Jorja Smith's Label Demands Share of Royalties from TikTok Viral 'AI-Cloned' Song
A bitter dispute has erupted between Jorja Smith's record label and the team behind a viral TikTok dance track, with Famm claiming they are entitled to a share of royalties. The song, I Run, by British dance act Haven, reached No 11 on US Spotify's chart and No 25 globally before being banned due to concerns over its use of an AI-cloned version of Smith's voice.
Famm claims that once the song originally went viral, Haven's team requested that Smith feature on a remix. However, Famm alleges that her team was never informed about the use of AI in manipulating existing vocals – a move they claim would have been legitimate if done so with permission and transparency.
Despite the song being re-recorded with new vocals by Kaitlin Aragon, Famm believes the new top line still contains an AI model trained on Smith's catalogue. The label is calling for a share of the royalties from both versions of the track, claiming that this would be fair given the use of Smith's voice without permission.
The dispute highlights concerns over the use of AI in music creation and the need for clear labelling to avoid confusion among consumers. Famm argues that creators should be credited and compensated if their works are used to train AI models, emphasizing the importance of protecting artists' rights in this rapidly evolving landscape.
As a recent string of viral hits have been revealed as AI-generated content, Famm is calling for stricter regulations around the use of such technology in music production.
A bitter dispute has erupted between Jorja Smith's record label and the team behind a viral TikTok dance track, with Famm claiming they are entitled to a share of royalties. The song, I Run, by British dance act Haven, reached No 11 on US Spotify's chart and No 25 globally before being banned due to concerns over its use of an AI-cloned version of Smith's voice.
Famm claims that once the song originally went viral, Haven's team requested that Smith feature on a remix. However, Famm alleges that her team was never informed about the use of AI in manipulating existing vocals – a move they claim would have been legitimate if done so with permission and transparency.
Despite the song being re-recorded with new vocals by Kaitlin Aragon, Famm believes the new top line still contains an AI model trained on Smith's catalogue. The label is calling for a share of the royalties from both versions of the track, claiming that this would be fair given the use of Smith's voice without permission.
The dispute highlights concerns over the use of AI in music creation and the need for clear labelling to avoid confusion among consumers. Famm argues that creators should be credited and compensated if their works are used to train AI models, emphasizing the importance of protecting artists' rights in this rapidly evolving landscape.
As a recent string of viral hits have been revealed as AI-generated content, Famm is calling for stricter regulations around the use of such technology in music production.
The thing is, if Haven's team did use that AI-cloned voice without permission, that's a whole different story. But now the song's already been re-recorded with new vocals, so it's not like they're still using Smith's original work... 
. I mean, Haven's team was using an AI-cloned version of Jorja Smith's voice without her permission, that's already a huge red flag 
. And now Famm is saying she should get paid because the new vocals still got a bit of Smith's vibe from it? That's just common sense 
. We need stricter regulations around AI-generated content, no doubt about it 
. Can't have creators being left in the dark while record labels are raking it in 
.
, but because they actually created that content from scratch. It's time to give some love to these everyday artists who aren't getting the recognition or credits they deserve 
.
famm seems to be on to something here tho, the whole AI thing is getting crazy fast and i feel like we need some clear guidelines on how this all works. if someone uses your song to train an ai model without permission, that's a legit claim for royalties i guess the real question is how do we even track this stuff? 
they're basically saying that just because the song was re-recorded doesn't mean smith's original vocals are not still used in some form, and honestly who knows for sure? 
. and yeah, it would be nice if there were clearer guidelines around this stuff, but can't we just take a step back and say "hey, AI-generated content is cool, but let's make sure we're giving artists their due credit"? 
. Are creators even gonna get paid if their voice is used to train an AI model? That's a pretty big question mark 
. Maybe Famm has a point about needing stricter regulations around AI in music production 
.
. Not try to game the system and get paid off of some AI-generated content 
.
. Can't have creators just using other people's work to train their AI models and then trying to cash in on it 
. But at the same time, I get where Famm is coming from - artists should be protected and credited for their work. And yeah, it's wild how fast AI-generated content has taken off... it's like, we need some clarity on this stuff so creators know what they're getting into 
! Like, how can Famm not know about the AI thingy before? And now her label's all bent outta shape and demanding a share of royalties like they own the place 
... It's just crazy that Haven's team didn't even clear it with Smith or anyone else involved in creating that track. I mean, we're living in an age where AI is changing music production ASAP 
. It's not just about the royalties; it's about respecting artists' rights and giving them control over how they want to be represented in this new tech landscape 
.
.
.
. Famm is right to push for change and stricter rules around this stuff. Artists should be getting paid and recognized for their work, not having it co-opted without permission 