Music Industry Leaders Address AI-Induced Challenges in Trump's Proposed Action Plan

Table of Contents

1. Key Highlights
2. Introduction
3. A Collaborative Approach to AI Regulation
4. FAQ

Key Highlights

• Industry organizations, including the RIAA and NMPA, submitted recommendations to the Trump Administration's AI Action Plan emphasizing the need for copyright protections while fostering AI innovation.
• Central suggestions include licensing requirements for AI developers using copyrighted materials, opposing exceptions for international text and data mining, and advocating for robust protection of voice and likeness rights amidst the rise of deepfake technologies.
• The submission stands in stark contrast to calls from some tech companies, such as OpenAI, which seek changes in copyright laws that could undermine creator rights.

Introduction

As artificial intelligence increasingly shapes the landscape of creative industries, the call for a balanced regulatory framework has never been more urgent. Recent developments highlight a critical juncture where technological innovation intersects with intellectual property rights. The Trump Administration's directive to formulate an AI Action Plan—intended to bolster America’s leadership in AI—has prompted a wave of responses from various industry bodies, particularly those in the music sector.

In March 2025, organizations representing music creators, including the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA), outlined a series of recommendations to ensure that intellectual property protections are ingrained in this burgeoning technology. Their responses underscore a key belief: the interests of AI advancement and copyright protection can coexist, paving the way for a sustainable ecosystem where both innovation and creativity thrive.

A Collaborative Approach to AI Regulation

The music organizations' filing, submitted on March 14, 2025, articulates a vision in which AI technology and copyright protections do not exist in opposition but rather complement one another. This perspective was articulated by Mitch Glazier, RIAA Chairman & CEO, who emphasized that trust in AI systems is essential for their widespread acceptance. According to Glazier, a considerable barrier to AI adoption is the skepticism surrounding the legitimacy of training materials. He argues for transparency regarding how AI algorithms are developed, stating, "AI adoption will falter unless end users have faith in the training data."

Creating a framework for managing this intersection of copyright law and AI development involves concrete proposals from the industry:

1. Free Market Licensing for AI Training

One of the cornerstone recommendations from the music organizations is that AI developers must obtain proper licenses before utilizing copyrighted works to train their models. Following examples set by companies like OpenAI, which has established licensing agreements with organizations such as Shutterstock, the filing suggests that a free-market approach should govern these negotiations.

Key observations include:

• Licensing is positioned as a "symbiotic relationship" between creators and AI developers. Through negotiated agreements, both parties can realize economic value.
• The submission emphasizes that adherence to U.S. laws should prevail, with well-defined processes for fair value negotiations—allowing for economic competitiveness.

2. Opposing International Text and Data Mining Exceptions

The organizations further argue against international exceptions to copyright that would provide unauthorized access to American intellectual property. This call to action highlights concerns that current exceptions may undermine fair compensation for creators as generative AI evolves.

Notable points include:

• Emphasis on the negative impact of "bad actors" exploiting such exceptions as a means to access protected works at no cost, ultimately harming the integrity of the copyright industries.
• Recommendations that the U.S. maintain a leadership stance in opposing such exceptions stands in stark contrast to calls for a more lax international copyright regime.

3. Upholding Existing Copyright Laws

The filing articulates a strong commitment to current U.S. copyright law, arguing that the existing legal framework—including the unique elements of the fair use doctrine—adequately addresses concerns arising from AI-related copyright issues.

Some critical insights presented are:

• The principle that U.S. copyright law should only cover human creators is reinforced by recent judicial rulings asserting that machines should not enjoy the same rights. The references to the Reuters ruling concerning unauthorized AI training substantiate this stance.
• By maintaining the existing provisions and adapting them to address AI development, the filing seeks to encourage the humane flourishing of creativity without compromising protection.

4. Protecting Voice and Likeness Rights

Amid the proliferation of AI technologies capable of recreating voices and likenesses, concerns over deepfakes and personal safety have become prominent. The organizations stress support for the NO FAKES Act, aimed at safeguarding individuals' rights against unauthorized AI replication.

Essential observations include:

• Deepfake technology poses personal and broader societal risks, including scams and various forms of exploitation, necessitating robust protective measures.
• The unanimous support for the NO FAKES Act illustrates an urgent call for federal protection to ensure that individuals are shielded from potential misuses of their likeness and voice.

5. Promoting AI Transparency

Recognizing the hesitance around AI’s development, the organizations propose that AI firms maintain detailed records of training materials used and provide public summaries explaining the works involved in their AI model developments.

Noteworthy insights include:

• Establishing transparency is crucial for counteracting skepticism surrounding AI's reliability.
• Recommendations include the proposed TRAIN Act, which would help copyright holders investigate potential unauthorized uses of their works, solidifying a route for accountability within the AI realm.

Implications for the Future of Creative Industries

The implications of these recommendations extend beyond mere policy changes; they could fundamentally reshape how AI interacts with creative content across various media. As pressures from tech organizations, such as OpenAI, call for radical transformations in copyright rules, the suggestions by the RIAA and its allies stress that preserving creator rights is not only a legal necessity but a cultural imperative.

Countries are watching closely as these decisions unfold, with the potential dichotomy between placing creator interests against innovation driving competitive advantages in the global marketplace. The music industry organizations argue that failing to respect copyright protections—whether through AI-generated reproductions or unlicensed data mining—will result in significant repercussions for creators and the industry alike.

Real-World Examples and Case Studies

To contextualize the significance of these initiatives, consider the ramifications of non-compliance with copyright laws on creators. The music industry has faced substantial damages from unauthorized remixes, samples, and AI-generated content that's stripped of proper attribution or compensation for rights holders.

Several examples have illustrated the devastating consequences of neglecting to secure licensing, leading to costly legal battles that can drain resources and stifle innovation:

• The legal disputes arising out of unauthorized sampling in hip-hop demonstrate how entrenched and damaging copyright infringements can be to artists and their careers.
• Case studies involving AI tools producing music from existing artists’ catalogs have sparked public outrage, underscoring the critical need for regulations safeguarding original creators.

These trends highlight the need not just for foundational protections, but for a robust framework that anticipates technological advancements while honoring the rights of creators.

FAQ

What is the purpose of the AI Action Plan?

The AI Action Plan, directed by the Trump Administration, aims to sustain and enhance U.S. leadership in artificial intelligence by creating a comprehensive policy framework that addresses the development and implementation of AI technologies.

What are the main recommendations by music organizations for the AI Action Plan?

The music organizations recommend establishing free market licensing for AI training using copyrighted works, opposing international text and data mining exceptions, upholding existing copyright laws, protecting voice and likeness rights, and promoting transparency in AI.

Why are music organizations concerned about AI?

They are concerned that the unregulated use of AI technologies can infringe upon copyright protections, undermine creators' rights, and potentially lead to significant economic consequences for those in the creative industries.

How does the fair use doctrine relate to AI?

The fair use doctrine allows for certain uses of copyrighted materials without infringement, and the music organizations argue that this legal principle can and should apply to the training of AI systems.

What is the significance of the NO FAKES Act?

The NO FAKES Act aims to establish federal protections against unauthorized reproductions of an individual’s voice and likeness through AI technologies, addressing escalating concerns about deepfake applications and personal safety.

The future of AI is being shaped by the dialogues happening today, and the ongoing interplay between advancing technology and robust copyright protections will be pivotal in determining how creativity is both valued and safeguarded. As the U.S. navigates these complex challenges, the music industry stands firm on advocating for a balanced approach that fosters both innovation and fairness.