UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc.

From AI Law Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc. is a 2024 copyright infringement lawsuit filed by major record labels against Uncharted Labs, Inc., the company behind the artificial intelligence music generation service Udio. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 24, 2024.

Background

Udio is an AI-powered music generation service launched on April 10, 2024, by former researchers from Google DeepMind. The complaint describes Udio's product as one that "enables everyone from classically trained musicians, to those with pop star ambitions, to hip hop fans, to people who just want to have fun with their friends to create awe-inspiring songs in mere moments." <ref name="para382">Complaint, ¶38</ref> Udio's CEO and co-founder, David Ding, stated that the vision for Udio's service is to create "music that sounds indistinguishable from music that's created by professional human producers." <ref name="para382" />

The service allows users to generate digital music files within seconds by inputting text prompts or audio files. Paid subscribers can also upload sound recordings to "greatly enrich [their] prompting vocabulary." <ref name="para392">Complaint, ¶39</ref> Initially free, Udio introduced subscription tiers on May 8, 2024, ranging from $10 to $30 per month, with options for generating up to 4,800 30-second clips per month. <ref name="para402">Complaint, ¶40</ref>

Plaintiffs

The plaintiffs in the case are major record labels and music companies, collectively representing "the world's foremost record companies and recorded music businesses." <ref name="para172">Complaint, ¶17</ref> They include:

  • UMG Recordings, Inc. and Capitol Records, LLC (collectively "Universal")
  • Sony Music Entertainment, Arista Music, and Arista Records LLC (collectively "Sony")
  • Atlantic Recording Corporation, Rhino Entertainment Company, Warner Music Inc., Warner Music International Services Limited, Warner Records Inc., Warner Records LLC, and Warner Records/SIRE Ventures LLC (collectively "Warner")

The plaintiffs assert that they "own or exercise exclusive control over copyrights and/or exclusive rights under federal law in and to numerous valuable sound recordings." <ref name="para36">Complaint, ¶36</ref>

Allegations

The core allegation is that Udio has engaged in "willful copyright infringement on an almost unimaginable scale." <ref name="para8">Complaint, ¶8</ref> Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that Udio infringed their copyrights by:

  1. Copying and ingesting massive amounts of copyrighted sound recordings to train its AI model without permission. The complaint states that "Udio copied Plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings en masse and ingested them into its AI model." <ref name="para9">Complaint, ¶9</ref>
  2. Generating digital music files that closely resemble or imitate copyrighted recordings. The plaintiffs argue that "Udio's service generates outputs that mimic readily identifiable features of the Copyrighted Recordings." <ref name="para51">Complaint, ¶51</ref>
  3. Allowing users to create and potentially commercialize music that competes with copyrighted works. The complaint notes that "Udio's Terms of Service expressly authorize the use of the output generated 'for both personal and commercial purposes.'" <ref name="para852">Complaint, ¶85</ref>

Evidence of Infringement

The complaint provides numerous examples of Udio-generated outputs that allegedly resemble specific copyrighted recordings. The plaintiffs conducted tests using targeted prompts to generate outputs resembling specific copyrighted recordings, which they argue demonstrates Udio's unauthorized use of these recordings in its training data. <ref name="para52-532">Complaint, ¶52-53</ref>

Examples include:

  • "Sunshine Melody," resembling The Temptations' "My Girl" <ref name="para552">Complaint, ¶55</ref>
  • "Subliminal Hysteria," resembling Green Day's "American Idiot" <ref name="para562">Complaint, ¶56</ref>
  • "Sway With Me," resembling Michael Bublé's "Sway" <ref name="para572">Complaint, ¶57</ref>
  • Multiple outputs resembling Mariah Carey's "All I Want for Christmas is You" <ref name="para58-592">Complaint, ¶58-59</ref>

The complaint argues that "These similarities are only possible because Udio copied the Copyrighted Recordings that contain these musical elements." <ref name="para552" />

Legal Claims

The complaint asserts two causes of action:

  1. Direct copyright infringement of post-1972 copyrighted recordings <ref name="para92-1002">Complaint, ¶92-100</ref>
  2. Direct copyright infringement of pre-1972 copyrighted recordings under the Music Modernization Act <ref name="para101-1092">Complaint, ¶101-109</ref>

Arguments Against Fair Use

A significant portion of the complaint is dedicated to arguing that Udio's use of copyrighted recordings does not qualify as fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107. <ref name="para75-912">Complaint, ¶75-91</ref> The plaintiffs contend that:

  1. The purpose and character of Udio's use is commercial and non-transformative. The complaint argues that "Udio feeds the Copyrighted Recordings into its AI model not merely to deconstruct their expressive content, but with the explicit aim of imitating these expressive features in digital music files that could serve as substitutes for and compete with the original recordings." <ref name="para80">Complaint, ¶80</ref>
  2. The copyrighted works are creative and at the core of copyright protection. The plaintiffs assert that "There is no doubt that the Copyrighted Recordings are the type of 'creative expression for public dissemination [that] falls within the core of the copyright's protective purposes.'" <ref name="para822">Complaint, ¶82</ref>
  3. Udio copies the most important parts of the protected sound recordings. The complaint states that "It is abundantly clear that Udio copies (at least) the most important parts of the protected sound recordings it sweeps into its training data." <ref name="para832">Complaint, ¶83</ref>
  4. Udio's use poses a significant threat to the market for and value of the copyrighted recordings. The plaintiffs argue that "Udio's unauthorized use of the Copyrighted Recordings threatens to eliminate the existing market for licensing sound recordings, as well as the future market for licensing sound recordings to generative AI companies." <ref name="para842">Complaint, ¶84</ref>

Potential Impact

The plaintiffs argue that Udio's actions could have far-reaching consequences for the music industry, including:

  1. Eroding the value of artistic works <ref name="para52">Complaint, ¶5</ref>
  2. Undermining the existing market for licensing sound recordings <ref name="para842" />
  3. Overrunning the market with AI-generated music. The complaint notes that "Udio's service is already reportedly churning out 10 music files per second, which equals 864,000 files per day, or just over 6,000,000 files per week." <ref name="para852" />
  4. Disrupting established practices like music sampling <ref name="para86-872">Complaint, ¶86-87</ref>
  5. Diluting royalty pools paid to artists <ref name="para882">Complaint, ¶88</ref>

The complaint argues that Udio's conduct is "a frontal attack on the very purpose of copyright law to reward authors and promote their incentives to continue creating copyrighted works." <ref name="para89">Complaint, ¶89</ref>

Relief Sought

The plaintiffs are seeking:

  1. A declaration that Udio has willfully infringed their protected sound recordings <ref name="relief-a2">Complaint, Prayer for Relief A</ref>
  2. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief <ref name="relief-b2">Complaint, Prayer for Relief B</ref>
  3. Statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed, or alternatively, actual damages and/or Udio's profits from infringement <ref name="relief-c2">Complaint, Prayer for Relief C</ref>
  4. Costs and attorneys' fees <ref name="relief-d2">Complaint, Prayer for Relief D</ref>
  5. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest <ref name="relief-e2">Complaint, Prayer for Relief E</ref>

Media Coverage

References

<references />

Retrieved from "https://ailawwiki.com/index.php?title=UMG_Recordings,_Inc._v._Uncharted_Labs,_Inc.&oldid=345"