AI Music Creation: Diffusion Models vs. Sample-Based Composition

Artificial intelligence is reshaping the landscape of music creation, offering two distinct approaches for generating tracks: diffusion models and sample-based composition. Each method has unique implications for how music is created, distributed, and monetized, but they also raise legal and ethical concerns, especially in terms of copyright and royalties.

‍

This article compares two well-known AI-powered platforms—Suno, which utilizes diffusion models, and Soundraw, which assembles pre-recorded stems and samples. We'll explore how these approaches work, their potential issues around legality and royalties, and the broader implications for artists and the music industry.

‍

Diffusion Models: Suno's Approach

Suno is an example of an AI music platform that leverages diffusion models to generate music. These models are a class of machine learning algorithms trained on vast amounts of data—often millions of tracks, including copyrighted material, raising concerns about the legality of this training data. Diffusion models are used to progressively add and remove noise from an input, which allows the AI to generate entirely new content.

‍

How It Works:

• Suno’s AI generates music by training on a large dataset that includes both licensed and unlicensed music, which likely includes copyrighted material.
• The AI learns to reproduce musical elements like rhythm, melody, and instrumentation by “diffusing” these from existing tracks, effectively allowing it to create new compositions based on learned patterns.
• The output is music that can be extremely sophisticated, but often borrows heavily from the dataset it was trained on, raising concerns that elements of existing songs are being inadvertently recreated.

‍

Legal Concerns:

Suno's method is problematic from a legal standpoint. Because its models are trained on a dataset that likely includes copyrighted works, questions arise over whether the AI is "stealing" elements of the original compositions. Some legal experts argue that even if a new piece of music is generated, it might contain enough resemblance to the original training data to warrant copyright infringement claims. The lack of transparency in what music was used for training only deepens the controversy.

• Copyright and Royalties: If the AI is trained on a copyrighted song, and elements of that song (such as melody or rhythm) are recreated in the AI-generated composition, it can be argued that the original artist should be compensated. However, current copyright law is ambiguous on how to address this, especially when dealing with AI-generated content that isn’t a direct copy but is inspired by existing work.

‍

Sample-Based Composition: Soundraw’s Approach

Soundraw, on the other hand, takes a sample-based approach to music creation. Rather than training an AI to generate entirely new music, it uses pre-recorded stems and samples—essentially, fragments of existing music—that users can recombine in various ways to create tracks. This process allows users to create new music without requiring musical expertise, but it raises different challenges in terms of ownership and authenticity.

‍

How It Works:

• Soundraw provides users with a library of pre-recorded samples and stems, which are musical building blocks (e.g., drums, bass lines, melodies).
• Users can select and arrange these samples to create a track. Although the final arrangement might be unique, the individual elements are not original.
• The platform uses algorithmic composition to help blend these samples, but the underlying content remains static and can be reused across different compositions by multiple users.

‍

Legal Concerns:

The sample-based approach has its own set of legal challenges, particularly around royalty distribution. Since multiple users are drawing from the same pool of samples, it’s likely that many songs will contain identical melodic elements, leading to overlapping compositions.

• Copyright and Royalties: Even though Soundraw users are combining pre-licensed samples, the reuse of melodic content can lead to royalty conflicts, especially if multiple tracks containing the same samples become commercially successful. It raises the question: Who owns the music if the underlying elements are shared by many compositions?

‍

Judging the Legal and Ethical Concerns

‍

Suno's Diffusion Model:

Suno’s diffusion model is impressive in terms of the music it can generate, but it walks a fine line legally. By training on datasets that include copyrighted material, it risks generating compositions that inadvertently borrow from protected works. This raises questions around whether the AI-generated music is truly original and whether the original artists whose works were used in the training process should be compensated. If a track generated by Suno contains identifiable musical elements from a well-known song, it could easily lead to copyright infringement cases.

‍

Soundraw's Sample-Based Model:

Soundraw’s approach is legally safer in terms of copyright, as the samples used are pre-cleared. However, it introduces concerns around music originality and ownership. The fact that many users could end up with tracks containing the same or very similar melodic content means the distinctiveness of each composition is diminished. Additionally, it could lead to royalty disputes if multiple artists claim ownership over tracks that contain identical stems.

‍

Key Takeaways:

1. Suno (Diffusion Model)
   • Pros: Generates entirely new music, sophisticated output.
   • Cons: Trained on potentially copyrighted material, risking infringement. Ambiguous ownership and royalty issues.
2. Soundraw (Sample-Based Composition)
   • Pros: Legally safer; all samples are pre-cleared and licensed.
   • Cons: Limited originality due to shared samples; multiple users could create near-identical tracks, causing royalty overlap.

‍

Conclusion: The Future of AI-Generated Music

As AI continues to revolutionize the music industry, it’s crucial to establish clear guidelines on how this technology should be used. Both Suno and Soundraw represent different ends of the AI music generation spectrum, but they share common challenges related to copyright law, royalty distribution, and artistic integrity. While diffusion models like Suno push the boundaries of what AI can achieve creatively, they present legal hurdles around copyright infringement. Meanwhile, sample-based models like Soundraw, though safer legally, raise concerns about the originality and distinctiveness of music.

‍

As AI-generated music becomes more prevalent, artists, platforms, and regulators must navigate these complex issues to ensure that both creativity and ownership are protected.

‍