Followup on the last Topic

iMusician Platform & Support Bugs & Suggestions
1

Followup on: Make it clear that you dont Accept AI music - #6

@Carlos
Sadly you closed it, while I have more to say, which I view as important for you to understand the issue.

First of all, yeah sure but you dont list anything which makes customers know which AI use is fine for your platform.

The problem is not that I am misinterpreting this, the problem is that the ToS is ambiguous. You are making a definitive statement now, great! Put it like that visibile for the customer on the website and we wouldnt have this discussion.

But right now, you seem to have a conflicting agenda with your staff here. Your staff wrote:

“Could you please provide us with a valid agreement between you and the rights holders (i.e. the AI platform you used) that allows you to distribute and use this audio for commercial purposes? Please note that it is not permitted to distribute AI-generated music commercially without explicit indication in the terms of use of the platform you are using.”

Its 1:1 translated, but I can send you the original in german if you provide me with an email adress so you can check on this yourself.

This implies that AI generated content can be accepted by your platform if you have a license. Suno issues a comerical license for pro users, so just based of these facts, there seems to be no problem with Suno releases. At least not with outside knowledge.

My point is, the ToS is ambigious, you provide no information to the customer which AI release are accepted by you, and you require an upfront payment with no refunds. Even during the process, your quality control dosnt immediatley rule out Ai generated releases. So explain to me, how this could have been prevented.

I have no problem if your platform stands up for real musicians. I endorse it. This release is just a fun gift for a friend with no comercial interest, and I found a platform which acted fast on this, so he gets it on time. But what I have a problem with is you(as the company) not owning the mistakes, and then just pointing at a ambigious ToS, blaming me as the customer for “misinterpreting” something. You have lack of transparency, I cant interpret it the same as you do. And your staff also dosnt seem to know the “no ai generated content” rule. Otherwise, why do they ask like that for licensing for generated music in the first place?

So do whatever you want with this, thats all I have to say as long as you dont shift the responsibility on me again. If you want the paper trail of the interactions, i can provide it. If you want to own your lack of transparency and refund me, you got my payment information.

Thanks for reading and have a nice day

2

Being honest, iMusician’s abstract terms regarding AI seem to be in place because they can’t fully control the changes coming to streaming platforms in the EU. It’s expected that most of these platforms will soon ban AI-generated music, particularly music created with machine learning (ML) models.

Using AI-generated music is not the same as using licensed preset sounds. While ML models claim to use and compensate artists when training on their data, the issue in the EU is that music must be created with clear human intention. According to EU law, creative works require a basis of human control during creation, and simply having an “idea” isn’t enough to qualify for authorship.

As it stands, iMusician’s AI policies might be the most practical for now, but with impending regulations, it’s likely that many AI-driven music processes will be restricted in the EU. As Spotify is based in the EU, most ML models will likely struggle to get enough data to keep improving their services.

I support the use of AI tools for tasks like synthesizer creation, mixing, and mastering, but fully AI-generated music is likely to become obsolete soon.

3 Likes
3

Yeah could of course happen, and as I said, I have no problem at all if iMusician is against generated music, even if its just to be safe. Im not a composer or songwriter, but I can totally see how it might feel for some people, if its possible to just skip the hardest part of the work and learnings involved, to then compete with them in a already hard market. Let alone just cloning someones voice or style.

As I hinted, I just made this as a birthday gift. Its storys from our friends group, with a fitting genre of music. All just for fun, no comercial or career interest. Just a creative gift.

But whatever their stance is, they need to communicate it clearly. Especially if you have to pay upfront with no refunds. And this is what they certainly dont do. There is no way that someone could know that they internally refuse Suno or any ai generated releases, based on the information they provide. Not even their quality control gives the same response as carlos here. So im not okay with this. Especially not if they try to blame it on the customer afterwards.

This is not even including the problem with putting stuff in the ToS exclusively.

Even their FAQ function provides no information. You can find what type of release iTunes rejectes, like sound collections and so on. Or information about what you need for a release, but they only specify audio formats and such. But nowhere on this platform is anything which tells you that AI releases will be a problem, let alone rejected. Asside from the one ambigious line in the ToS. Thats not on the customer, thats just a lack of transparency.

imusician help
imusician help1474Ă—666 70.8 KB

4

This doesn’t matter. Distributing your music via a distributor on streaming platforms (which generate revenue) makes it automatically a commercial interest.

For the last time: We do not accept AI-generated music and we reserve the right to cancel such orders, which is exactly what we did in your case. I understand that you would feel frustrated by this decision, but if you wish to distribute music with us it won’t be possible if you’ve used generators such as Suno or similar services.

2 Likes
5

Carlos, you are not understanding the problem. For the last time, The problem is your lack of transparency, and not rejecting generated content.

I pointed out enough for you to understand this from a customers pov. We dont know your internal policies. We cant make a informed decision.

Also, If you think its a good practice to quote lines irrelevant to the complaint so you can lecture people, think again. This was a reply to what the user wrote, highlighting that I dont want to become an AI artist and emphasiszing with real artists. Name one good reason why you replied to this, but not any of the problems I pointed out in this topic?

Ill make it easy for you and give you a summary:

Ambigious ToS, lack of transparency to what is rejected, undisclosed internal policies, QA staff dosnt communicate the same way as you do… Should be enough to understand that you have work to do.

I was kind enough to talk to you and not just dispute the payment and move on. Its in neither of our intrest to take this further than necesary, but know that I got a professional opinion on your ambigious ToS, so maybe you want to double check with your legal team if you wouldnt rather change it. There are enough rulings in favor of customers and ambigious/unclear ToS, this isnt as bullet proof as you seem to beleive.

