SoundCloud updates its terms to address AI controversy
After industry backlash, SoundCloud revises its Terms of Use to clarify its position on AI training and artist rights.
SoundCloud revises terms after AI backlash
Over the past week, SoundCloud’s 2024 Terms of Use sparked serious concern across the music industry when language surfaced suggesting that user content could be used to “inform, train, develop, or serve as input” for artificial intelligence models. The clause, discovered by tech ethicist Ed Newton-Rex, raised alarm among artists who feared their music could be repurposed without consent.
Now, SoundCloud CEO has written a 650-word open letter addressing the situation, and the platform has now updated its Terms of Use to offer more clarity and reassurance to its artist community.
SoundCloud says it doesn’t train AI on your music
SoundCloud was quick to shut this down, clarifying that it has “never used artist content to train AI models”, nor does it allow third parties to do so. The platform emphasized that the previous terms were designed to explain how it uses AI internally, for things like content tagging, fraud prevention, smart search, and personalized music recommendations. For example, SoundCloud highlights that its recommendation tools for Artist Pro subscribers have recommended over 7 million tracks to potential new listeners.
The company insists it doesn’t build generative AI tools, nor does it support AI efforts that mimic or replace artists’ work. Still, it recognized that its earlier wording was “too broad” which left room for misinterpretation.
What the new terms actually say
SoundCloud’s CEO reiterated its platform doesn’t use artist content to train its own AI models across music creation, large language models and other mimicking tools. In fact, SoundCloud itself doesn’t even build generative AI tools, and doesn’t let third parties use artist content to train them either.
To ease concerns, SoundCloud has updated its Terms of Use with a clearer commitment:
“We will not use Your Content to train generative AI models that aim to replicate or synthesize your voice, music, or likeness without your explicit consent, which must be affirmatively provided through an opt-in mechanism.”
The platform reaffirmed its commitment to “artist-first” values, promising that any AI use on SoundCloud will be rooted in transparency, consent, and user control.
Notably, this new language leaves the door open for future collaboration with generative AI, but only under an opt-in framework where creators give clear permission. SoundCloud frames this as an opportunity for artists to explore AI to their benefit, and on their own terms.
Is there still cause for concern?
While the updated terms mark a step in the right direction, not everyone is satisfied. Ed Newton-Rex argues the new language may still allow content to be used in training models that don’t directly replicate an artist’s work but could still compete with it. If SoundCloud doesn’t update these terms again, he believes the new terms must be intentional.
He suggests a more straightforward policy:
“We will not use Your Content to train generative AI models without your explicit consent.”
Ed Newton-Rex, Tech Ethicist
SoundCloud does state that, “for the avoidance of any doubt”, neither SoundCloud nor third parties can use, copy, or reproduce artist content for AI purposes without the rightsholder’s permission. Therefore, the wording still appears to allow room for SoundCloud’s non-generative, AI-powered features that benefits its artists and users.
With the terminology perhaps remaining slightly unclear, maybe we’ll see these terms updated again.