UK Artists release silent album in protest against AI using their work


2025-02-25 00:08:26 UTC
Paul Glynn

884e0970-f37a-11ef-896e-d7e7fb1719a4.jpg.webp
(Left to right) Annie Lennox, Kate Bush and Damon Albarn have all backed the silent album protest

More than 1,000 musicians - including Annie Lennox, Damon Albarn and Kate Bush - released a silent album on Tuesday in protest at the UK government's planned changes to copyright law, which they say would make it easier for AI companies to train models using copyrighted work without a licence.

Under the new proposals, AI developers will be able to use creators' content on the internet to help develop their models, unless the rights holders elect to "opt out".

The artists hope the album, entitled Is This What We Want?, will draw attention to the potential impact on livelihoods and the UK music industry.

All profits will be donated to the charity Help Musicians.

"In the music of the future, will our voices go unheard?" Kate Bush said in a statement.

A public consultation on the legal changes closes later on Tuesday.

The album - also backed by the likes of Billy Ocean, Ed O'Brien of Radiohead and Bastille's Dan Smith, as well as The Clash, Mystery Jets and Jamiroquai - features sound recordings of empty studios and performance spaces, demonstrating what the artists fear is the potential impact of the proposed law change.

The tracklisting for the record simply spells out the message: "The British government must not legalise music theft to benefit AI companies."

52d32360-f38a-11ef-896e-d7e7fb1719a4.jpg.webp
The tracklisting on the back cover of the album by Various Artists carries a message

The government is currently consulting on proposals that would allow AI companies to use material that is available online without respecting copyright if they are using it for text or data mining.

Generative AI programmes mine, or learn, from vast amounts of data like text, images, or music online to generate new content which feels like it has been made by a human.

The proposals would give artists or creators a so-called "rights reservation" – the ability to opt out.

But critics of the plan believe it is not possible for an individual writer or artist to notify thousands of different AI service providers that they do not want their content used in that way, or to monitor what has happened to their work across the whole internet.

A spokesman for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) said in a statement on Tuesday that the UK's "current regime for copyright and AI is holding back the creative industries, media and AI sector from realising their full potential - and that cannot continue".

"That's why we have been consulting on a new approach that protects the interests of both AI developers and right holders and delivers a solution which allows both to thrive.

"We have engaged extensively with these sectors throughout and will continue to do so."

They added that "no decisions have been taken" and "no moves will be made until we are absolutely confident we have a practical plan that delivers each of our objectives."

'Disastrous for musicians'​

Imogen Heap, Yusuf aka Cat Stevens and Riz Ahmed have also backed the silent album release as well as Tori Amos and Hans Zimmer.

Composer Max Richter, another of the artists involved in the album, noted how the plans not only have an impact on musicians but "impoverish creators" across the board, from writers to visual artists and beyond.

In 2023, UK music contributed a record £7.6 billion to the economy.

Organiser of the silent record, Ed Newton-Rex, said the proposals were not only "disastrous for musicians" in the UK but also "totally unnecessary", as the country can be "leaders in AI without throwing our world-leading creative industries under the bus".

He said the new record showed that "however the government tries to justify it, musicians themselves are united in their thorough condemnation of this ill-thought-through plan."

Singer-songwriter Naomi Kimpenu added: "We cannot be abandoned by the government and have our work stolen for the profit of big tech."
She said the plans would "shatter the prospects of so many emerging artists in the UK".

1f158d40-f364-11ef-9e61-71ee71f26eb1.jpg.webp
Tuesday's national newspapers carried a wrap-around advert for the Make It Fair Campaign

In January, Sir Paul McCartney told the BBC the proposed changes to copyright law could allow "rip off" technology that might make it impossible for musicians and artists to make a living.

In a letter to The Times, published on Monday, signatories including Sir Paul, Lord Lloyd Webber and Sir Stephen Fry said that changes to the law will allow big tech to raid the creative sectors.

They were joined by the likes of Bush, Ed Sheeran, Dua Lipa and Sting in opposing plans to change copyright laws.

On Tuesday, the UK's creative industries launched a campaign to highlight how their content is at risk of being given away for free to AI firms.

The Make it Fair campaign, which includes wrap-around adverts in national newspapers, is urging people to write to their MPs to object to the government's plans.
 

Pink Guy - STFU
You guys have more money than most people will ever have. Your so-called liberal leaders are destroying western europe by letting in hoards of men that are incompatible with western values. And the UK government is covering up massive grooming and rape gangs because the current party heads allowed it to happen. And pulling back the curtains would make them look bad and reveal that diversity isn't our strength.

But AI is where you make a stand. Because its threatening your livelihoods and legacies. Fuck off and die.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 7025991
You guys have more money than most people will ever have. Your so-called liberal leaders are destroying western europe by letting in hoards of men that are incompatible with western values. And the UK government is covering up massive grooming and rape gangs because the current party heads allowed it to happen. And pulling back the curtains would make them look bad and reveal that diversity isn't our strength.

But AI is where you make a stand. Because its threatening your livelihoods and legacies. Fuck off and die.
The same people who preach on a throne made out of gold are the biggest hypocrites,
 
Tough luck. Sampling, public domain, and soundalikes have always been tolerated. Go spend millions of dollars trying to prove your shit is in any way infringed by some guy in another part of the world using what doesn't even amount to a sample in his derivative work he's not even making money from.
There's also no one world music market or one world music label to monopolize all their collective interests. Besides, music markets like the UK that rely on public money to avoid competing with the US and having their culture smothered out commercially only have half as much reason to be upset. That patronage isn't drying up any time soon (even though it should).
 