I will not go any legal route, no worries. I leave it up to you, as a company, and maybe you are fair enough to refund me to my original payment method. If you cant do that for whatever reason, but acknowledge your mistakes, i would also be fine if the money goes to a charity related to musicans instead. Like “Deutsche Orchester Stiftung” or anything else in this direction.

I have no interest in any other excuses (or releasing with you, I already have it distributed with a different partner). If you need any further clarification to what I pointed out , Im willing to help but if you just want to blame or lecture me, just close it. Then I at least know you do this intentionally and its not just an oversight.

Thank you

6

You must change your term in a more clear manner like “We strictly prohibit the submission of any content that has been generated, either fully or partially, with the assistance of AI. We reserve the right to refuse, remove, or take any necessary actions against such content, regardless of whether the AI assistance was free or paid.”

Because “We reserve the right” is not clear enough for your customer, it’s not clear that it prohibits. Clients won’t be happy and will use another service, you need to be more explicit in your general terms of use and not be vague. I had to pay iMusician 9 euros for nothing and quickly transfer the release via another service to get my music out on the right date. Fortunately, everything went smoothly with the other streaming service.

Especially since iMusician write a lot of blog posts about the use of AI as if Imusician endorses its use :

etc…

1 Like
7

Yep, this is exactly what I also got told(free of charge from a friend, so there was no interest to get me into anything). Its not guaranteed that they lose with this ToS statement in court, it might hold up but both outcomes are entirely possible, thats the takeaway. It would depend on the judge and the country according to the person I talked to. I mean to be fair, law is always a question of interpretation but in this case, the ToS being ambiguous is out of question. Already enough reasons to change it, and more importantly, to be transparent so people can make informed decisions. I fyou want to make fair Business, you should expect people to not read the ToS, and provide good information so they know upfront what they can do with your platform. Having a guideline document, and visibly linking it when you upload tracks is not a lot to ask for. You even have it for the album covers… Why not for the tracks? The only conclusions one can draw is, this is intentional or you are just lazy.

So @Carlos … Why is it that multiple of your bad reviews are related to people feeling like you screwed them over when it comes to AI usage? At one point you need to accept that you are doing something wrong. There are reports from months ago, do you have any good reason to ignore the problem?

8

Hello @tbrw , thank you for your detailed feedback and for bringing these concerns to our attention. I understand the frustration caused by the issues you’ve encountered and appreciate the opportunity to clarify our policies.

Our Terms of Service state

We reserve the right to refuse content that has been generated wholly or in part using AI (free or paid), and such releases will not be eligible for any refunds.

This policy is in place to ensure compliance with shop guidelines and to manage the work involved in processing submissions. While we strive to accommodate all valid content, we reserve the right to reject submissions, with or without a refund, depending on specific circumstances, including the amount of work our team has invested in reviewing and handling the content. Unlike some distributors, we aim to avoid potential issues by carefully adhering to evolving shop policies.

Regarding AI-generated content, we are cautiously navigating this rapidly evolving area. Like many other distributors, we are focused on preventing malicious uses of AI while continuing to support independent artists. Our goal is to ensure that all content on our platform meets shop standards and respects copyright laws.

I understand that your submission was intended as a gift. However, even well-intentioned AI-generated content must comply with our platform’s policies and the licensing requirements of external AI tools. We are working to refine our guidelines to better address these new challenges and improve clarity for our users.

Thank you for your patience and understanding.

4 Likes
9

Hello @Anna

Thank you for taking the time to clarify your internal policies.

Speaking for myself, I can understand that navigating trough this new era can be quite challenging for everyone involved. Also again, I even endorse it that your platform wants to exclusively help real musicians. I hold no grudge against your company for rejecting any AI release, its all about the lack of Transparency before/while you order which costs time, money and nerves.

I just hope you and your team understands the real complaint, which is that a user can not make a informed purchase in regards to AI content and your platform. I think I wrote about it out enough at this point, so I hope you and your team will work on providing visible and clear information to the customers. Especially about your stance, and what content is accepted/rejected, so these incidents wont happen with other customers. This is what i read more or less between the lines, so I hope it gets done.

I understand that you have work with a submission, whether you end up releasing it or not. But honestly, my view hasnt changed, I still think you(as the company) owes refunds to customers based on your current ordering process. Your lack of transparency, when it comes to AI content is not on the customer. Lets be real here, your only defense is one ambiguous paragraph in the ToS. To clarify, we would need a court process, which we all can agree on would be a overkill for the situation. Let alone that you should be fully aware of the problems with putting information in the ToS. Rarely anyone will read it, this is a known fact. So critical information should be highlighted elsewhere. If we stay reasonable here, neither you nor Carlos could explain where we would be able to find information to make a informed decision. No guidleines, no help articles, no disclaimers, nothing. I am not the first one who this happend to, and still you havent done anything to prevent it. So at some point, you as the company needs to step up and take responsibility for it.

I was totally serious, im also fine if you donate the money I paid, to a charity for preferably classical musicians of your choice… In case you for whatever reason cant refund it to my original payment method. I would know you acknowledge your mistake, hopefully learn from it and you can even write it off from your taxes (most likely), while someone gets the money who needs it. Nobody loses.

With all possible respect, but right now im not 100% sold that your company understands and works on the issue me and others had. I mean the hard to find reviews and reports on external sites date back months with the same issue… So for the time being, I sadly cant change my review, neither consider to recommend your platform in the future. I appreciate that your team takes time to reply tho, and obviously nothing is set in stone.