Salut! Mai este cineva aici care obține venituri recurente din exploatarea comercială a muzicii generate cu AI? Cum ați încadrat aceste venituri: prin PFA (activități independente) sau la drepturi de autor/conexe?

Mă refer la situațiile în care muzica este generată în mare parte de AI, iar contribuția umană constă în principal în prompturi, direcție creativă minimă și curare/selecție a rezultatelor.

Din calculele mele, PFA-ul nu mă avantajează deloc și aș prefera să evit înființarea lui, dacă există o încadrare legală aplicabilă situației mele. Nu am cheltuieli semnificative care să facă avantajoasă deducerea costurilor efective.

Pe de altă parte, nu vreau nici să încadrez greșit veniturile la drepturi de autor/conexe și să aplic deducerea forfetară de 40% din venitul brut, iar ulterior să mă trezesc cu o reîncadrare, diferențe de taxe, dobânzi și penalități.

Am discutat deja cu un contabil care consideră că existența sau absența unor drepturi exclusive de autor nu schimbă natura veniturilor și încadrarea lor fiscală, în consecință acestea putând fi declarate ca venituri din drepturi de proprietate intelectuală (totuși, la un eventual control ANAF nu primesc garanții că aceasta opinie nu va fi contestată);

Înainte de a lua o decizie, am zis să cer o părere și aici, pentru că m-ar ajuta să aflu cum au procedat și alte persoane aflate într-o situație similară și ce experiențe au avut cu ANAF.

Mulțumesc.

Hi everyone,

I'm an independent artist based in Europe, and I'm trying to better understand how copyright disputes work with different music distributors.

From what I've read, if someone files a copyright claim against your music and you submit a DMCA counter-notice, many distributors require you to consent to the jurisdiction of a U.S. federal court if you live outside the U.S.

This is what worries me.

I'm not talking about intentionally copying anyone's work. My concern is that, with the enormous amount of music released every day, it's possible to unknowingly create something that another person believes infringes their composition. Whether they're right or wrong would ultimately have to be decided somewhere.

As a European artist, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that if such a dispute arose, I'd potentially have to defend myself in a U.S. court and hire a U.S. attorney, which would likely cost far more than I could afford. I'd much rather have any dispute resolved in Europe.

I was just wondering if there are any distributors that handle this differently, or if consenting to U.S. jurisdiction is simply something every artist has to accept when distributing to the major streaming platforms.

This question comes from personal experience, as I've had a few songs receive copyright claims that I believe may have been made in bad faith, so I'm trying to be better prepared in the future.

If anyone from Europe has been through this or has any experience with it, I'd really appreciate hearing your thoughts.

Hi everyone,

I'm an independent artist based in Europe, and I'm trying to better understand how copyright disputes work with different music distributors.

From what I've read, if someone files a copyright claim against your music and you submit a DMCA counter-notice, many distributors require you to consent to the jurisdiction of a U.S. federal court if you live outside the U.S.

This is what worries me.

I'm not talking about intentionally copying anyone's work. My concern is that, with the enormous amount of music released every day, it's possible to unknowingly create something that another person believes infringes their composition. Whether they're right or wrong would ultimately have to be decided somewhere.

As a European artist, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that if such a dispute arose, I'd potentially have to defend myself in a U.S. court and hire a U.S. attorney, which would likely cost far more than I could afford. I'd much rather have any dispute resolved in Europe.

I was just wondering if there are any distributors that handle this differently, or if consenting to U.S. jurisdiction is simply something every artist has to accept when distributing to the major streaming platforms.

This question comes from personal experience, as I've had a few songs receive copyright claims that I believe may have been made in bad faith, so I'm trying to be better prepared in the future.

If anyone from Europe has been through this or has any experience with it, I'd really appreciate hearing your thoughts.

Someone created a fake artist account, reuploaded several of my suno songs through a different distributor, enrolled them in YouTube Content ID, and then claimed my own original uploads on YouTube.

They also issued copyright strikes against my original releases on Spotify and other streaming platforms.

