be the easiest ones to spot, are are the country music AI generated ones,
Katie Wilson: Hmm. yes.
Jackie: especially on TikTok. They're they're easy to spot because it sounds generic, but then you hear an actual country song. A pop one and it sounds generic too. So they're
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: actually hard to decipher because they both sound so generic, the lyrics.
Katie Wilson: Yeah, and I I'm a lover of like modern country music and like maricana, but I do think there's like pop country is like definitely in its own vertical. but I do think like the phrasing thing is one where like the person's like singing too long and the instrumentation sometimes you can hear it and are just like this isn't a full band setup, like this is just like coming in and out. yeah.
Jackie: But TikTok country is so obvious. It's hilarious. The AI TikTok Country songs are so funny.
Katie Wilson: And the lyrics are just so cringe. Yeah. Like you're like, okay. But like, I mean, I think we're even seeing this with real artists, right? Coming out on and they're saying, like, they're taking from other artists. It's not AI, but I know there was like that big controversy, I believe, around Ella Langley in Boston being actually credited to Noah Khan because the melody is too similar to like what he did. And then another one of her songs just came out and they said they have to credit it to another songwriter. So like I'm like, is this actually influencing how humans make music now where they're just taking bits and pieces of other things and not creating organically, or has this always been happened? Or are are people using AI to like write the first drafts of songs, unknowingly pulling from other artists? So I think it like does like call up a lot of questions of like, I'm sorry, Stella Lefty, not Ella Langley, is is the artist that they were the Boston song that that is like Noah Khan. So yeah, I think it calls up a lot of questions of like how we create music and is AI like kind of ruining that pro unique creation process, ideation,
Jackie: The ideation and creative process.
Katie Wilson: yeah, and making it harder to identify.
Jackie: Yeah, I guess that's the big question across all creative fields at the moment, even. Well, that was really
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
Jackie: fun. Yeah. So thank you for thank you for diving into that with me today. So we'll see where this all goes. so good seeing you today, Katie, as always. just a reminder, where can everyone find you?
Katie Wilson: Yeah, you can find me on LinkedIn at Katie Wilson or Serious Moonlight Consulting on both LinkedIn and Instagram and subscribe to my newsletter. Sales isn't a dirty word on Beehive. And how about you, Jackie?
Jackie: Yeah, please find me on LinkedIn at Jackie Gutierrez and on Instagram and TikTok at Business Growth Gal. And follow bot boundaries at bot boundaries on Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and LinkedIn. Thanks for listening, everyone. Make sure to subscribe wherever you get your podcast. Leave us a review. We're available on all platforms and also on YouTube. Bye, Katie.
Katie Wilson: Yeah.
