The number of copyright cases against AI developers continues to grow. There are copyrightability cases against the Copyright Office, piracy allegation, fair use defenses, and courts hearing arguments from California to Delaware and seemingly everywhere in between. Plaintiffs include major labels, movie studios, authors, and publishers. We are tracking closely settlements and the licensing agreements that have followed.

As the list of cases surpasses 50, it is increasingly difficult to follow. As part of that effort, under AFM President Tino Gagliardi’s leadership, the AFM is now part of the Copyright Alliance, is tracking this case and others regarding its impact on all musicians. The Copyright Alliance is membership organization that includes the entire copyright community. Per its Web site, the Copyright Alliance Copyright All is “the unified voice of the copyright community, representing the interests of thousands of individual creators and organizations across the spectrum of copyright disciplines.”

If you’re interested in following any of these cases, I would encourage you to track a recent suit from a group of independent musicians against Udio. David Woulard, who goes professionally as Davo Sounds, brought Woulard et al. v. Uncharted Labs, in the Northern District of Illinois on October 15.

The case resembles the other AI copyright infringement cases in many ways. There are various claims of direct copyright infringement; removal or alliteration of copyright management information; circumvention of access controls and false copyright management information; under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA); vicarious and contributory copyright infringement; and unjust enrichment as a result.

This case differentiates itself, albeit not uniquely, from some of the many cases in three ways. First, the plaintiffs argue that independent musicians bear a “significant and unequal harm” and do not, of course, have the same legal resources as the major labels. Second, the suit focuses on the manner by which Udio acquired the songs. Woulward argues that Udio circumvented data protections using “stream ripping,” a piracy tool that allows for illegal downloading. Given that the recent Anthropic settlement hinged on a piracy argument, this element is critical. Third, is the novel legal argument. The plaintiff argues that because Udio stores data derived from one’s voice, it is in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act.

As these remain relatively unchartered legal waters, having parties consider all possible avenues. It is encouraging to see individual musicians stand up in the name of consent, credit, and compensation in AI development. Amid settlements and more than 50 court cases, the path forward will be long and circuitous. It will be important for all musicians to keep a watchful eye. I am mindful that simply watching and waiting is not satisfactory. We must exercise our collective voice at the bargaining table and on Capitol Hill.

With upcoming SRLA negotiations, our union will have an opportunity to raise the issues with the major record labels that you care about the most. Be sure to participate in the upcoming conversations leading up to the negotiations this winter.

Ben Kessler is the legislative director for the AFM