X Involved in Music Copyright Battle

[Abbie Shores]

Up

0

Down

::

This topic was automatically created for discussion of the article:

What Creatives Need to Understand Right Now

The platform now known as X has become embroiled in a high-profile dispute over music copyright, reigniting long-standing tensions between technology platforms and rights holders. While much of the public discussion has focused on corporate manoeuvring and political undertones, the implications for artists and musicians are far more practical and far-reaching.

This is not merely a tech story. It is a creative rights story.

What Is Actually Happening?

Major music rights holders, including Universal Music Group, have challenged X over the use and protection of copyrighted music on the platform. The core issue centres on how music is shared, reused, and monetised, and whether X provides sufficient safeguards, licensing, and enforcement to protect creators’ rights.

Unlike platforms that have invested heavily in structured licensing agreements and automated rights management systems, X has taken a far looser approach. This has resulted in widespread unauthorised use of copyrighted music in videos, memes, and short-form content, often without attribution, permission, or compensation.

For musicians, this is not exposure. It is erosion.

Why This Matters to Artists and Musicians

There is a persistent myth online that visibility is a fair substitute for payment. It is not. Exposure does not pay rent, fund instruments, or cover studio time.

When platforms allow copyrighted music to circulate freely without proper licensing, it undermines the very concept of creative ownership. It also places independent artists at a particular disadvantage. Large corporations may have legal teams and bargaining power, but smaller creators are often left with little recourse beyond takedown notices that are slow, inconsistent, or ignored.

This dispute highlights a growing divide. Platforms benefit enormously from creative content, yet increasingly resist the responsibility that comes with hosting it.

The Broader Pattern We Should Not Ignore

This is not an isolated incident. Across the digital landscape, there is a recurring pattern of platforms positioning themselves as neutral hosts while actively profiting from creative work. Algorithms amplify music. Engagement metrics soar. Advertising revenue flows. Meanwhile, the creators whose work fuels that engagement are told to be grateful for the attention.

That argument no longer holds.

Copyright exists not to stifle creativity, but to protect it. When platforms weaken copyright enforcement, they are not empowering artists. They are devaluing them.

What Creatives Should Take From This

If you are a musician, composer, or artist using social media to share your work, this dispute is a reminder to be cautious and informed.

Understand the terms of the platforms you use. Know how your work can be reused. Be realistic about where your income actually comes from. Visibility is useful, but only when it leads somewhere sustainable.

For visual artists, writers, and photographers, the lesson is equally relevant. Music may be the battleground today, but the underlying issue applies to all creative disciplines.

A Necessary Reckoning

Whether X ultimately changes course or continues on its current path, this dispute marks a necessary reckoning. The creative economy cannot survive on goodwill and viral reach alone. Platforms must either respect creative rights or accept that creators will push back, legally and publicly.

Artists are not content farms. Music is not filler. Creativity has value, and it deserves protection.

That is not a radical stance. It is the bare minimum.

Read the full article: https://ourartsmagazine.com/blog/x-involved-in-music-copyright-battle/

—
Source: Our Arts Magazine

⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰
Site Owner • Community Manager
Artist • Authoress • Autistic •
Lover of Wolves, Woods, and Wild Places
⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰⋱⋰

Topic