A February 2024 change to SoundCloud's Terms of Service drew attention because it said uploaded music could be used to train, develop, or serve as input to AI systems unless another agreement applied. Artists wanted to know whether that language meant SoundCloud was training generative models on their work.
SoundCloud said it was not training generative AI
Some creators, including The Flight and Adam Humphreys, removed music from the platform while questions around the wording spread.
SoundCloud responded by saying it did not train generative AI models on artist content and did not allow third parties to scrape uploads for AI training. It said the terms were intended to cover uses such as personalized playlists and fraud detection.
The company also said artists would be able to opt out if future plans involved AI training and introduced a no AI tag intended to block unauthorized AI use.
Assistive AI was already on the platform
SoundCloud had already introduced several AI-related creation tools.
- Tuney for remixing and track generation
- AIBeatz for creating custom beats
- Starmony for track production and distribution
SoundCloud described these tools as assistance for artists rather than replacements for them, and said AI integrations would follow principles including consent, attribution, and fair compensation.
The wording matters even when the use differs
The controversy showed why broad AI clauses can create distrust even when a platform says its current use is narrower. Training a generative model, detecting fraud, and building recommendations are different activities, but one broad term can appear to cover all of them.
The original reporting is available through Music Business Worldwide.
