SoundCloud changes its TOS again after an AI uproar

The Verge - May 14th, 2025

SoundCloud has announced a commitment to transparency and artist consent in the use of AI on its platform. This comes after concerns arose from changes to its terms of use last year, which suggested the platform might use artist content to train AI models. CEO Eliah Seton acknowledged the wording was too broad and assured that SoundCloud has never used member content for AI training. The platform plans to update its terms to require explicit opt-in consent from artists before using their content in AI processes.

The controversy was highlighted by tech ethicist Ed Newton-Rex, who remains skeptical about the revised language. He argues the changes could still permit the use of artist content in ways that might compete with creators in the market. Newton-Rex calls for a more straightforward policy ensuring no content is used without explicit consent. The situation underscores the ongoing tension between tech platforms and creators over the use of creative works in AI development, highlighting the need for clear policies that respect artist rights.

Music Industry Ai Ethics Sound Cloud Ed Newton Rex Eliah Seton Artist Rights Terms Of Use

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and relevant exploration of SoundCloud's policy changes regarding AI training and artist consent. It effectively presents the company's official stance and includes critiques from industry experts, contributing to a balanced narrative. While the article is largely accurate and clear, it would benefit from more diverse sourcing and greater transparency in its reporting. The topic is of significant public interest, addressing important issues related to AI ethics and the rights of content creators. Overall, the article is informative and well-written, with the potential to influence discussions and raise awareness about the ethical use of AI in the music industry.

Accuracy

The article presents several factual claims that align with SoundCloud's statements and the actions they are reportedly taking. For example, the claim that SoundCloud updated its terms of use in February to include language about AI training is supported by the CEO's acknowledgment of the confusion caused by the broad language. However, the article could benefit from more direct evidence or references to the specific terms of use documents to verify these changes. Additionally, while the article states SoundCloud's commitment to not using artist content for AI training without consent, it lacks independent verification or third-party audits confirming this practice. Overall, the article is largely accurate but would be strengthened by more detailed sourcing and verification.

Balance

The article provides a balanced view by including perspectives from both SoundCloud and critics like Ed Newton-Rex. SoundCloud's position is clearly articulated through quotes from the CEO and a spokesperson, emphasizing their commitment to transparency and artist control. On the other hand, the article also presents Newton-Rex's concerns about potential market competition issues, which adds depth to the narrative. However, the article could improve by including more voices from affected artists or industry experts to provide a broader range of perspectives. Currently, the balance slightly leans towards SoundCloud's narrative, with limited exploration of the broader implications for artists.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear language to convey the main points. It effectively explains the controversy surrounding SoundCloud's terms of use and the company's response to address these concerns. The quotes from SoundCloud's CEO and the inclusion of Ed Newton-Rex's critique are integrated smoothly, providing a coherent narrative. The article maintains a neutral tone throughout, making it accessible to a general audience. However, it could benefit from more detailed explanations of technical terms related to AI and its implications for artists, which would enhance clarity for readers unfamiliar with the topic.

Source quality

The article primarily relies on statements from SoundCloud's CEO and a spokesperson, which are credible sources for the company's official stance. However, it lacks diversity in sourcing, as it does not include insights from independent experts or third-party analysts who could provide an objective assessment of the situation. The inclusion of Ed Newton-Rex's critique adds some depth, but the article would benefit from more authoritative voices to enhance its credibility and provide a fuller picture of the issue. The reliance on company statements without additional corroboration limits the overall source quality.

Transparency

The article is transparent in presenting SoundCloud's official statements and the reasoning behind their policy changes. It clearly outlines the confusion caused by the previous terms of use and the company's response to address these concerns. However, it lacks detailed information about the methodology used to verify these claims or any potential conflicts of interest that could impact the reporting. The article would benefit from greater transparency regarding how the information was obtained and any potential biases in the sources used. Overall, while the article provides some transparency, there is room for improvement in disclosing the basis for its claims.