In the annals of creative disruption, there’s a familiar script that plays out with almost cyclical predictability. A new technology emerges, threatening the livelihoods of established artists. The industry mobilizes, unions organize boycotts, and pundits declare the death of authentic creativity. Then, slowly but inevitably, the very tools that were demonized become indistinguishable from the art form itself.
This is the story of artificial intelligence in entertainment—a narrative that’s been written before with synthesizers, sampling, Auto-Tune, and CGI. And just like those technologies before it, AI is completing its inevitable journey from existential threat to essential creative partner.
The Ghost in the Machine: A Familiar Fear
When the Musicians’ Union in the UK passed a motion to ban synthesizers on May 23, 1982—ironically, on Robert Moog’s birthday they believed they were defending the very soul of music. Barry Manilow had committed the unforgivable sin of replacing orchestral musicians with synth players on tour, and the union was convinced that electronic instruments would “literally take food out of the mouths of real players”. The NME branded the union “loonies,” and the ban was widely ridiculed, yet it technically remained on the books until 1997.
The synthesizer panic followed a pattern that would repeat itself with stunning regularity. In the 1980s, unions had previously tried to ban the Mellotron for its ability to play strings. The Roland TR-808 drum machine, now ubiquitous in popular music, was initially met with skepticism from producers who dismissed its artificial sounds. Fast forward to 1998, and Cher’s “Believe” faced resistance from her own record label for its creative use of Auto-Tune—a technique that producer Mark Taylor called the “Cher effect” and that Cher herself defended, reportedly saying, “You can change [the song] over my dead body”.
The artists who championed these technologies paid a price. T-Pain, whose creative use of Auto-Tune spawned an entire ecosystem of vocal processing in hip-hop, recalls being told by Usher in 2013 that he had “kinda f—ed up music for real singers”—a comment that sent him spiraling into a four-year depression. Jay-Z’s “D.O.A. (Death of Auto-Tune)” in 2009 all but sealed T-Pain’s commercial fate, even as artists like Future, Travis Scott, and Quavo built careers on his sonic blueprint without acknowledgment.
The Napster Paradox: When Piracy Became the Blueprint
Perhaps no technological disruption better mirrors the current AI upheaval than the Napster revolution. When Shawn Fanning launched his peer-to-peer file-sharing service in June 1999, the music industry saw it as an existential threat. By 2000, Napster had 58 million users and was adding 300,000 daily, while recording sales had decreased by 33%. The Recording Industry Association of America responded with a cascade of lawsuits, eventually shutting down Napster in 2001.
But the genie was out of the bottle. Music piracy had become “an everyday habit,” cutting industry revenues by nearly $5 billion in the early 2000s alone. The industry’s response—suing individual downloaders for millions of dollars—proved to be a strategic disaster that generated public sympathy for pirates rather than artists.
What emerged from the ashes of Napster was Spotify, founded in 2006 by Daniel Ek and Martin Lorentzon, who saw the piracy crisis not as a death knell but as proof of concept. “The secret behind Spotify’s success is that the company identified a huge opportunity among music consumers,” industry analysts noted, “and then worked harder than any other company to reach product-market fit first”. By offering what pirates wanted—instant access to vast music libraries—but doing so legally and with superior quality, Spotify transformed an existential threat into a $20 billion business.
Today, Spotify has over 600 million monthly active users and paid out $10 billion to the music industry in 2024 alone—more than any single company has ever contributed in one year. The streaming model that labels once fought tooth and nail has become their primary revenue source.
Hollywood’s CGI Evolution: From Oscar Outcast to Visual Language
The film industry’s relationship with computer-generated imagery tells a remarkably similar story. When Disney released Tron in 1982, its groundbreaking CGI-laden scenes were considered ineligible for the Best Visual Effects Academy Award because its team had used computers. The Academy, guardians of cinematic tradition, deemed digital effects somehow illegitimate—not “real” enough to merit recognition alongside traditional special effects.
By 1993, Jurassic Park had introduced photorealistic CG creatures that blended seamlessly with live-action footage. By 1995, Pixar’s Toy Story became the first feature-length film made entirely with CGI animation. Today, approximately 70% of films include AI tools in some stage of production, and over 65 AI-focused studios have launched since 2022.
The resistance never truly vanished—it simply evolved. When AI “actress” Tilly Norwood was unveiled in October 2025 by tech entrepreneur Eline Van der Velden, the backlash was immediate and fierce. SAG-AFTRA condemned the synthetic performer: “To be clear, ‘Tilly Norwood’ is not an actor, it’s a character generated by a computer program that was trained on the work of countless professional performers—without permission or compensation”. Actors including Melissa Barrera, Kiersey Clemons, and Toni Collette voiced their discontent on social media, with some proposing boycotts of agencies considering synthetic talent.
