Björn Ulvaeus of the music group Abba has raised the alarm about the potential negative impact of AI on the income of musicians. He says tech companies training AI models on existing artists’ copyrighted body of work without remuneration is “very unfair.” He continued by calling for frameworks to protect artists and ensure fair compensation. The International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) backed up his claims. The association said generative AI would enrich tech companies while reducing the income for human creators. AI could potentially erode the revenue stream of creatives Swedish songwriter, singer, and president of CISAC, Björn Ulvaeus warns that AI is potentially siphoning a significant portion of creator earnings. This claim is substantiated by a CISAC economic study, which projects that music and audiovisual creators could respectively lose about 24% and 21% of their revenues to AI by 2028. According to CISAC’s study , creators could potentially lose up to €22 billion in 5 years, while generative AI providers could grow their revenue by approximately €9 billion by 2028. CISAC calls it “a transfer of economic value from creators to AI companies.” The imminent threat of economic value transfer from creators to AI companies led Björn and the CISAC to demand that policymakers come up with regulations to ensure creatives are protected and appropriately paid for their works. Despite his warnings, Björn isn’t completely against AI use. He said AI is the biggest revolution in the history of music and that his Abba music group would have used it in their creative process if the technology had been available in the 1970s. He added that AI can take an artist in “unexpected directions.” However, he stressed the fair use of AI to compensate creators for their work. Copyright concerns on the use of AI This year, Abba filed a lawsuit against two AI startups, Suno and Udio, claiming that they had ripped off the group’s classics to produce more songs. The lawsuit mentioned the AI-generated song “Prancing Queen,” which resembles Abba’s “Dancing Queen.” Björn says it is “very unfair” for AI companies to use an artist’s work without appropriate remuneration. Both companies denied the claim, arguing that their models generate entirely original works under fair use provisions of copyright law. Also, in April 2024, late rapper Tupac Shakur’s estate issued a cease-and-desist letter to rapper Drake, who released a track featuring an AI-generated Tupac . Government bodies are beginning to address the challenges AI poses with regard to copyright laws. The United Kingdom’s Intellectual Property Office in 2021 launched a consultation to examine the intersection of AI and intellectual property rights. The U.S. Copyright Office states that AI-generated works without human authorship don’t qualify for copyright protection. However, there is an ongoing debate about the use of copyrighted materials to generate new works. According to a U.S. Congressional Research Service report , to establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove the infringer “actually copied” the underlying work. As Björn admits, AI use in the creative industry can improve creativity and productivity. However, the songwriter and the CISAC group he heads continue to advocate for clear frameworks to protect creators from the existential threats AI presents to the earning potential of creatives. From Zero to Web3 Pro: Your 90-Day Career Launch Plan