Tough luck. Sampling, public domain, and soundalikes have always been tolerated. Go spend millions of dollars trying to prove your shit is in any way infringed by some guy in another part of the world using what doesn't even amount to a sample in his derivative work he's not even making money from.
There's also no one world music market or one world music label to monopolize all their collective interests. Besides, music markets like the UK that rely on public money to avoid competing with the US and having their culture smothered out commercially only have half as much reason to be upset. That patronage isn't drying up any time soon (even though it should).
Even if SueNOOOOOO and others were using completely clean datasets, all public domain or licensed with the musicians' permission, they would still be complaining.

I don't think models necessarily need to be trained on copyrighted songs to produce hits. Vocals could be done separately, and mathematicians have been working on deconstructing the patterns of pop music long before anyone was talking about generative AI.
 
Tough luck. Sampling, public domain, and soundalikes have always been tolerated. Go spend millions of dollars trying to prove your shit is in any way infringed by some guy in another part of the world using what doesn't even amount to a sample in his derivative work he's not even making money from.
There's also no one world music market or one world music label to monopolize all their collective interests. Besides, music markets like the UK that rely on public money to avoid competing with the US and having their culture smothered out commercially only have half as much reason to be upset. That patronage isn't drying up any time soon (even though it should).
this reminds me of a negativland piece. Part of the fair use cd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indigoisviolet
More than 1,000 musicians - including Annie Lennox, Damon Albarn and Kate Bush - released a silent album on Tuesday in protest at the UK government's planned changes to copyright law, which they say would make it easier for AI companies to train models using copyrighted work without a licence.
Guess what, idiots, you're infringing on John Cage's copyright in your copyright protest.

Here's prior art:
 
Zero sympathy. This is a problem the artists and industry created 25~ years ago when it clamped down hard on piracy.
Instead of adjusting to a new world; one where music and art could be shared freely online, making your money from concerts and online sessions, you decided to protest piracy and go heavy-handed with your enforcement of it.

These faggots, their ilk, and the industry, deserve to be forcibly burned to the ground and I hope AI is the touchpaper that lights the fuse.
 
I don't really get what the point of this is. How does it hurt artists to have ai use their songs in their databases? Whatever the ai makes will not be their songs. You can't own a style or genre of music that's fucking retarded. Besides the ai's probably just going to end up making a bunch of Pachelbel's canon covers anyway.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Not a bee
I don't really get what the point of this is. How does it hurt artists to have ai use their songs in their databases? Whatever the ai makes will not be their songs. You can't own a style or genre of music that's fucking retarded. Besides the ai's probably just going to end up making a bunch of Pachelbel's canon covers anyway.
It's the piracy scare 2.0 and I for one want them to lose this shit.

If I could get AI to replicate Megadeth playing Metallica's Fade to black, or put Cliff Burton on Bass for Holy wars using AI, what's the problem? I've already bought the albums.
 
It's the piracy scare 2.0 and I for one want them to lose this shit.

If I could get AI to replicate Megadeth playing Metallica's Fade to black, or put Cliff Burton on Bass for Holy wars using AI, what's the problem? I've already bought the albums.
I tried fucking around with some ai song generator. It complained when I tried to make it do songs in the style of particular artists and wouldn't make them but eventually I managed to get it to make a song in the style of the Beatles White Album about posting on social media and the results were actually pretty good. Obviously if you listened closely enough and paid attention to the lyrics you could tell it wasn't the Beatles but at a casual listen it was pretty convincing. Still. Sounding like something isn't the same as stealing a copyrighted song and there's no way in hell the Beatles are ever going to make a song in the style of the white album about fucking Facebook.
 
Still. Sounding like something isn't the same as stealing a copyrighted song and there's no way in hell the Beatles are ever going to make a song in the style of the white album about fucking Facebook.
Many years ago, Mysongbook.com, the most popular website to offer Guitar, Bass, Drum and Piano tablatures, was shut down due to a law passing saying that guitar tabs, even those made for free by people that weren't always accurate, was infringing on copyright.
I lost access to millions of songs, posted free on a website, because some cunt decided I was stealing. Luckily, someone released all of the files as a torrent and I got them anyway.

TL;DR - copyright laws are retarded and I can't wait for the day when they're deemed as retarded and ended.

EDIT: What software did you use to generate the songs?
 
Many years ago, Mysongbook.com, the most popular website to offer Guitar, Bass, Drum and Piano tablatures, was shut down due to a law passing saying that guitar tabs, even those made for free by people that weren't always accurate, was infringing on copyright.
I remember that. That was some fucking bullshit. Official music books are stupidly expensive too.
TL;DR - copyright laws are retarded and I can't wait for the day when they're deemed as retarded and ended
There's a book I read about the history of Jamaican music from the 1950's to modern times and it's a fascinating look into what it's like to have no copyright laws. The way music developed there is really cool, except for a lot people getting kind of screwed over, the way the music itself evolved is really cool. The idea of recycling basslines and melodies was just the way of it. Entire genres were created by remixing.and rearranging those songs and to this day a lot of Jamaican music originally written in the 1950's is still being remixed and rearranged by producers all over the world. It's really cool if you're interested in that kind of thing at all. I used to kind of hate reggae and that kind of music until I learned all that and it's almost addicting tracking down the hundreds of different songs and versions made out a bassline and hearing them in the weirdest places like the fucking town theme in Earthbound which is just a remake of the Real Rock reggae rhythm. Same with every single song by the band Sublime. Nearly every one of them is just a remake of an old Jamaican song.
EDIT: What software did you use to generate the songs?
 
Back