Listen to this Post
In an era where artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping digital platforms, another tech controversy has erupted — this time involving SoundCloud. The music streaming platform has quietly inserted a clause into its terms and conditions suggesting that users’ uploaded content could be used for AI training. The update echoes similar backlash faced by other major tech companies, notably Adobe, and is triggering alarm across the creative community.
At the core of the controversy is transparency—or the lack of it. Users, particularly musicians and producers who rely on SoundCloud as a creative distribution tool, feel blindsided by the inclusion of vague legal language allowing their work to potentially serve AI development without explicit, informed consent.
Here’s a breakdown of what happened, what SoundCloud says, and what this means for artists in the digital age.
SoundCloud Quietly Adds AI Clause to Terms and Conditions
Without any public announcement, SoundCloud updated its terms and conditions to include a clause that reads:
“You explicitly agree that your Content may be used to inform, train, develop or serve as input to artificial intelligence or machine intelligence technologies or services as part of and for providing the services.”
This revelation came to light when tech industry veteran Ed Newton-Rex flagged the change. The language immediately raised concerns that SoundCloud could be laying the groundwork to use user-generated content—primarily music uploads—for training AI models, whether internally or through third-party arrangements.
Adobe’s Precedent: A Familiar Controversy
This scenario isn’t unique. Adobe faced fierce backlash in mid-2024 after modifying its terms of service for apps like Photoshop. Users accused the company of effectively giving itself unrestricted rights to access, reuse, and even sublicense their creative work. Adobe initially downplayed the concerns but later had to walk back and clarify its position after public outcry grew too intense to ignore.
The issue wasn’t just the terms themselves, but how they were presented. Users were locked out of Adobe applications until they accepted the new terms—an aggressive tactic that further fueled distrust.
SoundCloud Responds to Growing Concerns
SoundCloud issued a statement to TechCrunch, asserting that it has never used artist content to train AI models and doesn’t plan to. The company emphasized:
They do not allow third-party scraping of user content.
Technical safeguards (like “no AI” tags) are already in place.
Any future AI applications will aim to support human artists rather than replace them.
Tools like Musiio, a SoundCloud partner, are used only for discovery and content organization, not generative AI.
Despite these reassurances, the ambiguity of the clause is where the tension lies. Legal terms often leave ample room for interpretation, and creatives are increasingly wary of platforms that assume rights to their work in such broad language.
9to5Mac’s Commentary: Transparency is Key
Tech news outlet 9to5Mac weighed in, stating that SoundCloud, like Adobe before it, failed the transparency test. The clause is simply too vague, and users deserve unambiguous clarity about how their work will—and won’t—be used.
What Undercode Say:
The SoundCloud clause is a case study in poor communication strategy during an AI-fueled evolution in tech. Here’s a deeper breakdown from our analysis:
Creative Trust Is Eroding: Platforms like SoundCloud were built on a promise of empowering independent creators. Suddenly slipping in language that appears to co-opt their work for AI undermines that foundation.
The AI Panic Is Real—and Justified: Artists aren’t overreacting. Recent advancements in generative audio tools show that a model trained on enough uploaded music could replicate styles, even specific voices. This isn’t a hypothetical future—it’s happening now.
Legal Loopholes Over Consent: The term “explicitly agree” in T\&Cs does not mean informed consent. Most users don’t read terms closely, and companies know this. Relying on legalese rather than transparent opt-in features is ethically questionable.
Vagueness Breeds Mistrust: SoundCloud’s language leaves too much room for interpretation. Phrases like “as part of and for providing the services” can be interpreted to mean almost anything, including potential future commercial AI ventures.
Platform Loyalty at Risk: SoundCloud risks losing trust—and therefore users—to smaller platforms that offer clearer protections. In an age of decentralization and open protocols, locking in creators with vague terms is a gamble.
The Adobe Parallel Shows This Isn’t Isolated: With Adobe, the outcry eventually led to a partial retreat and clarification. That precedent suggests SoundCloud may need to revise its approach—or face a prolonged PR problem.
Hidden Tactics Damage Branding: Sneaking terms in without formal announcements only makes companies appear evasive. Transparency builds community; secrecy breeds suspicion.
Artists Want Partnership, Not Exploitation: If platforms plan to use AI, creators want to be part of the conversation—not just data sources.
The Real Opportunity Is AI With Consent: Imagine tools built with artists’ permission that help with mastering, promotion, or discovery. Those are win-win applications. But that starts with transparency and choice.
Undercode’s recommendation? SoundCloud must revise the clause, clearly exclude generative AI training without
References:
Reported By: 9to5mac.com
Extra Source Hub:
https://www.instagram.com
Wikipedia
Undercode AI
Image Source:
Unsplash
Undercode AI DI v2
