Spotify, Apple Music and AI: the importance of transparency in how music is created
The companies Spotify and Apple Music have recently taken constructive initiatives to identify the use of artificial intelligence in music creation. This is an interesting step in trying to strengthen the protection of artists, songwriters and producers against the generation of content by third parties using AI tools. The underlying idea is clear: to transparently inform the public about the role of AI in the generation of music content.
Spotify has started to implement a system of "AI Credits", while Apple Music has launched "Transparency Tags". In both cases, the aim is similar: to allow artists, labels and distributors to indicate whether a song has used AI tools in aspects such as vocals, lyrics, instrumentals or production.
For now, the system is voluntary and relies on self-declaration by artists, labels or distributors. This means that the absence of a label does not necessarily mean that AI has not been used. Still, the move is relevant because it reflects an attempt by the industry to start generating standards of transparency in a technological environment that is evolving much faster than regulation.
And it is important to understand that the use of AI in music can come from multiple perspectives. It is not just about songs completely generated by artificial intelligence. AI is already being used in production processes, mixing, mastering, vocal synthesis, assisted composition, instrumental generation or performance modification.
In this context, the moves by both Spotify and Apple contribute positively to informing the public when content has been wholly or partially generated by AI, favouring greater transparency regarding the origin and creative process of musical works.
From a legal point of view, anything that involves making transparent, rather than hiding, the way in which content has been created seems a positive development. However, there are many nuances, and it will always be necessary to analyse each specific case and how the corresponding regulations apply. In most cases, the focus will remain on who authorised the use of certain protected assets to generate new marketable content: identifiable voices, images, performances, compositions, recordings or styles.
In other words, the use of AI tools does not eliminate the need for authorisation by the creator or rights holder when these elements are used to generate derivative content. These initiatives are probably still far from being a definitive solution, but they do contribute to building transparency and traceability mechanisms in a creative ecosystem where the line between human creation and AI-assisted generation will become increasingly blurred.
