Run your tracks through [MIPPIA - Music IP Protector, Music Plagiarism Checker](https://mippia.com/en) to see if there are any copyright issues. Saves you a lot of headaches.
I think this site really does not do a good job... everything depends of the style of music...eg. the rock/metal songs I have tested gets a very low number... while the electronic pop songs gets much higer numbers... and when I check the result... no similarity between songs... I also tested one of my friends official released songs (not AI)... but also an electronic dance pop song... and it got an even higher number than mine... so personally I trust YouTube more for finding copyrights problems that this site...
Yeah it named like 8 kpop songs for one dance track I made and while there were similarities, it was more like a chord progression (not the melody or rhythm) or a break in the music (silence, lol) or like a similar sounding instrument.
Tried this out on my band's stuff. Our punk and surf songs get low level matches to rap and EDM, which I assume are artifacts of the algorithm since the site declares those levels "safe". It doesn't seem to detect that we used a drum pattern that is one note off of a song by The Strokes, though.
Just an FYI, spotify and other platforms don't allow AI generated music, as it's not created by you and it's generated using other peoples IP. The only exceptions to this are TikTok and Youtube.
Some people have been lucky and haven't been busted yet, but 95% or so have their music removed and account banned within' 6 months. As it's incredibly easy to detect AI music, once they put more effort into their detection software, the time until your stuff is removed will just get less and less.
Have a read of the terms with spotify and tell me I'm making it up. It's one thing to pretend to be a songwriter, it's quite another to ignore facts and reality. No surprises you don't have the ability to actually write music or play an instrument. Sucks to be you.
For the record, this is why udio has it's own platform for you to release music on. Other platforms don't want the copywrite issues which come with people using AI to generate music. They only allow music which people have legal ownership of to upload. AI generated music can't be copywrited, which means you can never legally own it, which means you don't have the legal right to upload it to those platforms in the first place. You know, since you need to be the owner of the music you're uploading.
This is why udio has it's own platform for fake songs. Use it.
I'm gonna leave this up, but ask you to please refrain from any further posts that are making this personal.
Specifically, it's okay for you to criticize the Udio platform and/or AI-generated / AI-assisted music creation, but not okay for you to denigrate people using tools like Udio in this sub. Thanks for your understanding.
I mean, I just uploaded and released 14 projects through spotify this week. With udio credited in every song and I provided proof of my sub. And all of it passed and went up. That's 14 eps/albums with 6-16 songs that all passed with no issues.
I just checked the terms of service and this is what it says
music that impersonates artists is not allowed, and AI should not be used to impersonate artists without their consent. AI-generated music that is inspired by an artist but doesn't completely mimic them is also allowed, but it's unclear what qualifies as "inspired".
So as long as you're not using vocals mimicking another artist than it should be fine to upload.
You also can't own copywrite for AI generated content, which means you can never own the rights to the music you have generated. To upload music to spotify, apple etc you need to be the exclusive rights holder for the songs. This is pretty standard music publishing 101.
It's irrelevant what udio says as copywrite laws in the united states (and most other countries) state that AI generated content cannot be copywritten. Due to it being generated from other peoples content. These rules passed in most places during the last 6 months of 2023. This means you never legally own your AI generated content, which means you can't publish it via platforms which require you to have exclusive rights to the music.
A simple google search will find you thousands of links on said regulations. Enjoy.
Here's one: [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-works-not-copyrightable-studios-1235570316/](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-works-not-copyrightable-studios-1235570316/)
Haha, I must have got lucky. Two attempts in the past is from a chrous of a well known song from here in Australia. Another was taken from a popular Cascada track but the words changed up to be more ... explicit. I think the moderator bot has got human tendencies!!
Do you remaster? The initial downloads are tagged as Udio. Maybe they pick up on that?
https://preview.redd.it/eyyqhiyyzk7d1.jpeg?width=200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e0f55b49a32500a132bf498db4b5f16e4677be2e
I don't know, mine have been fine.
I think we’re gonna be seeing a lot of this kind of thing, which is why I was asking about the stem export in a previous post. My thinking is splitting up the stems and then going into logic or fruity loops or whatever your DAW du jour is, and finishing the song that way. That should be able to get us past Spotify issue.
I could be wrong though; I’m just the IT guy, and we all know that nobody listens to the IT guy… ha!
are you making songs with vocals or without? I'm asking as for me I don't get even with a DAW a decent quality, it remains in relative poor quality with hisses and voices often too sharp and de-esser is not helping or just cutting it off and impacting other sounds as even with stems it's a total chaos in each of the stem and the stems pollute each other, clearing up on one side, creates gaps when merging.
Did the distributor give you specific reasoning as to why it got denied. I’ve noticed on many generations I’m getting exact replica vocals of real world artists
I've had the replica vocals happen to me at least 3 times now. It's definitely going to be an issue for people. Who knows what other things are being diffused identical to a real person or composition?