As a result, my distributor took down my original songs from all streaming services. The only communication I've received was what appeared to be an automated notification stating that a copyright strike had been applied to my account, that I need to resolve the issue with the claimant, and that I should not re-upload the songs.

The problem is that the "claimant" is the person who stole and reuploaded my music.

I've sent countless emails to my distributor's legal team explaining that I can provide extensive evidence proving I'm the original creator, including lyric drafts, my Suno commercial subscription receipt covering the song's creation date, generation records, and other supporting documentation. Despite that, I still haven't received a response from an actual person.

Has anyone here been through something like this? Were you able to get your original releases reinstated, and get your distributor to restore your catalog?

I'm basically stuck. If I re-upload the songs, I may end up losing my entire account, since the distributor's notice specifically warned me not to re-upload the content until the claim is resolved.

Has anyone else who uploaded their own voice to Suno noticed their generations gradually sounding more and more like them, even when not using Voice Personas of themselves, or is that just my imagination?

Also, I feel like there's been a shift away from older generated Personas having a strong influence, toward a model that relies more heavily on the user's own uploaded voice. Has anyone else noticed that?

I publish my music through a distributor and I have never opted in to any lyrics delivery service. I prefer to control when and how lyrics are released, sometimes using them later for promotional content rather than publishing them immediately.

Recently, I discovered that incorrect lyrics are being displayed on Spotify and YouTube Music for some of my songs. The problem is that these lyrics are not mine, are inaccurate, and were added without my authorization. Since they are attached to my artist profile and recordings, this creates a misleading representation of my work.

After contacting Spotify support, I was told that the lyrics were sourced through Musixmatch and that any corrections or removals would need to be handled by Musixmatch.

I tried contacting Musixmatch support, but I haven't been able to reach a human representative or find a clear path for resolving this issue.

From what I've read, one option is to claim a Musixmatch artist profile, but this appears to require government ID verification. I'm not comfortable providing government identification to a service that pushed unauthorized lyrics onto my music simply to remove or correct lyrics that I never submitted in the first place.

Currently, I have been in contact with my distributor's support team and requested that they submit a metadata correction request to remove these incorrect lyrics from my artist pages.

Unfortunately, despite contacting them multiple times and following up on the issue, the problem has not been resolved yet. The incorrect lyrics are still being displayed, and I am still waiting for a proper correction or removal.

It's difficult for me to understand how content that is unrelated to my artist pages can be attached to my profile and publicly displayed without my knowledge or consent.

Right now the lyrics contain numerous mistakes, incorrectly transcribed words, and significant inaccuracies that do not reflect the actual lyrics of my songs, but the same process could potentially result in offensive, inappropriate, misleading, or otherwise harmful content being attached to my releases in the future and presented to listeners as if it originated from me, potentially damaging my audience's trust.

Has anyone experienced unauthorized or incorrect lyrics being added to their Spotify or YouTube Music releases through Musixmatch? If so, how did you manage to get them corrected or removed without paying for a subscription or submitting government ID verification?

I publish my music through a distributor and I have never opted in to any lyrics delivery service. I prefer to control when and how lyrics are released, sometimes using them later for promotional content rather than publishing them immediately.

Recently, I discovered that incorrect lyrics are being displayed on Spotify and YouTube Music for some of my songs. The problem is that these lyrics are not mine, are inaccurate, and were added without my authorization. Since they are attached to my artist profile and recordings, this creates a misleading representation of my work.

After contacting Spotify support, I was told that the lyrics were sourced through Musixmatch and that any corrections or removals would need to be handled by Musixmatch.

I tried contacting Musixmatch support, but I haven't been able to reach a human representative or find a clear path for resolving this issue.

From what I've read, one option is to claim a Musixmatch artist profile, but this appears to require government ID verification. I'm not comfortable providing government identification to a service that pushed unauthorized lyrics onto my music simply to remove or correct lyrics that I never submitted in the first place.

