Imagine this: A band removes their entire music catalog from Spotify in protest, only to search out that an AI-generated impersonator has replaced it. The impersonator offers songs which are very much like the band's originals.
The scammer tops Spotify search results for the band's music – attracting quite a few streams – and goes undetected for months.
As unbelievable as it could sound, that's exactly what happened to the Australian prog rock band King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard
In July, the band publicly withdrew their music from Spotify in protest against CEO Daniel Ek Investments in an AI weapons company.
Within a couple of months outraged Fans drew attention to a brand new account called “King Lizard Wizard.”
It featured AI-generated songs with equivalent titles and lyrics and similar-sounding music to the unique band. (And it's not the primary case of a fake Spotify account pretending to be a band).
The fake account was and was really useful by Spotify's algorithms Reportedly removed after being exposed by the media.
This incident raises crucial questions: What happens when artists leave a platform and are replaced by AI impersonators? Is this a copyright infringement? And what could it mean for Spotify?
As an Australian band, King Gizzard's music is mechanically protected by Australian copyright law. However, any practical enforcement against Spotify would depend on US law, so we’ll deal with that here.
Is this a copyright infringement?
King Gizzard has a title called Rattlesnake, and there was an AI-generated title with the identical title and lyrics.
This is a copyright infringement of each the title and the lyrics. And for the reason that AI-generated music sounds similar, there’s also a possible infringement of Gizzard's original sound recording.
A court would query whether the AI track is a copyright infringement or a “sound-alike.” A sound-like work The work could also be paying homage to the style, arrangement or “feel” of the unique, however the recording is technically recent.
From a legal perspective, sound similarities are in a gray area since the musical expression is recent, however the aesthetic impression is copied.
To determine whether infringement has occurred, a court would examine the alleged copying of the protected musical elements in each recording.
It would then determine whether there’s a “substantial similarity” between the 2 Original and AI generated tracks. Is the listener hearing a replica of the unique Gizzard song or a replica of the band's musical style? The style itself can’t be infringed (even though it becomes relevant when paying damages).
Some may ponder whether the AI-generated titles could fall under “fair use” as a type of parody. A real parody wouldn’t violate the law. But that seems unlikely within the King Gizzard situation.
A parody must comment on or criticize an original work, be transformative in nature, and duplicate only what’s mandatory. Based on the available facts, these are Criteria weren’t met.
Wrong association in trademark law?
Using a virtually equivalent band name risks confusing consumers as to the source of the AI-generated music. And this confusion could be made worse by Spotify supposedly really useful the AI tracks them on its “release radar”.
The US Lanham Act has one Unfair Competition Section which distills two Types of Liability. One of them is the false association. This could apply here; There is a plausible claim if listeners could reasonably be led to consider that the AI-generated tracks are from King Gizzard.
To assert such a claim, the plaintiff would have to determine prior protectable trademark rights after which show that use of the same mark would likely cause consumer confusion.
The defendant in such a claim would likely be the creator/uploader of the AI tracks (perhaps at the side of Spotify).
What about Spotify?
Copyright lawsuits are enforced by rights holders, not regulators, so the burden of litigation could be on King Gizzard. But injury lawsuits are expensive and time-consuming – often with little compensation.
Now that Spotify has deleted the AI-generated account, a copyright dispute is unlikely. The streaming platform said no royalties were paid to the creator of the fake account.
Even if this case were to be successfully litigated against the creator of the fake account, it’s unlikely that Spotify would face any penalties. That's since it's protected by U.S. secure harbor laws Limit liability in cases where content is removed following notification from a platform.
This example highlights the legal and political tensions between platforms that actively promote AI-generated content through algorithms and are “passive hosts.”
A Spotify representative speaks concerning the King Lizard incident The Music said:
Spotify strictly prohibits any type of artist impersonation. The content in query was removed for violating our policies and no royalties were paid for the streams generated.
In September, the platform announced that it had modified its policies on spam, impersonation and deception address such problems. However, this latest incident raises questions on how these policy changes have resulted in changes to the platform and/or procedures.
This is a cautionary tale for artists – a lot of whom are liable to having their music used to coach and output AI models without their consent.
For concerned fans, it's a reminder to all the time support your favorite artists through official channels – and ideally direct channels.