Yet even as the industry rails against AI performers, it has quietly embraced AI tools. Disney and Warner Bros. use AI for restoration, captioning, and animation cleanup. Netflix employs proprietary models to analyze watch data and inform narrative structure. The same studios that publicly decry AI replacement have integrated it into their operational DNA.
The 2023 Strikes: A Turning Point
The dual strikes of 2023—the Writers Guild of America walkout that began on May 2nd and SAG-AFTRA’s strike that commenced on July 14th—represented the entertainment industry’s most significant confrontation with AI to date. For 148 days, the second-longest strike in WGA history, writers picketed under scorching heat, united around what had become an existential concern: the fear that studios would use AI to generate scripts or “train” systems on their creative output without consent or compensation.
The strikes ended with contracts that the entertainment press heralded as major victories. The WGA agreement includes specific provisions allowing studios and writers to use generative AI under specific circumstances, but with guardrails protecting writers’ employment, credit, and creative control. SAG-AFTRA secured stipulations requiring consent and payment for AI replicas of performers.
But a year later, the reality proved more complex. Interviews with SAG-AFTRA members revealed that many actors “still perceive the use of digital technology, especially the creation of digital replicas, as a serious threat to their careers”. Some reported being pressured to sign contracts consenting to digital replicas of their likenesses without the “reasonably specific description” of intended use that the union had fought for.
The Lawsuit Era: Major Labels vs. AI Startups
In June 2024, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Music Group filed landmark lawsuits against Suno and Udio, two AI music generation platforms, alleging massive copyright infringement. The RIAA characterized the cases as “straightforward” infringement involving “unlicensed copying of sound recordings on a massive scale”. The complaints were damning: the AI tools could generate music “with such speed and scale that it risks overrunning the market with AI-generated music and generally devaluing and substituting for human-created work”. Germany’s GEMA, the first collecting society to sue an AI provider, documented that Suno could output content “obviously infringing copyrights”—generating melodies, harmonies, and rhythms that “largely corresponded” to world-famous works including “Forever Young,” “Mambo No. 5,” and “Cheri Cheri Lady”.
But even as the legal battles raged, negotiations were quietly proceeding. In late November 2025, Warner Music Group settled its lawsuit with Suno and announced a joint venture. Under the partnership, WMG artists can choose to opt in to have their likenesses, voices, names, and compositions used in AI-generated music, opening up new revenue streams. Universal Music also settled with Udio.
The settlements echo the Napster resolution—an industry that once sought to destroy a technology instead of finding ways to monetize it. “For rights owners, this moment offers a chance to reset contract terms, revenue-sharing models, and attribution standards for AI-generated works,” noted legal analysts.
The Artists Who Embraced the Machine
While unions and labels fought AI in public, some artists were already charting a different path. Holly Herndon, the experimental composer and AI pioneer, created “Spawn,” an artificial intelligence that merges her voice with partner Mat Dryhurst’s into a synthetic entity—for her acclaimed 2019 album Proto. She later developed Holly+, a real-time voice model that allows anyone to sing through her AI-cloned voice.
“I decided to use my own voice,” Herndon explained, describing her collaboration with researchers in Barcelona to create a “digital twin.” Rather than viewing AI as a threat to intellectual property, she began “thinking about it in terms of identity play”. Artists who create with the Holly+ voice share profits through a “co-op” model.
Grimes followed a similar path in 2023 with Elf.Tech, software that allows users to record vocals and regurgitate them in Grimes’ voice, with a 50-50 royalty split on commercial releases. When a viral AI-generated track called “Heart on My Sleeve”—featuring AI-cloned voices of Drake and The Weeknd—garnered 20 million listens across platforms before Universal Music had it removed, Grimes saw not a threat but an opportunity.
The “Heart on My Sleeve” controversy of April 2023 crystallized the stakes. Created by an anonymous TikTok user, Ghostwriter977, the track demonstrated that AI could produce music “indistinguishable” from human artists. The song’s brief viral moment prompted urgent letters from Universal Music to streaming platforms about the dangers of AI-generated content—but it also proved that audiences were unable (or unwilling) to distinguish between human and machine creativity.
The Numbers Don’t Lie: AI Adoption Accelerates
A November 2025 study from music-tech platform LANDR revealed that 87% of musicians now use AI in at least one part of their creative workflow. This represents a seismic shift from just a few years earlier. The survey of over 1,200 creators from beginners to seasoned professionals found that artists are using AI for everything from songwriting and instrumental generation to mixing, mastering, artwork creation, and promotion.
One respondent described using AI “like a band of session musicians,” while others said they rely on it for creating instrumental beds or vocal ideas when human collaborators aren’t available. The report found that 29% of musicians have used AI song-generation tools to create components of their tracks, though full-song generation remains less common as most artists “still want to maintain creative control”.
