AI Songs Deleted. Just Like That.
Tencent Music decided last year was the time to get serious about AI-generated music. We’re talking a quarter-million-plus songs gone. Poof. All because they broke some corporate policy. The report says they found nearly 30,000 engaging in shady tactics like song theft or hijacking trending sounds. It’s a stark reminder that even in the wild west of AI music, rules—and consequences—exist.
This isn’t just about keeping things tidy. This is about the sheer volume of AI content flooding platforms. Tencent’s numbers show the scale. They apparently reviewed over 600,000 high-risk copyright cases, all thanks to fancy tech like voiceprint recognition and melody comparison. Think of it as a digital bouncer, but for audio.
Who Owns the Sound?
The implications here are massive. For artists, it’s a tangled mess. For platforms, it’s a constant battle to keep the digital wolves from the door. And for AI developers? Well, it’s a wake-up call that “create anything” doesn’t mean “release anything.” The copyright policy violations are the most telling part. They aren’t just saying “this is AI”; they’re saying “this AI broke our rules.”
Vericool v. Igloo: A Cooler Lawsuit
Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit’s decided that claiming you were “first” with a biodegradable cooler isn’t enough to win a false advertising case. Vericool wanted Igloo to pay up because Igloo said they were the first. The majority said tough luck. Vericool hadn’t proven that intangible qualities—like being “first”—are grounds for a Lanham Act claim. It’s a ruling that’s probably got a lot of companies breathing a sigh of relief. No one wants their marketing puffery to land them in court.
But here’s the kicker: Circuit Judge Bumatay thought differently. He wrote a dissent that makes you pause. He argued that non-observable aspects of a product are actionable if misrepresented. Imagine claiming your widget is “smoother” or “quieter” without proof. Bumatay’s saying that’s fair game for a lawsuit. The majority disagreed, essentially saying you can’t sue someone for bragging about being first if it’s not a tangible product feature. It’s a fine line.
The panel majority held that Vericool did not have a claim cognizable under the Lanham Act against Igloo’s representations that it was the first company to market a biodegradable cooler.
This split is fascinating. It highlights the ongoing debate about what constitutes a legally actionable misrepresentation. Is puffery still king, or are intangible qualities now fair game for claims? This case suggests the former, for now.
Eleventh Circuit Revives Leibovitz Case
And then there’s the Annie Leibovitz photograph dust-up. Great Bowery, a licensee, sued Consequence Sound for posting photos of Star Wars sets taken by Leibovitz. The lower court said Great Bowery didn’t have the standing to sue because Leibovitz still held some rights. The Eleventh Circuit swooped in, said “hold on a minute,” and revived the case. They agreed Consequence could challenge Great Bowery’s standing, but the district court apparently got it wrong on whether Great Bowery was the exclusive owner required by law. It’s a procedural win for Great Bowery, allowing them to potentially pursue their infringement claims.
This whole mess hinges on the arcane rules of copyright ownership and standing. It’s a reminder that even with famous photographers and iconic movie sets, the devil is in the legal details. Licensees beware: owning a license isn’t always the same as owning the copyright itself.
**Why Does Decarbonization Need So Much IP? **
We also have a report from WIPO and IRENA pushing for more innovation in electrifying heavy-duty road transport. Seems straightforward, right? Electrify trucks and buses. But the report reveals a surprising concentration of patent activity in China. The world’s electrification innovation is geographically bottled up, with few contributions from universities or public research outfits. IRENA thinks we need stricter efficiency standards and green procurement policies to speed things up. Because apparently, patents alone aren’t moving the needle fast enough for climate change.
USPTO Extends Patent Appeals Pilot
Finally, the USPTO is giving patent applicants a little more breathing room. Their pilot program to speed up ex parte appeals is extended to May 2028. For those stuck in the patent appeals purgatory, this is good news. More time, more chances. It’s not exactly groundbreaking, but it’s something.
🧬 Related Insights
- Read more: EU’s GPAI Code of Practice: Self-Regulation Theater or Actual AI Leash?
- Read more: Ring’s AI App Store Turns Doorbells into Elder-Care Spies—and Worse
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Tencent Music’s AI song purge mean for artists?
It means that while AI can create music, it must still adhere to copyright policies and corporate rules. Artists using AI tools should be aware of their platform’s terms of service to avoid having their work removed.
Can you sue over claiming a product is the “first” on the market?
According to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Vericool v. Igloo, it’s difficult unless the claim relates to a tangible product characteristic that is materially misrepresented. Intangible qualities like being “first” are generally not actionable on their own.
Will the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling help Annie Leibovitz?
The ruling revives the case, allowing Great Bowery (a licensee) to pursue infringement claims. It doesn’t guarantee a win, but it opens the door for the case to be heard on its merits regarding copyright standing.