Currently, I have been in contact with my distributor's support team and requested that they submit a metadata correction request to remove these incorrect lyrics from my artist pages.

Unfortunately, despite contacting them multiple times and following up on the issue, the problem has not been resolved yet. The incorrect lyrics are still being displayed, and I am still waiting for a proper correction or removal.

It's difficult for me to understand how content that is unrelated to my artist pages can be attached to my profile and publicly displayed without my knowledge or consent.

Right now the lyrics are mostly gibberish and unrelated to my music, but the same process could potentially result in offensive, inappropriate, misleading, or otherwise harmful content being attached to my releases in the future and presented to listeners as if it originated from me, potentially damaging my audience's trust.

Has anyone experienced unauthorized or incorrect lyrics being added to their Spotify or YouTube Music releases through Musixmatch? If so, how did you manage to get them corrected or removed without paying for a subscription or submitting government ID verification?

I’d really like to use my own voice in some songs that I plan to release.

What gives me pause is the idea that once a song is publicly available, someone could upload it into Suno and use the Inspo feature repeatedly until they generate vocals that sound very close to my voice. It probably wouldn’t be an exact match, but it seems like it could get very close (I tested it).

Because of that, I’ve been hesitant to release songs that feature my own voice.

I’m curious whether anyone else feels the same way, especially those who already use their own vocals in Suno projects. Has anyone here who releases Suno songs using their own voice actually run into this problem?

If someone cloned your voice and used it to create and upload songs to streaming platforms, were you able to do anything effective to stop it?

I imagine that traditional musicians may have stronger legal protection when someone reuploads their work in an attempt to clone their voice. But with AI-generated music featuring your own voice, where the legal status and ownership rights are still somewhat unclear, I worry there may not be much that can be done in practice.

Hello everyone,

I’m interested in hearing how others handle DistroKid’s AI credits disclosure when an AI-generated song is based on original human input, particularly when the final audio is derived from original recordings but does not directly include them.

Question 1: How should AI-generated audio based on original input be disclosed?

Suppose I create an original performance, for example by:

• humming a melody fragment
• playing a guitar solo
• singing my lyrics in a specific way that matches the phrasing and emotion I want

I then use this recording as input for an AI tool through features such as Suno’s Cover, Inspo, or Sample, which generate a new audio output based on my original performance. My original recording is not directly present in the final track, but the resulting music is clearly derived from my own creative input.

In this situation, how should the question "Which parts of this song were AI-generated?" be answered?

There does not appear to be a checkbox that accurately reflects this type of contribution. The closest option seems to be to indicate that both the music and all of the audio were generated by AI.

This creates an ambiguity. On one hand, it would not be entirely accurate to say that I created the final melody or performance in the traditional sense, since the AI generated the actual output. On the other hand, it is also not entirely accurate to say that the AI created the result independently, because the output follows my original melodic, rhythmic, or vocal input.

How do you handle this situation?

Question 2: How do you approach disclosure if being transparent may put you at a disadvantage?

Imagine the following scenario:

Person A writes their own lyrics and also contributes original human input of the kind described in Question 1. However, because the current disclosure options do not appear to explicitly account for this type of contribution, A may still need to indicate that the music and all of the audio were AI-generated.

Person B contributes no original material and mainly curates AI outputs, but chooses not to disclose anything.

Both upload songs that are well received and start getting traction.

Now Person C is not particularly interested in creating original work. They simply want to upload something quickly for views with minimal effort.

C sees that A disclosed AI involvement and, because there is no more precise disclosure option, may assume that A’s melody was fully AI-generated. C then uploads A’s recording to an AI tool and quickly generates a similar song with different AI-written lyrics and releases it shortly after A, potentially diluting A’s visibility.

C avoids targeting B because B made no disclosure, creating uncertainty about whether the song contains protected human-authored material and to what extent.

In this scenario, A may be at a greater disadvantage than B, despite contributing more original work and being transparent.

Then why should A disclose AI involvement if B is not obliged to do so?

Given all of this, how do you handle this situation?