Music-sharing platform SoundCloud has announced significant changes to its Terms of Service (TOS) in response to growing concerns from artists about the potential use of their uploaded content to train artificial intelligence (AI) models. This marks the latest development in an ongoing debate over how creative works are leveraged in the rapidly expanding AI landscape.
What Happened?
Earlier this year, artists and users raised alarms over a clause added to SoundCloud’s TOS in February 2024, which appeared to grant the platform broad rights to use user-uploaded content, including music tracks, to “inform, train, develop or serve as input to artificial intelligence or machine intelligence technologies.” This language suggested that SoundCloud could utilize artists’ work to train generative AI tools, potentially replicating or synthesizing their voices, music, or likenesses without explicit consent.
The ambiguous wording sparked an uproar among creators worried that their original works could be exploited to develop AI-generated content that might compete with or undermine their artistic output. Many artists interpreted the clause as a surrender of control over how their music might be used in AI training, fueling distrust toward the platform.
SoundCloud’s Response and New Commitment
SoundCloud CEO Eliah Seton publicly acknowledged the confusion caused by the overly broad phrasing, stating, “The language in the Terms of Use was too broad and wasn’t clear enough. It created confusion, and that’s on us.” He emphasized that, despite the wording, SoundCloud has never used artists’ content to train AI models to date.
To address these concerns, SoundCloud is revising the contentious clause in its TOS. The new version, expected to roll out within the coming weeks, will explicitly state:
“We will not use Your Content to train generative AI models that aim to replicate or synthesize your voice, music, or likeness without your explicit consent, which must be affirmatively provided through an opt-in mechanism.”
This formal commitment ensures that any future use of AI on SoundCloud will be grounded in transparency, artist control, and consent, with artists having the choice to opt in rather than having their work used by default.
Seton also reiterated that if SoundCloud integrates generative AI features in the future, these would be made available only with clear permission from artists. As a company spokesperson explained, SoundCloud “may make this opportunity available to our human artists with their explicit consent.”
Criticism Remains
However, not all industry observers are satisfied with SoundCloud’s revised terms. Ed Newton-Rex, a technology ethicist who initially flagged the TOS language, expressed concerns that the new wording still leaves loopholes open. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Newton-Rex argued that:
“Models trained on your work that might not directly replicate your style but still compete with you in the market” could still be permitted under the updated terms.
He called for clearer language, recommending that the clause simply state:
“We will not use Your Content to train generative AI models without your explicit consent.”
This wording, he argues, would close any ambiguity and better protect artists from unwanted exploitation.
Why It Matters
SoundCloud’s experience highlights a critical issue facing digital platforms and creative professionals alike: balancing technological innovation with the rights and control of original content creators. As generative AI technologies advance, platforms hosting user-generated content are under increasing scrutiny for how they leverage that content to train AI systems.
For artists, the fear is that AI-generated music or voice synthesis trained on their work could flood the market, potentially diluting their creative value and impacting their income. For platforms, the challenge lies in fostering innovation without alienating the creator communities that form their core user base.
What’s Next?
SoundCloud’s commitment to an opt-in consent mechanism for AI use sets a precedent for greater transparency and artist empowerment. Whether this move will be enough to restore trust among creators remains to be seen.
The broader conversation about AI, intellectual property, and user rights continues to evolve, with lawmakers, ethicists, and industry players watching closely. As generative AI becomes more pervasive, clear policies and respectful collaboration between platforms and creators will be essential to shaping a fair creative ecosystem.