
  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
    <channel>
      <title>We are the music makers</title>
      <link>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/latest</link>
      <description>Music tech and AI in music: the news that matters, what we think about it, and a directory of the tools.</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2026 06:30:00 GMT</lastBuildDate>
      <atom:link href="https://wearethemusicmakers.co/tags/voice-cloning/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
      
  <item>
    <guid>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/learn/license-your-voice-for-ai</guid>
    <title>Licensing your voice to AI platforms: consent, payouts and how to take it back</title>
    <link>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/learn/license-your-voice-for-ai</link>
    <description>Some AI platforms will pay you to let other people use a model of your voice. Their own terms decide who consents to each use, how you get paid and what survives if you pull out. Here is what ElevenLabs and Kits.ai actually say, as read on 24 Oct 2026, and what to check before you sign up.</description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2026 06:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>We are the music makers</dc:creator>
    <category>ai-music</category><category>voice-cloning</category><category>licensing</category><category>royalties</category>
  </item>

  <item>
    <guid>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/learn/protect-your-voice-from-ai-cloning</guid>
    <title>How to protect your voice from AI cloning: the laws, the takedown routes and the platform policies</title>
    <link>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/learn/protect-your-voice-from-ai-cloning</link>
    <description>Copyright protects your recordings, not your voice. What protects the voice itself is a patchwork of state laws, court orders and platform rules. Here is what each one covers as of 24 Oct 2026, the takedown routes that work today, and what to do before anyone clones you.</description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2026 03:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>We are the music makers</dc:creator>
    <category>ai-music</category><category>voice-cloning</category><category>copyright</category><category>distribution</category><category>workflows</category>
  </item>

  <item>
    <guid>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2026/10/india-ai-voice-cloning-personality-rights-dpiit-licence-stalled</guid>
    <title>India&#39;s AI-music rules: courts protect famous singers&#39; voices while the copyright plan stalls</title>
    <link>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2026/10/india-ai-voice-cloning-personality-rights-dpiit-licence-stalled</link>
    <description>Bombay High Court orders have shielded Arijit Singh and Asha Bhosle from AI voice clones, but the government committee drafting India&#39;s AI-copyright rules has not met since June, and its plan would let AI firms train on recordings without permission. Famous voices have a remedy; everyone else is waiting.</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2026 06:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>We are the music makers</dc:creator>
    <category>artist-rights</category><category>india</category><category>voice-cloning</category><category>copyright</category><category>ai-music</category>
  </item>

  <item>
    <guid>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2026/10/mexico-ai-voice-cloning-performers-consent-law</guid>
    <title>Mexico now requires performers&#39; consent, and a contract, before anyone clones their voice with AI</title>
    <link>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2026/10/mexico-ai-voice-cloning-performers-consent-law</link>
    <description>Mexico changed its Federal Copyright Law and Federal Labor Law in May 2026. A performer&#39;s voice and image are now protected against AI clones, a payment for one use no longer counts as consent to others, and work contracts must set the terms and pay for any AI use. This is already law, not a bill, but the exceptions are worded more loosely than the headlines suggest.</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2026 06:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>We are the music makers</dc:creator>
    <category>artist-rights</category><category>ai-music</category><category>voice-cloning</category><category>copyright</category><category>mexico</category>
  </item>

  <item>
    <guid>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2026/10/denmark-deepfake-bill-l49-consent-burden-of-proof</guid>
    <title>Denmark&#39;s deepfake bill would make whoever posts a voice clone prove they had consent</title>
    <link>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2026/10/denmark-deepfake-bill-l49-consent-burden-of-proof</link>
    <description>Denmark&#39;s culture minister tabled bill L 49 on 8 Oct 2026. It would bar sharing realistic digital imitations of a person&#39;s voice, face or other features, or of a performer&#39;s performance, without consent, from 1 Jan 2027. It is not law yet. The detail that matters most for singers is in the explanatory notes: the person who publishes the imitation has to prove consent.</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2026 03:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>We are the music makers</dc:creator>
    <category>artist-rights</category><category>deepfakes</category><category>voice-cloning</category><category>copyright</category><category>denmark</category><category>policy</category>
  </item>

