Uploaded songs on YouTube? Google says you gave permission to use it to train AI
In February this year, Google launched Lyria 3 through Gemini. The company claimed that Lyria 3 could generate songs for you based on prompts. But
In February this year, Google launched Lyria 3 through Gemini. The company claimed that Lyria 3 could generate songs for you based on prompts. But shortly after its release, a lawsuit was filed against Google for allegedly training the model on songs taken from YouTube without compensation. And now, in a new court filing, Google has said that by uploading songs on YouTube, artists gave it a broad license to train AI on their music. Read Full Story As per court documents, Google says that YouTubeâs terms of service give it a âbroad licenseeâ to use music uploaded directly to the platform, including for training artificial intelligence models such as Lyria 3. That is, if you uploaded a song on YouTube, the worldâs biggest video streaming platform, you gave Google the permission to potentially use it to train AI models. The copyright infringement lawsuit was filed in March this year by a group of independent artists, songwriters and producers. Google doesnât confirm if it actually used music to train AI One thing to note here is that Googleâs case rests on an âunsupported hypothesis.â That is, the tech giant is not saying that it actually used music uploaded on YouTube to train its AI models.
Googleâs motion, filed by litigation firm Quinn Emanuel reads, âEven accepting their untested allegations as fact, the complaint cannot stand. Plaintiffs each granted YouTube, and Google â which provides the service â a broad license to use the uploaded content. That license, present in YouTubeâs terms of service, authorised the conduct alleged in the complaint.â In other words, Google claims that even if it were to use the uploaded content to train AI models, it already received authorisation from the creators when they accepted YouTubeâs terms of service. The filing cites the clause, âBy providing content to the service, you grant to YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to use that content (including to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works, display and perform it) in connection with the service and YouTubeâs (and its successorsâ and affiliatesâ) business.â The position marks a different legal approach from the one taken by other AI companies facing copyright claims. In cases involving Suno, Udio and Anthropic, the companies have mainly argued that training on copyrighted material is protected by fair use because the resulting systems are transformative.
Googleâs argument in this case is that it already has a licence through YouTube for music uploaded by individual users. If that argument is accepted, it could allow the company to train AI systems on such uploads and use them for derivative works. This lawsuit alleges that Googleâs conduct goes beyond the music generator itself because of the âstructural leverageâ it holds through ownership of YouTube and Content ID. âGoogle didnât just have access to Plaintiffsâ music; it operated the infrastructure through which much of that music reached the world,â the complaint said. Google is also facing a lawsuit from a group of journalists, podcasters and audiobook narrator for allegedly using their voices to train AI models. Can Google use all songs on YouTube to train AI? Keep in mind that Googleâs position may be different for music distributed to YouTube under separate licensing agreements with labels and publishers. Major music companies, as well as independent labels and publishers, have licensing deals with YouTube that govern copyright protection and royalty payments, and the treatment of AI training may vary from one agreement to another.
