{"id":11040,"date":"2026-06-25T12:55:11","date_gmt":"2026-06-25T12:55:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/youtube-ai-training-argument-raises-indie-music-community-concerns\/"},"modified":"2026-06-25T12:55:11","modified_gmt":"2026-06-25T12:55:11","slug":"youtube-ai-training-argument-raises-indie-music-community-concerns","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/youtube-ai-training-argument-raises-indie-music-community-concerns\/","title":{"rendered":"YouTube AI Training Argument Raises Indie Music Community Concerns"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

\n\tYouTube has long been one of the most accessible ways for independent artists to get their music out into the world: Anyone can create an account and post content on the site with just a few clicks.\u00a0But what many artists likely didn\u2019t realize when they clicked \u201cagree\u201d to the platform\u2019s terms of service is that YouTube, and its parent company Google, would later claim the agreement justifies training artificial intelligence models on their music.<\/p>\n

\n\tGoogle revealed this position in a legal filing earlier this month, obtained and reported by Billboard<\/em>, as part of copyright litigation brought by indie artists over the training of its AI music model Lyria 3. While Google did not say whether the artists\u2019 music from YouTube was in the Lyria 3 training data set, it argued that this theoretically would be allowed because the YouTube terms of service grant a \u201cbroad license to use the uploaded content\u201d as training fodder.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tThis is markedly different from the argument made in court by companies behind other AI music models, such as Suno, that they should be free to train on unlicensed music ripped from the internet due to the fair use principle of copyright law. That\u2019s because Google holds a distinctive position, as the owner of one of the world\u2019s largest music streaming platforms, to make a novel legal argument that it actually does have a license to use everything on YouTube \u2014 thus skirting the fair use question altogether. \u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\tGoogle\u2019s new argument has quickly raised alarm bells among artist advocates, including Ian Harrison<\/strong>, CEO of the American Association of Independent Music (A2IM). \u201cThe use of anyone\u2019s creative work should be consented to very clearly, the terms should be laid out and the value should be shared with the creators,\u201d Harding tells Billboard<\/em>. \u201cThat\u2019s what\u2019s so concerning about this issue [with Google]. It\u2019s really the opposite of that.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tRon Gubitz<\/strong>, executive director of the Music Artists Coalition (MAC), is concerned that YouTube\u2019s terms of service are too \u201cgeneric\u201d to properly put musicians on notice that their uploads could be used for AI training. Looking at the fine print, this contract states that YouTube and its affiliates have a worldwide, royalty-free license to use content on the platform to \u201creproduce, distribute [and] prepare derivative works.\u201d The words \u201cartificial intelligence\u201d are not present, nor is the term \u201ctraining.\u201d And the terms of service cited by Google are from 2019, years before generative AI came to market.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cOur take is this that this is not informed consent for AI training or output,\u201d says Gubitz. \u201cIt was not written with AI training in mind. Consent should be specific and forward-looking, not using a checkbox from however long ago, because that was not the artists\u2019 intent. They were not agreeing to have their music and videos provided as training data for something that could be a competitor for them.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tYouTube\u2019s AI training argument is specifically making waves in the indie music community because the platform\u2019s terms of service apply only to user-generated content (UGC) \u2014 that is, music uploaded individually by self-represented artists directly to the site.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Google<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tHarrison tells Billboard<\/em> he finds it \u201ctroubling\u201d that YouTube could be singling out the music of indie creators for broad AI usage. Ed Newton-Rex<\/strong>, a former tech executive turned outspoken advocate for creators against unlicensed AI training, says he views this as YouTube \u201cpenalizing the little guy\u201d after years of advertising the platform as a means of \u201cleveling the playing field\u201d between indie creators and big stars.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cIt\u2019s outrageous,\u201d adds Newton-Rex. \u201cAnd I suspect if people aren\u2019t angry about it, they don\u2019t know about it.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tUnlike self-represented musicians, labels and publishers negotiate individual licenses with YouTube to govern the use of their artists\u2019 music. Whether AI training is permitted likely differs from company to company; Universal Music Group (UMG), for example, said this fall that its latest licensing renewal with YouTube \u201csecured really important guardrails\u201d around generative AI.<\/p>\n

