When SoundCloud quietly updated its Terms of Service in February 2024, few users noticed a new clause that would later spark outrage across the music community. The clause stated that users “explicitly agree that your Content may be used to inform, train, develop or serve as input to artificial intelligence or machine intelligence technologies.” Fast forward to May 2025, and the music community is in an uproar, forcing one of the world’s largest audio platforms to backtrack and clarify its AI policies.
The Backlash Begins
After remaining unnoticed for over a year, the controversial clause was highlighted by user Ed Newton on social media this week, igniting immediate criticism from musicians worldwide. For creators who depend on SoundCloud to share and monetize their original work, the prospect of having their content used to train AI models that could potentially replace them struck a nerve. Many artists expressed concern that their unique sounds, styles, and vocal characteristics could be absorbed by AI systems without proper compensation or consent.
The revelation came at a particularly sensitive time for the music industry, which is already grappling with questions about how AI should interact with human creativity. Recent months have seen several high-profile cases of AI-generated music mimicking established artists, raising serious questions about copyright, authenticity, and the future of creative professions.
SoundCloud’s Response: Clarification and Commitment
In response to the mounting criticism, SoundCloud President Eliah Seton published an open letter addressing the concerns. “Let me be crystal clear,” Seton wrote, “SoundCloud has never used artist content to train AI models. Not for music creation. Not for large language models. Not for anything that tries to mimic or replace your work.”
According to SoundCloud, their AI usage has been limited to common platform functionalities that most users would find beneficial:
- Enhancing recommendation algorithms
- Improving search accuracy
- Optimizing playlist creation
- Automated content tagging
- Strengthening fraud prevention tools
Seton acknowledged the problematic language in the Terms of Service, stating, “The language in the Terms of Use was too broad and wasn’t clear enough. It created confusion, and that’s on us.”
From Opt-Out to Opt-In: A Critical Reversal
Initially, SoundCloud representatives attempted to quell the controversy by suggesting they would implement an “opt-out mechanism” if they ever decided to use user content for training generative AI. This approach, however, only intensified the backlash.
Many creators and industry experts argued that the default should be protecting artists’ content, not forcing them to take action to prevent unauthorized AI training. The community strongly advocated for an “opt-in” approach instead, where creators would need to explicitly consent before their work could be used for AI training purposes.
In a notable reversal that demonstrates the power of collective user advocacy, SoundCloud eventually conceded that an opt-in approach “sounds great,” effectively acknowledging the validity of creator concerns.
The New Terms: Explicit Consent Required
SoundCloud is now revising its terms of service with more precise language to address these concerns. The updated terms will explicitly state:
“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.”
This updated language draws an important distinction between different types of AI usage. While SoundCloud will continue employing AI for platform functionality like recommendations and content organization, which benefits users directly, they won’t use creators’ content to train generative AI systems that could potentially replicate an artist’s unique creative expression without their explicit permission.
Broader Implications for Creative Platforms
The SoundCloud controversy highlights a growing tension in the creative industries. As AI technologies become more sophisticated, the line between helpful tools and potential competitors grows increasingly blurry for many artists. Platform terms of service, once overlooked by most users, are now becoming battlegrounds where the future relationship between human creativity and artificial intelligence is being defined.
This situation serves as a valuable case study for other content platforms that may be considering how to incorporate AI into their services. The swift and forceful backlash faced by SoundCloud demonstrates that creative communities are becoming increasingly vigilant about how their work might be used to train AI systems, particularly without transparent consent mechanisms.
Two critical lessons emerge from this controversy:
- Transparency is non-negotiable: Companies must be explicit about how they intend to use AI in relation to user-generated content.
- Creator consent matters: Platforms that respect creator autonomy through opt-in mechanisms are likely to maintain stronger community trust than those that default to broader usage rights.
As AI continues to evolve, we can expect to see more discussions about appropriate boundaries, consent mechanisms, and compensation models for AI training data derived from creative works. The resolution of the SoundCloud controversy suggests that creator-centric approaches may become the expected standard.
A Turning Point for AI Ethics in Creative Spaces
This incident represents more than just a terms of service update, it marks a significant moment in the ongoing conversation about AI ethics in creative spaces. By listening to their community and making substantive changes to their policies, SoundCloud has acknowledged the legitimate concerns artists have about maintaining control over how their creative expression is used in the development of AI technologies.
Looking ahead, creative platforms will need to balance innovation with respect for creator rights. The most successful will likely be those that view creators as partners in technological advancement rather than simply sources of training data.
What do you think about SoundCloud’s response to this controversy? Do you believe opt-in mechanisms are sufficient to protect creator rights in the age of AI, or should platforms be taking additional steps? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
Footnotes:
[1] Lifehacker: SoundCloud AI Policy TOS Update
[2] Pitchfork: SoundCloud Updates AI Policy in Terms of Use After Backlash
[3] OpenTools.AI: SoundCloud Listens to Users, Revamps AI Terms of Service Amidst Backlash
[4] DJ Mag: SoundCloud Issues Statement Following Terms of Service AI Update Backlash
[5] Reddit: An Update on Our Terms of Service (AI)