In what appears to be a dramatic shift in strategy, Universal Music Group has partnered with AI startup Udio just months after suing the company for copyright infringement. This sudden reversal highlights the complex dynamics between major media corporations and artificial intelligence developers, raising serious questions about who truly benefits from these alliances.
The Corporate Dance: Lawsuits Turn to Partnerships
Last year, Universal Music Group joined forces with Warner Records and Sony Music Entertainment to sue two AI music startups, alleging unauthorized use of their recordings to train text-to-music models. Yet in a surprising turn, UMG recently announced a collaboration with one of these defendants, Udio, to create a new AI music platform.
The joint press release promised the label would "do what's right by [UMG's] artists," but scepticism runs deep within the creative community. The Music Artists Coalition responded bluntly: "We've seen this before – everyone talks about 'partnership', but artists end up on the sidelines with scraps."
The Human Cost of AI Progress
While corporations negotiate, working artists face tangible economic consequences. A January 2024 survey by the Society of Authors revealed that more than a third of illustrators had already lost income due to AI competition. Projections indicate audiovisual creators could suffer a 21% revenue loss by 2028.
Across US courts, dozens of lawsuits grapple with whether using creative work to train AI constitutes copyright infringement. In Andersen v Stability AI, artists argue that using their artwork without credit, compensation or consent "violates the rights of millions of artists." Judges face the challenging task of applying copyright law to technology that fundamentally challenges traditional concepts of authorship.
When Protection Becomes Problematic
The emerging pattern shows media giants and tech companies moving from adversaries to partners, while artists risk being left behind. Dave Hansen, executive director of the non-profit Authors Alliance, warns that copyright lawsuits won't ultimately protect artists. Instead, they'll likely lead to exclusive licensing deals between large media and tech companies, leaving independent creators out in the cold.
History provides sobering precedents. During the rise of streaming services, labels and studios secured lucrative deals while musicians, writers and actors saw diminishing returns. Current AI licensing arrangements show similar patterns – in some multimillion-dollar deals between publishers and AI companies, authors received neither compensation nor the option to exclude their work from datasets.
Even proposed legislative solutions like the NO FAKES Act, which would create federal digital replication rights, face criticism from civil liberties groups. The Center for Democracy and Technology and American Civil Liberties Union have highlighted the bill's vague language, weak free speech protections and potential for abuse, particularly concerning contracts that could pressure young artists into signing away control of their likeness for years.
A More Promising Path: Collective Action
Amid these challenges, unionised creative workers have demonstrated that organised labour may offer more effective protection than copyright law. The Writers Guild and Screen Actors Guild–American Federation of Television and Radio Artists have secured meaningful AI protections through strikes and collective bargaining.
Copyright, as one expert notes, is "too antiquated, too static and too indelicate" to adequately protect today's precarious creative workforce. If media conglomerates genuinely sought to shield artists from AI's disruptive impact, they would prioritize listening to creators rather than trading their voices as training data.
The fundamental question remains whether the current wave of AI-related activism will ultimately serve corporate interests or genuinely empower the artists whose work fuels both media and technology industries.