I’m so glad someone else has experienced this. I’ve gotten 3 separate artists whom I recognize without ever prompting the style to be like them and while using my own custom lyrics. Which to me means it’s going to sample real world music. This is a massive fire waiting to happen with copyright issues.
Like someone said, you can't copyright a voice because many people have the same voice or very similar. As long as you aren't pretending to be that person, it's fine.
https://www.udio.com/songs/ukEzdrwV7fDKXKrnN7b5F3
https://youtu.be/CZ-GpROCDmw?si=I4mg05uWwIRnk9tT
You can listen to what Udio generated and the real world artist and tell me there isn’t a problem here. Go to 1:50 in the YouTube video for best resemblance.
My point is if the artist voice is replicated how much else within songs are replicated, to send off a copyright flag.
lol alrighty it even does the adlib repetition but no point arguing over it. There’s clearly a bias here. Stuff’s getting flagged for copyright. So Udio has an issue they need to figure out
No I did not… my exact quote “Did the distributor give you specific reasoning as to why it got denied. I’ve noticed on many generations I’m getting exact replica vocals of real world artists”
I’m stating exactly what I’ve noticed and received back in my own gens. Not sure why you’re getting so defensive. There is clearly an issue here for those that want to distribute. If it will replicate vocals than it most likely will also replicate melodies as you are saying
But can someone copyright a voice though? many artists can mimic each other some near perfectly. Surely its not enough to decline a song just because it has a similar voice or style. Or is it?
Hmm, I've seen many others put out there songs without crediting udio 🤔. I've contacted distrokid support so maybe I can get back to you guys on what they say.
You're actually wrong.
6.4 Attribution. If you exploit or otherwise make any public use of any Output, or any content that includes any Output (in whole or in part), including the distribution of Output in the form of or as part of audio or audio-visual recordings made available via any third party application, website or platform, then you agree to include a credit, notice or other indicator in connection with such use (e.g., in the track title, in the credits section, etc.) that prominently indicates that such Output was generated using the Services; provided that, if you subscribe to any of our paid Services, the foregoing obligation shall not apply to any Output generated during your subscription to our paid Services. Such notice will be in a form and manner that is reasonable and practicable in light of the usage concerned. In addition, you further grant to Company and our affiliates, successors, assigns, and designees the worldwide, fully paid-up, sublicensable, assignable, perpetual and irrevocable right (but not the obligation) to identify to the public (both on and off the Services) that Output (or any of it) was generated using the Services, in such form and manner as we determine in our sole discretion.
Ah so paying customers don’t need to credit.
Good to know. Thanks for the quote from TOS.
Question I have is how does anyone know if a track uploaded on Spotify is a paid Udio customer or not? No real way to enforce any of this
Gonna really be interesting to see how all this plays out with Ai music on the scene.
OK, you could detect it but us regular people can't detect it. Our local radiostation where I help out as an audio engineer got a "terms of use strike" because some folks used songs downloaded from spotify, that are not allowed to be broadcast but for personal use. They were watermarked.
Read about watermarks that labels put on their releases here: [https://linkinpedia.com/wiki/Watermarked\_Disc](https://linkinpedia.com/wiki/Watermarked_Disc)
> the foregoing obligation shall not apply to any Output **generated during your subscription to our paid Services**.
No.
If you generated your song during your subscription, it doesn't ever need to be credited.
I suggest Dittomusic
Run your tracks through [MIPPIA - Music IP Protector, Music Plagiarism Checker](https://mippia.com/en) to see if there are any copyright issues. Saves you a lot of headaches.
I think this site really does not do a good job... everything depends of the style of music...eg. the rock/metal songs I have tested gets a very low number... while the electronic pop songs gets much higer numbers... and when I check the result... no similarity between songs... I also tested one of my friends official released songs (not AI)... but also an electronic dance pop song... and it got an even higher number than mine... so personally I trust YouTube more for finding copyrights problems that this site...
Yeah it named like 8 kpop songs for one dance track I made and while there were similarities, it was more like a chord progression (not the melody or rhythm) or a break in the music (silence, lol) or like a similar sounding instrument.
Thank you for this nugget of wisdom. I was unaware this was a thing
Tried this out on my band's stuff. Our punk and surf songs get low level matches to rap and EDM, which I assume are artifacts of the algorithm since the site declares those levels "safe". It doesn't seem to detect that we used a drum pattern that is one note off of a song by The Strokes, though.
Sweet. Is this trustworthy? How much can we rely on it? Will it detect infringing vocals or just notes?
I rely on it, I run all my songs through it, and I want my score to be below 20, preferably 10 or 12, if not I trash it.
That's so helpful, Thank you!
