Music fans who are aware of the potential of generative AI overwhelmingly believe that tech companies that want to train their AI models with existing recordings must first get permission from the music industry. Which is convenient, because that's what the music industry thinks too.
That bold statement comes from the International Federation Of The Phonographic Industry. The global record label trade group has inserted some AI-related questions into its annual survey of 43,000 music consumers in 26 countries. That’s the survey that informs its 'Engaging With Music' report - the latest edition of which is imminent.
IFPI says that 89% of the music consumers it surveyed are aware of AI, which makes you wonder what tricks the other 11% employed to avoid all the AI-related news stories that have been thrown our way this year. Many of those music fans are either using AI or are interested in its capabilities, although 79% still feel that human creativity remains essential to the creation of music.
Researchers also found that 76% of music consumers who are aware of music-generating AI "feel that an artist’s music or vocals should not be used or ingested by AI without permission" and "74% agree that AI should not be used to clone or impersonate artists without authorisation".
The music industry also insists that such permission should be sought, although many tech companies argue that exceptions in copyright law mean they can train AI models with existing music without seeking consent. The music industry also wants AI companies to be transparent about what music has been used to train any one model and, don't you know, 73% of music consumers "agree that an AI system should clearly list any music that it has ingested or used for training".
The music community is pretty much aligned on the copyright and transparency obligations of AI companies, although there is some disagreement about the obligations of record labels in the AI domain, as seen in last week's open letter from the UK’s Council Of Music Makers.