SoundCloud Revises AI Copyright Terms 

SoundCloud has officially changed its policy on AI training. After weeks of criticism, the platform confirmed it will not use artists’ music, voice, or likeness to train AI without clear permission.

This development comes after artists discovered broad language in SoundCloud’s Terms of Use. 

Previously, the wording suggested the platform could use uploaded content to train generative AI systems. However, artists caught on to this as they saw this as a threat to their rights and creative control.

Now, SoundCloud says it is making things right.

What Triggered the Backlash?

In February 2024, SoundCloud quietly updated its terms. The new language raised alarm. It included the following clause:

“You explicitly agree that your Content may be used to inform, train, develop, or serve as input to artificial intelligence or machine intelligence technologies…”

Many artists saw this as a sign that their music could be used without their consent. The terms lacked clarity. 

They did not explain how AI might use content or how artists could opt out. Soundcloud stayed silent for months. But as the concerns grew, so did public pressure.

Mounting Pressure 

This issue comes to light hot on the heels of a power change at the Copyright Office. Earlier in the week, the Copyright Chief was fired, and two new figures assumed power. 

This was seen as a ploy of Elon Musk and other key AI companies to maintain the use of publicly available content.
However, as later events unfolded, this may not be the case. The new authorities in the Copyright office are thought to have some animosity towards Big Tech and, as such, would not have their encouragement. 

Also read: Elon Musk’s AI Copyright Office Move Backfires

SoundCloud Responds to Artist Pushback

On May 15, 2025, SoundCloud CEO Eliah Seton issued a public statement. He admitted the original language was “too broad” and caused “confusion.” He also made a new promise:

“We will not use your content to train generative AI models that replicate or synthesize your voice, music, or likeness—unless you explicitly consent.”

Artists will now have to opt in before SoundCloud can use their work in AI systems. This new model places full control in the hands of the creative. 

Critics Say the Change Falls Short

Despite the update, some concerns remained. Ed Newton-Rex, a tech ethicist and former AI executive, criticized the revised terms. He argues the new language still leaves room for risk.

On X (formerly Twitter), Newton-Rex explained:

“This change blocks models that copy your style. But it doesn’t stop AI trained on your work from creating content that competes with you.”

He urged SoundCloud to remove all ambiguity. In his view, a stronger statement would be:

“We will not use your content to train any generative AI without your explicit consent.”

So far, SoundCloud has not responded to that suggestion.

Threat to Independent Artists

SoundCloud serves millions of independent musicians. Many use it to share demos, test new ideas, or launch careers.

Artists worry that AI tools could one day mimic their voice or beats. Worse, these tools could flood the market with similar music, created in seconds. 

This could make it harder for real musicians to stand out.