.svg)
Book a clarity call with us to simplify AI transparency compliance
Share your info with us for a complimentary 45 minute consultation
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
True AI transparency compliance extends well beyond input transparency. The critical—and often overlooked—element is output transparency, particularly labeling synthetic audio clearly for consumers and regulators.
Generative AI audio companies often breathe a sigh of relief once they've secured licensing rights for their training datasets. After all, ensuring your AI models are built on properly licensed or proprietary music feels like completing the hard part of compliance. But, in reality, this is only half the battle. True AI transparency compliance extends well beyond input transparency. The critical—and often overlooked—element is output transparency, particularly labeling synthetic audio clearly for consumers and regulators.
Recently, I had discussions with several generative AI music companies. They proudly informed me that they had trained their models exclusively on music they either owned outright or had licensed appropriately. This proactive approach is commendable, as is the only ethical way of respecting the work of musicians. Yet, many mistakenly assumed their regulatory responsibilities ended here.
While it's true that transparency and ethical compliance on the input side—your training data—is fundamental, the law regarding training datasets remains somewhat ambiguous. Currently, legislation around this topic is still evolving. For example, the European Union's AI Act has not explicitly detailed regulations on what to do with copyrighted data used for training, leaving the matter up for interpretation. As I write, the EU regulator along with industry stakeholders and rights holders are fighting to provide an answer to the use of copyrighted data in the Code of Practice. This will provide clearer guidance, but for now we’re still at the third draft, and the final form remains uncertain.
The UK's stance appears to be more permissive, offering some breathing space to generative AI companies. In response to this position, musicians protested the government publishing a silent album. Companies are leveraging this regulatory gray zone, with some opting for minimal licensing or even none at all.
However, taking advantage of legislative vagueness isn't sustainable or ethical in the long run. Best practices dictate securing explicit licenses from rights holders, providing fair compensation, and openly documenting these transactions. Companies that pursue this ethical path can enhance their reputation by obtaining third-party verification, such as a compliance badge from Fairly Trained, signaling responsible data practices to their customers.
However, ethical input transparency alone won't shield your company from regulatory scrutiny. The real legislative battle lies in output transparency—clearly labeling AI-generated audio outputs to consumers. Increasingly, regulators worldwide are mandating that AI-generated content, including audio, must be explicitly marked or identified as synthetic.
The reason is straightforward. Consumers have a right to know when they're interacting with AI-generated content. Transparency at the output stage is ethically correct. But it’s also becoming legally compulsory. Consider the significant implications under the EU AI Act, particularly Article 50, Section 2. This clause mandates comprehensive transparency of AI-generated content, explicitly requiring companies to mark in a machine readable format the content they produce. This applies to all types of content, from text, to images, and audio, music included. Failure to comply could result in severe penalties: up to €15 million or 7% of annual global turnover, whichever is higher.
In the United States, legislation is also catching up quickly. California recently introduced the California AI Transparency Act, aimed specifically at addressing disclosure of AI-generated media. Under this law, companies producing generative AI audio or visual content are legally obligated to label their outputs transparently. Noncompliance in California may lead to substantial fines and reputational damage, reinforcing that output transparency is no longer optional for generative AI companies.
AI transparency laws are emerging globally. In September 2024, all G7 countries and many more like Norway, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Canada have signed the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence. All countries commit to enforce output transparency, by labelling AI-generated content, in order to combat deepfakes, frauds, and political misinformation that threatens democracy. The trend is clear and irreversible: labeling synthetic content is swiftly becoming the global standard.
How can generative AI audio companies implement output transparency to comply with the law? Techniques like audio watermarking, embedding metadata, and AI detection offer a viable solution, as proposed by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission in this position paper.
Transparent Audio specializes in transparency compliance for generative AI audio companies. We embed invisible audio watermarks and encrypted metadata tags within AI-generated content. These tags enable immediate verification of the audio source and clearly differentiate synthetic audio from human-generated media.
Transparent Audio’s "Swiss cheese approach"—combining multiple transparency techniques including watermarking, metadata, and AI classification—aligns with the requests of efficacy, robustness, predicated by the EU AI Act and California AI Transparency Acy. This redundancy ensures compliance even if one system fails, providing comprehensive protection against regulatory noncompliance and preserving consumer trust.
Embracing full transparency—both input and output—offers strategic advantages beyond mere regulatory compliance. Transparent practices strengthen brand integrity and consumer trust. Consumers increasingly prefer and support companies committed to clear, ethical practices, rewarding transparent companies with sustained loyalty and advocacy.
In conclusion, transparency for generative AI audio companies does not end with ethical and legal clarity on the training dataset. Compliance with evolving AI transparency regulations requires even more rigorous attention to labeling outputs clearly. As laws like the EU AI Act, California AI Transparency Act, and global equivalents gain traction, companies ignoring output transparency risk substantial penalties and irreversible reputational harm.
Generative audio companies must proactively integrate transparency solutions, clearly labeling synthetic content and demonstrating ethical leadership. The shift towards global transparency compliance offers a significant competitive advantage to those who embrace it fully.