UK music body threatens first-of-its-kind AI deepfake lawsuit

British Phonographic Industry issues legal warning in what could be the UK’s first case involving AI deepfake music technology | AI company faces allegations of replicating artists' voices to create songs | Concerns grow over unauthorised use of AI to mimic human works.

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI), which represents the UK music industry's interests, has threatened to sue a company that has created an artificial intelligence (AI) tool that mimics artists' voices.

BPI has issued a legal letter to Voicify accusing it of copyright infringement in what could be the UK’s first case to potentially grapple with AI deepfake music technology.

Voicify allows users to create songs by blending their own recordings with the voices of famous artists.

Following BPI’s letter, Voicify changed some of its functionality and also changed its name to Jammable.

Through Jammable, users can upload their vocals, which are then transformed into tracks resembling various musicians such as Amy Winehouse, Rihanna and Drake.

Kiaron Whitehead, general counsel at the BPI, told WIPR : “Music is precious to us all, and the human artistry that creates it must be valued, protected and rewarded.”

Whitehead explained there is an increasing “threat” of deepfake AI companies who are using copyrighted works without permission.

These companies are “building big businesses that enrich their founders and shareholders, while ripping off artists’ talent and hard work,” said Whitehead.

Cloning artists' voices

Jammable, previously Voicify, was launched by Southampton University computer science student Aditya Bansal in April 2023.

Jammable offers users the ability to create songs by combining the voices of well-known artists with their own voice.

Users can upload their voice and then convert the recording into an audio track which sounds similar to the range of certain musicians.

Jammable also provided express guides to its users on how to make deepfakes, for example, “How to Make Drake AI Songs–The Full Guide!” and “How to Make Ariana Grande AI Songs–the Full Guide!”—these were removed following BPI’s letter.

Jammable has more than 3,000 voice cloning models of artists and asks users to pay monthly fees ranging from £1.99 to £89.99.

It also has an affiliate programme designed to encourage users to bring in new customers, and pays them 20%.

It was allegedly launched without obtaining necessary permissions and licences from the music industry and is now one of the world’s largest deepfake voice cloning sites, according to BPI.

Risks and violations of law

BPI has geared up to take formal legal action on behalf of its members in the record industry, arguing it is unlawful to train AI using copyrighted works.

The associations suggested that AI tools that turn people's voices into copies might breach copyright laws under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, if it's derived from the artists' original work.

Nick Eziefula, partner at Simkins, said: "It is impossible to see how an AI platform that flagrantly and deliberately mimics artists’ voices could be built without using recordings of those voices as training data. Using copyright recordings in this way is unlawful in England unless permission has been granted or any of the relevant exceptions or defences to copyright infringement apply." 

He argued there are issues beyond copyright in this case as the sound of an artist's voice might not be a copyrighted work, however, it does amount to personal data and using it without permission can be a breach of data privacy laws. 

Additionally, there could be a misappropriation of an artist's brand, which could lead to false endorsement,  or reputational damage if the AI outputs are linked falsely to the artist.

"These are risks day-to-day consumers of the service are unlikely to be aware of—and Voicify seems to hide behind its small print here, expressly asserting that it is not responsible for its customers’ use of generated content," said  Eziefula.

BPI warned that the letter provided an opportunity to avoid litigation and that it will take further action if Jammable fails to respond.

Respecting human creativity 

Eziefula described this period as the "Wild West era of unlicensed AI music", which may not last long if music rights-holders have any say in the matter.

The music industry has embraced new technology to innovate and grow, but Jammable and a growing number of others are “misusing” AI technology by taking other people’s creativity without permission and making fake content, according to Whitehead.

By doing this, “they are endangering the future success of British musicians and their music,” he added.

BPI has been supported by the wider music industry, including the Musicians’ Union, the Ivors Academy (representing songwriters), the Music Publishers Association, UK Music, Phonographic Performance Limited (the licensing body for record companies and performers), and Associated of Independent Music.

The protection of human creativity lies at the heart of this dispute, and nearly 79% of music fans feel that human creativity remains essential to the creation of music, according to a report by the International Federation of Phonographic Industry released in November 2023.

The report also highlighted that 76% of music fans believe artist’s music or vocals should not be illegally ingested into AI without permission, and 74% agree that AI should not be used to clone or impersonate artists without permission.

“We believe that human artists must be supported, and we reserve our right to take action against any operation that infringes artists’ rights and damages their creative talent and prospects in this way,” said Whitehead.

Artists' reactions

More than 300 artists, actors and performers have signed up to the human artistry campaign.

Lainey Wilson, speaking on behalf of the Human Artistry Campaign to the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee said: “I do not have to tell you how much of a gut punch it is to have your likeness or your voice ripped from you and used in ways that you could never imagine or would never allow. It is wrong, plain and simple.”

Naomi Pohl, the general secretary of the Musicians’ Union,  also pointed out that music creators have always embraced new tech but never have they faced a threat as big to their careers and livelihoods as the one presented by AI.

“Jammable is just one worrying example of AI developers encroaching on the personal rights of music creators for their own financial gain.

“It can’t be right that a commercial enterprise can just steal someone’s voice in order to generate unlimited soundalike tracks with no labelling to clarify to the public the output tracks are not genuine recordings by the original artist, no permission from the original artist and no share of the money paid to them either.

“The fact that Jammable seem to be doing this with impunity is a reflection of the fact that action needs to be taken,” added Pohl.

Paul Clements, CEO of the Music Publishers Association, argued that the rights of creators are being undermined by “irresponsible” AI platforms.

Platforms such as Jammable, threaten the livelihoods of creators and also the trust of music fans, according to Clements.

“For AI to be successful for the UK music industry and the UK economy, we require a responsible cooperative approach by all stakeholders, working in tandem and not aiming for the short term gain for individuals abusing the system at the expense of the UK creative industries and the UK as a whole,” he warned.

Gee Davy, chief operating officer and head of policy and legal affairs at The Association of Independent Music, explained the UK’s innovative independent music community has embraced AI tools but that using music without consent "undermines" artists' ability to make a living.

“It is the smaller artists and creatives and those from diverse communities that suffer the most from unethical and illegal activities. These types of behaviours actively damage artist careers and incomes, as well as the reputation of good AI developers,” she said.