Thoughts on AI, from a Publisher

[Daryl]

As many of you know,. I run two production music labels, 2nd Foundation Music, and Arrow Production Music. We've had lots of internal discussions about AI, and its insidious creep on the Media industry. So much of it seems to come under the "at first they came for.." situation, where people are happy to jump on the bandwagon, in order to get quicker results, or to save money, having no thought as to where it will end up. A bit like what composers did with samples and other technology that we now take for granted, yet resulted in musicians losing jobs, and much of the standard of releases being diminished. However, I digress...

I managed to get a lunch date with one of the VPs at Universal Music, and for us things are not quite as bad as they seem. Yet...

We all know there are tools for discerning whether or not a track has been cobbled together by AI, from scraping music from the Web. What is more heartening is that none of Universal's clients will touch AI generated music with a barge pole, and I'm told that this is unlikely to change any time in the near future. Why? Because you can't be sure that it isn't breaching copyright, either in terms of music copyright, or recording copyright. The clients can't risk opening themselves up to lawsuits and having their content pulled, and neither can Universal. There is also the issue that so far nobody has proven that an AI can actually generate a new copyright that is recognised as a new copyright.

For us, already have a clause in the contract that is probably overly strict, that outlaws the use of AI anywhere in the composition process, or recording process. If a client gets sued, they sue the Sub Publisher. The Sub Publisher sues us. We sue the composer. So we're trying to stop that situation arising.

Now as to errors and omissions insurance, I wonder how many composers have bothered to get that...

[RobS]

that's at least a bit comforting

[Luke]

We all know there are tools for discerning whether or not a track has been cobbled together by AI, from scraping music from the Web. What is more heartening is that none of Universal's clients will touch AI generated music with a barge pole, and I'm told that this is unlikely to change any time in the near future. Why? Because you can't be sure that it isn't breaching copyright, either in terms of music copyright, or recording copyright. The clients can't risk opening themselves up to lawsuits and having their content pulled, and neither can Universal. There is also the issue that so far nobody has proven that an AI can actually generate a new copyright that is recognised as a new copyright.

That's what I'm seeing over here as well so far. The risk is simply too high, for both operations and reputation.

Now as to errors and omissions insurance, I wonder how many composers have bothered to get that...

Now that is a good point and great reminder...!

[Lawrence]

As many of you know,. I run two production music labels, 2nd Foundation Music, and Arrow Production Music. We've had lots of internal discussions about AI, and its insidious creep on the Media industry. So much of it seems to come under the "at first they came for.." situation, where people are happy to jump on the bandwagon, in order to get quicker results, or to save money, having no thought as to where it will end up. A bit like what composers did with samples and other technology that we now take for granted, yet resulted in musicians losing jobs, and much of the standard of releases being diminished. However, I digress...

I managed to get a lunch date with one of the VPs at Universal Music, and for us things are not quite as bad as they seem. Yet...

We all know there are tools for discerning whether or not a track has been cobbled together by AI, from scraping music from the Web. What is more heartening is that none of Universal's clients will touch AI generated music with a barge pole, and I'm told that this is unlikely to change any time in the near future. Why? Because you can't be sure that it isn't breaching copyright, either in terms of music copyright, or recording copyright. The clients can't risk opening themselves up to lawsuits and having their content pulled, and neither can Universal. There is also the issue that so far nobody has proven that an AI can actually generate a new copyright that is recognised as a new copyright.

For us, already have a clause in the contract that is probably overly strict, that outlaws the use of AI anywhere in the composition process, or recording process. If a client gets sued, they sue the Sub Publisher. The Sub Publisher sues us. We sue the composer. So we're trying to stop that situation arising.

Now as to errors and omissions insurance, I wonder how many composers have bothered to get that...

Is “errors and omissions insurance” the equivalent of liability insurance?

Daryl, my brother is the president of a rock label owned by Universal. Do you mind if I run this by him (without naming names, of course)?

[Daryl]

Daryl, my brother is the president of a rock label owned by Universal. Do you mind if I run this by him (without naming names, of course)?

The more people who are discussing this, the better. If things change, your brother's label becomes worthless.

[GR Baumann]

There is also the issue that so far nobody has proven that an AI can actually generate a new copyright that is recognised as a new copyright.

March 18th, 2025, the US Court of Appeals, ruling denies copyright protection for AI-generated works

Umm "creative human input"... I am not holding my breath on that one! That being said, as a creator in that business, I would simply document the creative process as soon as AI becomes involved, at any stage,, and yes, of course you could use AI to document the process.

Terminal Capitalism.

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/l ... 0dccir.pdf

[GR Baumann]

Is “errors and omissions insurance” the equivalent of liability insurance?

To my knowledge, yes. Not astonishing perhaps, accounting firms et al., covers negligence, hence E&O protects your business from lawsuits that claim you made a mistake in your professional services, eventually, and at a significant cost, and a limit of course, depending on cost, and country you are located, and, and, and... you probably need a legal eagle to understand the policy that comes with E&O.

I think I should make that my general signature:
Kind regards
Terminal Capitalism

[Guy Rowland]

Good news, thanks Daryl. I've been saying for some time that this exact thing is our only hope - glad it's holding so far!

[Lawrence]

Is “errors and omissions insurance” the equivalent of liability insurance?

To my knowledge, yes. Not astonishing perhaps, accounting firms et al., covers negligence, hence E&O protects your business from lawsuits that claim you made a mistake in your professional services, eventually, and at a significant cost, and a limit of course, depending on cost, and country you are located, and, and, and... you probably need a legal eagle to understand the policy that comes with E&O.

I think I should make that my general signature:
Kind regards
Terminal Capitalism

…or perhaps Capital Terminalism?

[progger]

Thank you very much for that valuable input, Daryl. I had basically written off making any more music for the one or two production libraries I've worked with in the past, even though they still send out briefs... Maybe I'll entertain the concept for a while longer, yet. I have some time for the rest of the year, anyway, this might be a good opportunity to get some tracks out the door.

I've been amused lately watching the inevitable fallout of the over-eager AI bubble in recent weeks. Pilot programs failing nearly all the time, ventures hemorrhaging money, consumers being turned off by what it produces... Big changes are certainly still bound to happen (they always are) but I think the future holds hope for creative people.

Humans are still most inspired by cool things done by other humans.