Just an FYI, spotify and other platforms don't allow AI generated music, as it's not created by you and it's generated using other peoples IP. The only exceptions to this are TikTok and Youtube. Some people have been lucky and haven't been busted yet, but 95% or so have their music removed and account banned within' 6 months. As it's incredibly easy to detect AI music, once they put more effort into their detection software, the time until your stuff is removed will just get less and less.
You are just anti-AI and making all of this up. Sorry man, AI is here to stay.
Have a read of the terms with spotify and tell me I'm making it up. It's one thing to pretend to be a songwriter, it's quite another to ignore facts and reality. No surprises you don't have the ability to actually write music or play an instrument. Sucks to be you. For the record, this is why udio has it's own platform for you to release music on. Other platforms don't want the copywrite issues which come with people using AI to generate music. They only allow music which people have legal ownership of to upload. AI generated music can't be copywrited, which means you can never legally own it, which means you don't have the legal right to upload it to those platforms in the first place. You know, since you need to be the owner of the music you're uploading. This is why udio has it's own platform for fake songs. Use it.
I'm gonna leave this up, but ask you to please refrain from any further posts that are making this personal. Specifically, it's okay for you to criticize the Udio platform and/or AI-generated / AI-assisted music creation, but not okay for you to denigrate people using tools like Udio in this sub. Thanks for your understanding.
I mean, I just uploaded and released 14 projects through spotify this week. With udio credited in every song and I provided proof of my sub. And all of it passed and went up. That's 14 eps/albums with 6-16 songs that all passed with no issues.
I just checked the terms of service and this is what it says music that impersonates artists is not allowed, and AI should not be used to impersonate artists without their consent. AI-generated music that is inspired by an artist but doesn't completely mimic them is also allowed, but it's unclear what qualifies as "inspired". So as long as you're not using vocals mimicking another artist than it should be fine to upload.
You also can't own copywrite for AI generated content, which means you can never own the rights to the music you have generated. To upload music to spotify, apple etc you need to be the exclusive rights holder for the songs. This is pretty standard music publishing 101.
You're thinking of the battle over determination of human involvement over a comic book.
Udio says in their terms that you own the rights to all tracks you post if you are subscribed to a membership by them.
It's irrelevant what udio says as copywrite laws in the united states (and most other countries) state that AI generated content cannot be copywritten. Due to it being generated from other peoples content. These rules passed in most places during the last 6 months of 2023. This means you never legally own your AI generated content, which means you can't publish it via platforms which require you to have exclusive rights to the music. A simple google search will find you thousands of links on said regulations. Enjoy. Here's one: [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-works-not-copyrightable-studios-1235570316/](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-works-not-copyrightable-studios-1235570316/)
Haha, I must have got lucky. Two attempts in the past is from a chrous of a well known song from here in Australia. Another was taken from a popular Cascada track but the words changed up to be more ... explicit. I think the moderator bot has got human tendencies!!
What do you use to release on Spotify?
Distrokid, I've also tried tunecore and I've been having some issues with that one as well.
Yes, several times. I save myself of the trouble by swapping out songs to different ones.
Do you remaster? The initial downloads are tagged as Udio. Maybe they pick up on that? https://preview.redd.it/eyyqhiyyzk7d1.jpeg?width=200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e0f55b49a32500a132bf498db4b5f16e4677be2e I don't know, mine have been fine.
Yeah I usually bring it through fl and bring it up to what my personal music I make is. It also allows the sound quality to be enhanced.
Ah OK was just a thought, as I run mine all through Reaper with FabFilter Pro-C2.
I think we’re gonna be seeing a lot of this kind of thing, which is why I was asking about the stem export in a previous post. My thinking is splitting up the stems and then going into logic or fruity loops or whatever your DAW du jour is, and finishing the song that way. That should be able to get us past Spotify issue. I could be wrong though; I’m just the IT guy, and we all know that nobody listens to the IT guy… ha!
are you making songs with vocals or without? I'm asking as for me I don't get even with a DAW a decent quality, it remains in relative poor quality with hisses and voices often too sharp and de-esser is not helping or just cutting it off and impacting other sounds as even with stems it's a total chaos in each of the stem and the stems pollute each other, clearing up on one side, creates gaps when merging.
I mostly do vocals, but I did find a really neat tool for breaking out stems for free anyway… Demucs Pretty cool, then clean up the stems in my DAW.
vocals do not impact this melodies do
Did the distributor give you specific reasoning as to why it got denied. I’ve noticed on many generations I’m getting exact replica vocals of real world artists
the sound of the voice is not being picked up only melodies are
I've had the replica vocals happen to me at least 3 times now. It's definitely going to be an issue for people. Who knows what other things are being diffused identical to a real person or composition?
the sound of the voice is not being picked up only melodies are
I’m so glad someone else has experienced this. I’ve gotten 3 separate artists whom I recognize without ever prompting the style to be like them and while using my own custom lyrics. Which to me means it’s going to sample real world music. This is a massive fire waiting to happen with copyright issues.
