<\/p>\n
Bandcamp<\/a> has announced its new rules when it comes to AI music in a post titled \u201cKeeping Bandcamp Human<\/a>\u201c. In that post the platform announces that it will block music and audio that the platform says is created \u201cwholly or in substantial part\u201d<\/em> with generative AI.<\/p>\n Bandcamp also prohibits AI-enabled impersonation saying that \u201cany use of AI tools to impersonate other artists or styles is strictly prohibited.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Bandcamp now asks its community to help enforce the new rules. The company tells users to flag any uploads that match a specific pattern, stating that releases that \u201cappear to be made entirely or with heavy reliance on generative AI.\u201d<\/em> should be reported. Bandcamp seems to explicitly say that suspicion of substantial AI use is grounds for user reports. It also says that it \u201creserve[s] the right to remove any music on suspicion of being AI-generated,\u201d<\/em> making clear that takedowns can be based on suspicion alone rather than proven misuse.<\/p>\n Beyond the upload ban itself, Bandcamp extends these controls to how its catalog can be used downstream. In its \u201cAcceptable Use and Moderation policy,\u201d the platform targets automated collection and AI training: the policy prohibits scraping and text\/data mining, and it says users agree not to train machine learning or AI models using Bandcamp content. Together, these rules aim to wall off both AI-generated music and AI systems that would ingest Bandcamp\u2019s library.<\/p>\n Some long-time users worry that this approach will backfire. Bandcamp user David Harrington, for example, focuses on the risk of mislabeling human-made music as AI-generated. In the quote below, he warns about false positives, hostile reporting, and what he sees as a misdiagnosis of the real problem on the platform: <\/p>\n \u201cFalse positives and malicious reporting will destroy this platform. Give that studies show 97% of people cannot tell an Ai song when they hear it (and that includes musicians no matter what they believe), it does not augur well for your human led moderation of the technology on this site. Even the detection algos have a 10% false positive rate. NOBODY care about false negatives but false positives have the potential to kill this platform stone dead. You heard it here first. Once again a massive failure to identify the true enemy. AI is not what is holding these talentless people back, lack of talent and mediocre music is. Very disappointing. People cheering this one on will rue the day they did.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n AI music creators from their side are of course not pleased with this decision, especially around account removals and wiped catalogs. In a comment on the original article Fuzzy Cracklins focuses on the lack of advance warning and argues that transparent labeling would have been a better solution than a blanket ban. He spells out the practical impact of deletions and defends clearly labeled, AI-assisted releases: <\/p>\n \u201cYou might have given us a little notice before you began deleting our accounts. I thought my music was safely backed up on this platform only to find that it\u2019s gone forever. Also, my AI music was clearly and transparently declared on my album pages and profiles as AI generated and human-curated. My fans were fine with that. A better policy for everyone would be transparency, not a simplistic \u201cno AI\u201d ban without any advance. notice.\u201d\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n Others strike a more ambivalent tone, accepting Bandcamp\u2019s need to stem low-effort AI uploads while objecting to the collateral damage for artists who use new tools in more intentional ways. In a comment Bandcamp user Eric Wayne acknowledges the flood of \u201cinstant, automated garbage\u201d<\/em> but argues that serious AI-assisted work and its audiences are being swept away in the same move, and that the rhetoric around \u201cnon-human\u201d AI art fuels broader hostility toward these artists: <\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s obvious why you guys needed to ban AI music. There must be an absolute deluge of instant, automated garbage flooding your platform. But I have two objections. One is that real artists can also create music using new technology, write their own lyrics, seriously invest themselves in it, experiment endlessly, and produce independent, novel, and interesting songs. You are also eliminating these very real artists and taking away their funding from their own appreciative audience. Two, your rhetoric that states or implies that any art created using AI to some significant degree is not human-created, is mere sound, and is only a product to be consumed feeds into anti-AI art and artist hate and sabotage. A possible solution would be for all artists to petition to be excepted from automatic exclusion, which is in the end tantamount to censorship.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n The platform was founded in 2007 by Oddpost co-founder Ethan Diamond and programmers Shawn Grunberger, Joe Holt and Neal Tucker.<\/p>\n In March 2020 the platform launched Bandcamp Friday after COVID-19 shut down touring and venues, with Bandcamp waiving its revenue share on scheduled days to increase artist earnings from sales. Bandcamp continues to publish forward schedules for these days.<\/p>\n Bandcamp has also expanded into adjacent services. It launched Bandcamp Live as a ticketed livestreaming option in November 2020, and announced broader availability for artists in January 2022. It also introduced a vinyl program in 2019 and expanded coverage of its vinyl pressing service in the following years through its blog and editorial channels.<\/p>\nHow enforcement and reporting will work on Bandcamp<\/h3>\n
About Bandcamp<\/h3>\n