In July, the band publicly withdrew its music from Spotify in protest at chief executive Daniel Ek\u2019s investments<\/a> in an AI weapons company. <\/p>\n Within months, outraged<\/a> fans drew attention to a new account called \u201cKing Lizard Wizard\u201d. <\/p>\n It hosted AI-generated songs with identical titles and lyrics, and similar-sounding music, to the original band. (And it isn\u2019t the first case of a fake Spotify account impersonating the band<\/a>).<\/p>\n Fans have taken to social media channels to vent their frustration over the King Gizzard imposter. The fake account was recommended by Spotify\u2019s algorithms and was reportedly removed<\/a> after exposure by the media. <\/p>\n This incident raises crucial questions: what happens when artists leave a platform, only to be replaced by AI knockoffs? Is this copyright infringement? And what might it mean for Spotify? <\/p>\n As an Australian band, King Gizzard\u2019s music is automatically protected by Australian copyright law. However, any practical enforcement against Spotify would use US law, so that\u2019s what we\u2019ll focus on here. <\/p>\n Is this copyright infringement?<\/p>\n King Gizzard has a track called Rattlesnake, and there was an AI-generated track with the same title and lyrics.<\/p>\n This constitutes copyright infringement of both title and lyrics. And since the AI-generated music sounds similar, there is also potential infringement of Gizzard\u2019s original sound recording.<\/p>\n A court would question whether the AI track is copyright infringement, or a \u201csound-alike\u201d. A sound-alike work<\/a> work may evoke the style, arrangement or \u201cfeel\u201d of the original, but the recording is technically new. <\/p>\n Legally, sound-alikes sit in a grey area because the musical expression is new, but the aesthetic impression is copied.<\/p>\n Read more: To determine whether there is infringement, a court would examine the alleged copying of the protected musical elements in each recording. <\/p>\n It would then identify whether there is \u201csubstantial similarity\u201d between the original and AI-generated tracks<\/a>. Is the listener hearing a copy of the original Gizzard song, or a copy of the band\u2019s musical style? Style itself can\u2019t be infringed (although it does become relevant when paying damages). <\/p>\n Some might wonder whether the AI-generated tracks could fall under \u201cfair use\u201d as a form of parody. Genuine parody would not constitute infringement. But this seems unlikely in the King Gizzard situation.<\/p>\n A parody must comment on or critique an original work, must be transformative in nature, and only copy what is necessary. Based on the available facts, these criteria have not been met<\/a>.<\/p>\n False association under trademark law?<\/p>\n Using a near-identical band name creates a likelihood of consumers being confused regarding the source of the AI-generated music. And this confusion would be made worse by Spotify reportedly recommending<\/a> the AI tracks on its \u201crelease radar\u201d. <\/p>\n The US Lanham Act has a section on unfair competition<\/a> which distils two types of liability<\/a>. One of these is false association. This might be applicable here; there is a plausible claim if listeners could reasonably be confused into thinking the AI-generated tracks were from King Gizzard.<\/p>\n To establish such a claim, the plaintiff would need to demonstrate prior protectable trademark rights, and then show the use of a similar mark is likely to cause consumer confusion. <\/p>\n The defendant in such a claim would likely be the creator\/uploader of the AI tracks (perhaps jointly with Spotify). <\/p>\n What about Spotify?<\/p>\n Copyright actions are enforced by rights-holders, rather than regulators, so the onus would be on King Gizzard to sue. But infringement litigation is expensive and time-consuming \u2013 often for little damages.<\/p>\n As Spotify has now taken down the AI-generated account, copyright litigation is unlikely. The streaming platform said no royalties were paid to the fake account creator<\/a>. <\/p>\n Even if this case was successfully litigated against the creator of the fake account, Spotify is unlikely to face penalties. That\u2019s because it is protected by US \u201csafe harbour\u201d laws, which limit liability<\/a> in cases where content is removed after a platform is notified. <\/p>\n This example demonstrates the legal and policy tensions between platforms actively promoting AI-generated content through algorithms and being \u201cpassive hosts\u201d.<\/p>\n Speaking on the King Lizard incident, a Spotify representative told The Music<\/a>:<\/p>\n Spotify strictly prohibits any form of artist impersonation. The content in question was removed for violating our policies, and no royalties were paid out for any streams generated.<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/file-20251210-56-th9e0u.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n Reddit<\/p>\n
\n Taylor Swift’s Father Figure isn’t a cover, but an ‘interpolation’. What that means \u2013 and why it matters<\/a><\/p>\n