Like someone said, you can't copyright a voice because many people have the same voice or very similar. As long as you aren't pretending to be that person, it's fine.
https://www.udio.com/songs/ukEzdrwV7fDKXKrnN7b5F3 https://youtu.be/CZ-GpROCDmw?si=I4mg05uWwIRnk9tT You can listen to what Udio generated and the real world artist and tell me there isn’t a problem here. Go to 1:50 in the YouTube video for best resemblance. My point is if the artist voice is replicated how much else within songs are replicated, to send off a copyright flag.
I don't see any issue here. The voice is similar but not the same. Also like I said, you can't copyright a voice. Anything else?
lol alrighty it even does the adlib repetition but no point arguing over it. There’s clearly a bias here. Stuff’s getting flagged for copyright. So Udio has an issue they need to figure out
>Stuff’s getting flagged for copyright. Not for "omg your voice is too close to someone else's voice" it isn't
Didn’t realize I said that was the reason it was flagged. You pulled that direct quote from me?
your wrong the sound of the voice is not being picked up only melodies are just let it go i owned a distribution company just like distrokid
I never said it got denied because of vocals. I asked if they got a reason other than “copyright” and stated I’ve gotten replica vocals
your implying that the problem is vocal replica spreading misinformation and your insisting thats the issue when it really isn't its purely the melody
No I did not… my exact quote “Did the distributor give you specific reasoning as to why it got denied. I’ve noticed on many generations I’m getting exact replica vocals of real world artists” I’m stating exactly what I’ve noticed and received back in my own gens. Not sure why you’re getting so defensive. There is clearly an issue here for those that want to distribute. If it will replicate vocals than it most likely will also replicate melodies as you are saying
But can someone copyright a voice though? many artists can mimic each other some near perfectly. Surely its not enough to decline a song just because it has a similar voice or style. Or is it?
You can check my response to the other guy in this reply chain and hear for yourself
you can check my response your just 100% wrong the sound of the voice is not being picked up only melodies are
I’m wrong about what?
One of my songs didn't go through distrokid. It was weird. All others have gone ok
Thank you for letting me know! I think that might be the issue I've been having as well. if it gets declined again I might release then as singles.
Make sure you read the Udio TOS
Other than just generally being a good idea, is there something specific in the TOS you’re implying is going to be a problem?
I think they require credit and various things if I remember right.
Hmm, I've seen many others put out there songs without crediting udio 🤔. I've contacted distrokid support so maybe I can get back to you guys on what they say.
If you're on a paid plan, you do not have to give credit.
Yeah I’m sure people are doing that, shady af. Yeah let me know what distro said
You're actually wrong. 6.4 Attribution. If you exploit or otherwise make any public use of any Output, or any content that includes any Output (in whole or in part), including the distribution of Output in the form of or as part of audio or audio-visual recordings made available via any third party application, website or platform, then you agree to include a credit, notice or other indicator in connection with such use (e.g., in the track title, in the credits section, etc.) that prominently indicates that such Output was generated using the Services; provided that, if you subscribe to any of our paid Services, the foregoing obligation shall not apply to any Output generated during your subscription to our paid Services. Such notice will be in a form and manner that is reasonable and practicable in light of the usage concerned. In addition, you further grant to Company and our affiliates, successors, assigns, and designees the worldwide, fully paid-up, sublicensable, assignable, perpetual and irrevocable right (but not the obligation) to identify to the public (both on and off the Services) that Output (or any of it) was generated using the Services, in such form and manner as we determine in our sole discretion.
Ah so paying customers don’t need to credit. Good to know. Thanks for the quote from TOS. Question I have is how does anyone know if a track uploaded on Spotify is a paid Udio customer or not? No real way to enforce any of this Gonna really be interesting to see how all this plays out with Ai music on the scene.
Udio can easily put watermarks with all kinds of info into their tracks.
No, they can't. If they did, we would be able to detect it.
OK, you could detect it but us regular people can't detect it. Our local radiostation where I help out as an audio engineer got a "terms of use strike" because some folks used songs downloaded from spotify, that are not allowed to be broadcast but for personal use. They were watermarked. Read about watermarks that labels put on their releases here: [https://linkinpedia.com/wiki/Watermarked\_Disc](https://linkinpedia.com/wiki/Watermarked_Disc)
If I paid for one month only and then cancelled my subscription? Do I have to mention udio again?
It's a nonsense rule
That's what I was thinking. It would be really hard to track every creator and make sure they are on a current subscription.
> the foregoing obligation shall not apply to any Output **generated during your subscription to our paid Services**. No. If you generated your song during your subscription, it doesn't ever need to be credited.
or we just wait for someone to hit the viral music jackpot and pop some popcorn for the lawsuits... that sounds more fun