Log in
Subvert is a creator-owned music platform, catering primarily to indie musicians; think of it as Bandcamp if it was a co-op. Subvert recently released a policy on the use of “AI” in the music that’s released on the site, and for anyone who is curious about things like this, I really think it’s worth a view. Among the things I think it does right is that it defines the terms under discussion (including acknowledging “AI” is at this point basically a broad marketing term), acknowledges the difference between generative “AI” and other types of computational processes, and then, having done so, lays out what’s acceptable use for music presented on the site (not neglecting things like cover art) and what is not. It even has a process available for judging edge cases, because no matter what your policy, edge cases will exist.
Why do I think this policy works? One, because it firmly makes the case for human creation while acknowledging the reality of modern creative processes — in this case music production, where so many of the tools have “AI” baked in but are doing things of a technical nature: “mastering, mixing, equalization, pitch correction, beat detection, noise reduction, and loudness optimization” are examples the policy gives of such tools. These tools handle backend processes but not creative processes, which are the ones Subvert is primarily concerned about. One can argue whether the lines they draw are the right lines, but in these cases the lines come with the knowledge of, and familiarity with, both the field of “AI” and of music composition and production.
Two, because this policy was developed by the Subvert community, not presented top-down by a board or executive entity to a membership or community that didn’t have any input on it, or might not even have been aware such a policy was being developed. Over in the writing world, which is where I spend most of my professional time, more than one writing organization has presented an “AI” policy, only to face the wrath of its membership because the policy is dunderheaded, or not aligned with the views of the membership, or both. In the case of Subvert, dozens of members helped to develop the policy over hundreds of discussion posts. It’s a useful document for a specific audience.
Three, because Subvert notes the policy is a living document, to be revisited if and when necessary. Which I think is smart; tech is a moving target, and while the overall concept of “Human Creative Authorship” can be a core principle in any tech era, details can and do matter, and those details will likely change over time.
On a personal note, this policy also largely conforms to my own thoughts on “AI,” especially the part about “AI” being a marketing term more than anything else these days, and that many processes currently lumped into the “AI” rubric are going to be put into the workflows of creative people whether we actively want/use them or not. One can be solid about having a final product be the result of human work and creation, and also acknowledge that, say, a noise reduction VST might have some flavor of “AI” in it that wasn’t trained on the unauthorized work of others. This point is of course highly subjective — I would like a policy that largely conforms to my thinking, wouldn’t I — but inasmuch as my own thoughts on the matter came after considerable thought and observation, I’m comfortable with them, and it’s pretty clear the Subvert policy was also not just slapped together by the need to say something, anything, on the topic.
I think other organizations thinking about “AI” policies would be well-served to look at Subvert’s take on it. Not because every particular will be suited for their situation — again, it’s a specific policy for a particular need — but because it’s generally doing a pretty good job of threading the needle of how to assure the site’s users that what they’re listening to is coming from an actual human musician, regardless of the tools the musician used. That general needle threading is what’s important. There are things to learn from this policy, even if its particulars are not on point everywhere.
Check it out and see what you think about it.
(Disclosure: I am a member of Subvert but did not contribute in any way to the development of this “AI” policy, and as of writing this have not yet put any music on the site.)
— JS
