Stability AI VP of Audio Ed Newton-Rex resigns, saying he disagrees with the company's view that training generative AI models on copyrighted works is fair use
Newton-Rex’s departure put a public copyright-policy dispute inside Stability AI at a time when the company was already facing allegations over training data in the Getty Images dispute. It followed earlier senior-team turnover, including the reported June 2023 exits of the research head and COO amid a broader leadership reshuffle.
The disagreement matters especially in audio, where commercial adoption depends on whether creators and rights holders accept the provenance of training data. Stability AI’s later release of licensed-data audio models shows why data sourcing became a product and partnership issue, not solely a legal defense.
First-order effects
Stability AI loses its VP of Audio, while Newton-Rex’s public rationale makes the company’s fair-use stance a visible point of contention for staff, creators and prospective partners.
The resignation separates the company’s model-training position from that of a senior audio executive, raising the immediate reputational stakes around its audio strategy.
Second-order effects
Music and other rights-holding industries gain a concrete example to press AI vendors for clearer training-data disclosure and licensing commitments before adopting generative tools.
AI developers targeting enterprise creative workflows face stronger incentives to distinguish licensed or permissioned offerings from models defended primarily through fair-use arguments.
Third-order effects
If departures and rights-holder pressure continue, generative-media competition is likely to shift toward auditable data rights, licensing relationships and commercially acceptable deployment terms—not just model capability.
The likely industry divide is between vendors able to commercialize models with defensible content supply chains and those whose training-data practices remain a barrier to partnerships and adoption.
The trend: Generative-media AI is moving from an open question of training-data legality toward a commercialization contest over licensed inputs and creator-industry trust.
The VP of Audio at Stability AI, the company behind Stable Diffusion, has quit because he doesn't agree with the company that training AIs on copyrighted works is fair use. I imagine copyright holders are going to be using this as a talking point a lot over the next few months e…
I've resigned from my role leading the Audio team at Stability AI, because I don't agree with the company's opinion that training generative AI models on copyrighted works is ‘fair use’. First off, I want to say that there are lots of people at Stability who are deeply...
Every leading AI x Music company should have at least one senior-level member who spent a portion of their life as a *professional* musician. Groups composed solely of engineers simply cannot understand the immensely difficult life of a 21st century working artist.
“Companies worth billions of dollars are, without permission, training generative AI models on creators' works, which are then being used to create new content that in many cases can compete with the original works.”
Stable audio had consent from the audiosparx library so I'm confused on this point. Was that data freely handed over to Stable Audio without opt in from the artists in the library or remunerations?
And this is a tightly contested issue at a lot of the AI companies trying to take the stance of training their data under fair use. It's a very thin line doing the wrong thing with copyright holders IP. Bravo Ed for taking a stance.
👏"I can only support generative AI that doesn't exploit creators by training models — which may replace them — on their work without permission." — @ednewtonrex
“Companies worth billions of dollars are, without permission, training generative AI models on creators' works, which are then being used to create new content that in many cases can compete with the original works.”
Very very very important tweet on the intended use of AI in the market and how it affects negatively the role of the music creator if it's not controlled properly
“Companies worth billions of dollars are, without permission, training generative AI models on creators' works, which are then being used to create new content that in many cases can compete with the original works. I don't see how this can be acceptable..”