The market data supports this cultural shift. The global AI-generated music market is expected to reach approximately $2 billion, growing at a compound annual growth rate of nearly 30%. Generative AI in the music segment is projected to jump from $2.92 billion in 2025 to $18.47 billion by 2034. Electronic music leads AI adoption at 54%, followed closely by hip-hop at 53%.
Even the most skeptical observers are coming around. A CEO at a major audio technology company conducted a blind test, asking consumers to listen to a playlist containing AI-generated songs. “None of the consumers noticed that the 5 songs were AI-generated, and some even ended up liking the AI-generated songs more”. One previously skeptical mixing engineer, after experimenting with newer AI tools, reported being “converted” after creating a song that “made a person cry”.
The Beatles and the Future That Wasn’t
Perhaps nothing better illustrates AI’s potential for creative collaboration than Paul McCartney’s announcement in June 2023 that he had used AI to complete a final Beatles song. The technology, developed during Peter Jackson’s production of the Get Back documentary, allowed engineers to “extricate” John Lennon’s voice from a “ropey little bit of cassette” that contained his vocals and a piano.
“They’d tell the machine, ‘That’s a voice. This is a guitar. Lose the guitar,'” McCartney explained. The result was “Now And Then,” a song originally started by Lennon in the late 1970s that previous attempts had failed to complete due to poor audio quality. AI didn’t replace Lennon—it resurrected his voice from degraded tape, allowing McCartney and Ringo Starr to complete a recording that otherwise would have been impossible.
The release was met with reverence rather than resistance. Fans described the AI-assisted recording as a “masterpiece” and “truly stunning”. The technology that had seemed so threatening in the abstract became, in practice, a bridge across death itself.
OpenAI’s Sora 2: The Latest Flashpoint
In October 2025, OpenAI released Sora 2, its flagship video and audio generation model, and the entertainment industry’s simmering tensions boiled over. The AI-powered video platform became the number one app in the App Store within days, surpassing a million downloads in under a week.
Sora 2 can produce lifelike scenes with sound, dialogue, and motion that feel pulled from a film set. Its “Cameo” feature allows users to integrate their own faces into AI-generated action. Studios and major agency CAA “collectively sounded the alarm” over the platform’s ability to generate content featuring copyrighted characters.
Yet CEO Sam Altman’s response suggested the industry is moving toward accommodation rather than confrontation. “We will need to find a way to monetize video generation,” Altman stated. “We intend to share some of this revenue with rightsholders who wish for their characters to be generated by users”.
It’s a familiar pivot, the same journey from existential threat to revenue opportunity that characterized Napster’s transformation into Spotify, or CGI’s evolution from Oscar outcast to visual language.
The Performance Rights Organizations Make Peace
In October 2025, the three largest performance rights organizations—ASCAP, BMI, and SOCAN—announced they would align their policies to welcome musical compositions created using AI tools alongside human authors. The joint statement represented a stunning reversal from the protective posture that had characterized the industry’s initial response to generative AI.
“Songwriters and composers have always experimented with innovative tools as part of their creative process, and AI is no exception,” said ASCAP CEO Elizabeth Matthews. BMI President Mike O’Neill called it “an important first step in protecting human creativity as AI technologies evolve, while supporting the songwriters and composers who choose to use AI as a tool”.
SOCAN CEO Jennifer Brown perhaps captured it best: “The future of music can embrace AI and remain deeply human”.
What History Teaches Us
The pattern is unmistakable. Every transformative technology in entertainment history has followed the same arc: initial resistance from established players, doomsday predictions about the end of authentic creativity, legal battles and union confrontations, and ultimately, integration so complete that the technology becomes invisible—just another tool in the creative arsenal.
The synthesizer didn’t kill orchestras. The sampler didn’t destroy the original composition. Auto-Tune didn’t eliminate the need for skilled vocalists. CGI didn’t replace human actors. And streaming, which the music industry fought so viciously, became its salvation.
Artificial intelligence is following the same trajectory, but at compressed timescales. The legal battles are being fought and settled simultaneously. Artists are adopting tools even as their unions negotiate restrictions. Studios are integrating AI into operations while publicly decrying its potential for replacement.
The future is already here 87% of musicians are using AI in their creative process, 70% of films incorporate AI tools, and major labels are settling with the very platforms they sued. The resistance continues, and it should. The concerns about consent, compensation, and creative ownership are legitimate and must be addressed through contracts, legislation, and industry standards.
But history’s verdict is clear: the artists who learn to play with the machine, rather than against it, will define the next era of creativity. Just as T-Pain’s Auto-Tuned vocals became the sonic palette for a generation of hip-hop, and as CGI became the visual language of modern blockbusters, AI is becoming the newest instrument in humanity’s never-ending quest to create something from nothing.
The machine is learning to rock. And, one artist at a time, so is the industry.
About The Author
