Musicbusinessworldwide.com
Google is pushing to have a copyright lawsuit over its AI music model, Lyria 3, thrown out, arguing that the independent musicians behind the case already granted the company broad rights to use their music when they uploaded it to YouTube.
In a filing submitted to federal court in Illinois, Google asked the judge to dismiss the case with prejudice, contending that the artists’ claims are incompatible with the licensing terms they accepted as YouTube users.
At the center of Google’s defense is YouTube’s Terms of Service, which the company says provides YouTube and affiliated entities within parent company Alphabet with extensive rights to reproduce, distribute, modify and create derivative works from content uploaded to the platform. According to Google, those permissions encompass the conduct now being challenged in court.
The lawsuit was filed earlier this year by a group of independent musicians, including singer-songwriter Sam Kogon, composer Magnus Fiennes, producer Michael Mell and members of the Chicago-based band Directrix. The artists allege that Google trained its Lyria 3 music-generation model on copyrighted recordings hosted on YouTube without obtaining additional authorization or compensation.
Google disputes those allegations, arguing that the complaint relies largely on assumptions rather than evidence that the plaintiffs’ specific recordings were used in training. The company characterized Lyria as a transformative technology designed to expand music creation tools for a broader audience rather than replace existing artists.
Beyond the copyright claims, Google also challenged several other aspects of the lawsuit. The company argued that the plaintiffs lack standing to pursue claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act because they have not identified any allegedly infringing outputs, altered copyright management information, or concrete harm resulting from the technology.
Google further sought dismissal of claims involving false endorsement and biometric privacy violations, asserting that the complaint fails to demonstrate consumer confusion, recognizable trademark-like identity, or evidence that voiceprints were extracted from the artists’ recordings.
About the Author