\n\tBradfield Biggers<\/strong>, a transactional music lawyer at Halloran Farkas Kittila, tells Billboard<\/em> that UMG and the other majors likely don\u2019t have to worry about Google using its artists\u2019 YouTube content for any AI training that they haven\u2019t already agreed to, since \u201cmajor-label agreements are typically highly negotiated, nuanced and comprehensive.\u201d Many of the bigger indie labels also have solid negotiating power when it comes to licenses because of their work with Merlin.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThat may be less true for smaller labels and publishers, which often lack the same negotiating leverage, legal resources or proactive updates needed to address the rapidly evolving AI environment,\u201d says Biggers. \u201cIn those cases, YouTube and other major platforms may see greater room to argue that existing language permits certain training uses, though the answer will ultimately turn on the specific contract language and facts at issue.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t\"U.S.<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tEven for UGC music uploads, it remains to be seen whether Google\u2019s legal argument around AI training will hold up in court. A federal judge is going to be tasked with deciding whether the YouTube terms of service do actually grant Google the broad license that it is claiming. If the answer is yes, it\u2019s possible that other tech companies with social media arms, such as Meta, will be inspired to make a similar legal argument around training AI on UGC uploads.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\tKen Anderson<\/strong>, a music litigator at Rimon who\u2019s been watching the case but is not affiliated, tells Billboard<\/em> that it\u2019s wise of Google\u2019s attorneys to turn to this novel argument about YouTube\u2019s terms of service rather than rely on the more common fair use defense. \u201cI think it\u2019s very smart of them to make a contract argument,\u201d he says. \u201cContracts are sacred in our country. Our capitalist society relies on them.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThat said, Anderson suspects that the indie musicians bringing this lawsuit might have an opening to argue that YouTube\u2019s terms of service are unenforceable when it comes to AI training. That\u2019s because under the law, courts can void a contract that is found to be an unconscionable contract of adhesion. \u201cAdhesion\u201d means a consumer has no other option but to sign the contract \u2014 a standard that he says is met in this case. \u201cYouTube is one of the most necessary outlets for anybody who wants to have a career in popular music, period,\u201d says Anderson. \u201cEnd of discussion. There is no alternative.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tThe \u201cunconscionable\u201d part of this inquiry is a closer call; in this second step, a judge must look at a contract and decide whether it\u2019s deeply unreasonable or deceptive. Anderson says the broad language in YouTube\u2019s terms of service could potentially meet this standard, meaning the judge could theoretically decide it cannot be enforced as to AI training. This outcome is rare, though.<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThe statistical success rate [of this legal argument] is very low, but it\u2019s definitely raised by the facts here as being a serious contender,\u201d Anderson says.<\/p>\n

\n\tA representative for Google did not return a request to comment for this story. In a previous statement to Billboard<\/em> when Lyria 3 was rolled out in February, a Google rep said the model is mindful of copyright compliance and only trains on music that YouTube and Google have \u201ca right to use under our terms of service, partner agreements and applicable law.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\tWhile the court process continues to play out, musician advocates are arguing that the YouTube training controversy demonstrates how artists deserve a seat at the negotiating table with Google and other tech companies making AI music deals. MAC director Gubitz says this is a great argument for Congress to pass the Protect Working Musicians Act, a proposed federal bill that would allow indie artists to team up and negotiate with AI companies as a unit.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n\tHarrison of A2IM says Google and other tech companies should realize that \u201cpartnering with creators is a better solution,\u201d and \u201clong term, it\u2019s not good or healthy for anyone to try to win on these little technicalities.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n\t\u201cThe healthier path, and the one A2IM will keep advocating for,\u201d he adds, \u201cis platforms considering the best interests of the creative community rather than leaning on the fine print.\u201d<\/p>\n


\"Billboard
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

YouTube has long been one of the most accessible ways for independent artists to get their music out into the world: Anyone can create an account and post […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":11041,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[788,1506,2066,6329,593,2163,588,2988],"class_list":["post-11040","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-argument","tag-community","tag-concerns","tag-indie","tag-music","tag-raises","tag-training","tag-youtube"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11040","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11040"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11040\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11041"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11040"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11040"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11040"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}