The Fight Over AI Is Just Beginning, and Artists Like Elton John Are Leading the Way

Artificial intelligence is a technology with profound implications — it will soon be smarter than we are! — including for the future of music. So far, though, the debate over the copyright issues involved in training AI algorithms follows a familiar pattern: Rightsholders want a licensing structure to generate royalties, while some technology companies maintain that they don’t need permission and others just proceed without it. To music executives of a certain age, it sounds a bit like the Napster battle, especially since the central issue is fair use. Technology companies seem to have the same plan: Move fast and break things, then try to change the law once consumers get accustomed to the new technology.  

Could this time be different? 

Yes and no, at least to judge by the current state of affairs. In the European Union, which passed the first serious AI legislation, some lawsuits working their way through the courts now — perhaps most importantly GEMA’s case against Suno — will provide more clarity. The situation in the U.S., which seemed to depend on the result of major label lawsuits against Suno and Udio — in which the two sides are negotiating — has been complicated by President Trump’s firing of the Register of Copyrights. In the U.K., the government has been considering loosening copyright by calling for a consultation — but that effort has come under pressure from both music companies and creators. 

Two weeks ago, at a party to honor the Billboard Global Power Players, Elton John and his manager and husband, David Furnish, won the first-ever Billboard Creators Champion Award for their work fighting the U.K. government’s proposed adjustments to copyright law. That initially involved an amendment to a data bill being debated in parliament that would have forced technology companies to be transparent about the content they used to train their algorithms. The bill repeatedly “ping-ponged” between the House of Commons and the House of Lords as the latter repeatedly voted for the amendment, under the leadership of Baroness Beeban Kidron. Last week, after more back-and-forth, the data bill passed without the amendment.  

This bill doesn’t affect copyright, although the amendment would have, so it represents only a minor skirmish in what’s shaping up to be a serious fight. John and Furnish aren’t going away, and John’s consistent championing of upcoming artists gives them real moral authority. Other artists are with them, including Paul McCartney and the acts behind the “silent album.” There’s strength in numbers, and the days when companies like Napster could give Metallica a reputational black eye are long since over. Few artists and executives have devoted as much time to the issue as John and Furnish, but they aren’t alone. Besides artists, the entire music business is behind them.  

They are also fighting a very different battle than Metallica was all those years ago. Back then, the Internet looked much cooler than major label music — more disruptive, in today’s terms — and Metallica got cast, unfairly, as trying to fight the next new thing. At this point, technology companies have grown into a new establishment, with far more political power than the media business ever had. Elton John doesn’t seem like he’s trying to stop the next new thing — he’s trying to make sure that new technology doesn’t get in the way of the next new artists. Metallica’s fight wasn’t actually all that different — people just didn’t understand it very well. 

Technology companies are pushing some of the same ideas they always have, which now seem almost oddly old-fashioned. The idea is that governments need to relax copyright laws so they can “take the lead” or “get ahead” in “the AI arms race.” This sounds vital, and it is, except that the kind of AI that’s most important is general intelligence, which has very little to do with the kind that can make new songs in the style of, say, Led Zeppelin. That’s just a consumer product. Also, what exactly are governments racing toward? Since AI is expected to eliminate white-collar jobs and the tax revenue that flows from them, what exactly is the hurry? 

The debate over the U.K. data bill was only just the beginning, and the way John and Furnish framed the issue could influence the debate as it develops. For the next few years, both sides will argue about how compensation will work. But without the kind of transparency that the amendment to the bill mandated, it would be very difficult for technology companies to identify and pay the right creators. Transparency is necessary but not sufficient — it won’t solve the problem, but there can’t be a solution without it. Any serious conversation about compensating artists for the use of their work in AI needs to start there, and thanks to creators, this one has. Let’s see where it goes from here.