  <item>
    <guid>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2026/09/no-fakes-act-cruz-delay</guid>
    <title>One senator stopped the NO FAKES Act. Here&#39;s what artists lose while it waits</title>
    <link>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2026/09/no-fakes-act-cruz-delay</link>
    <description>Ted Cruz objected when Marsha Blackburn asked the Senate to pass the NO FAKES Act by unanimous consent on 30 Sep, so the first federal right over your own voice and likeness now waits for a short post-election session. Until then, a cloned singer&#39;s options depend on which state they live in.</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2026 05:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>We are the music makers</dc:creator>
    <category>artist-rights</category><category>no-fakes-act</category><category>voice-cloning</category><category>policy</category>
  </item>

  <item>
    <guid>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2026/09/take-down-leaks-stolen-uploads-fake-profiles</guid>
    <title>Leaks, stolen uploads and fake profiles: how to get your music taken down from DSPs and YouTube</title>
    <link>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2026/09/take-down-leaks-stolen-uploads-fake-profiles</link>
    <description>A leaked demo, a stranger releasing your song, a fake under your name, a Content ID claim on your own video: each has a different route, and the wrong one wastes time. Here is what the US takedown law requires, how Spotify, Apple and YouTube actually take reports, and where the system leans against independent artists.</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 27 Sep 2026 04:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>We are the music makers</dc:creator>
    <category>artist-rights</category><category>copyright</category><category>streaming</category><category>voice-cloning</category>
  </item>

  <item>
    <guid>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2026/08/grimes-ai-voice-50-50-split-three-years-on</guid>
    <title>Grimes&#39; 50/50 voice offer, three years on: 168 GrimesAI releases. Did open licensing work?</title>
    <link>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2026/08/grimes-ai-voice-50-50-split-three-years-on</link>
    <description>In 2023 Grimes let anyone release songs with an AI copy of her voice in exchange for half the master royalties. About three years on, the GrimesAI profile lists 168 releases, the Elf.Tech site has gone quiet and Grimes now says humans still have to tell the story. Here is what worked, what didn&#39;t, and what other artists can borrow.</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2026 05:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>We are the music makers</dc:creator>
    <category>ai</category><category>ai-music</category><category>grimes</category><category>voice-cloning</category><category>licensing</category><category>artist-rights</category>
  </item>

  <item>
    <guid>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2025/07/lehrman-v-lovo-ai-voice-clones-new-york-publicity-law</guid>
    <title>Voice actors win round one against an AI voice company in New York: what Lehrman v. Lovo means for singers</title>
    <link>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2025/07/lehrman-v-lovo-ai-voice-clones-new-york-publicity-law</link>
    <description>A federal judge in Manhattan has let two voice actors pursue New York publicity, consumer-protection and contract claims against Lovo, the AI voice company they say cloned them, while dismissing most of their trademark and copyright claims. This was a ruling on a motion to dismiss, not a win at trial. Its reasoning still matters to singers: in this court&#39;s view, copyright in a recording doesn&#39;t protect the voice on it, but New York&#39;s civil rights law does.</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 04:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>We are the music makers</dc:creator>
    <category>artist-rights</category><category>ai</category><category>voice-cloning</category><category>right-of-publicity</category><category>lawsuits</category>
  </item>

  <item>
    <guid>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2025/04/randy-travis-ai-voice-consent-where-that-came-from</guid>
    <title>Randy Travis got his voice back with AI. The harder question is who else had to say yes</title>
    <link>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2025/04/randy-travis-ai-voice-consent-where-that-came-from</link>
    <description>A model trained on Randy Travis&#39;s own vocal stems turned another singer&#39;s demo into &quot;Where That Came From&quot;, his first new song in over a decade. Eleven months later Travis backed the NO FAKES Act against voice theft. The line between the two is consent and control, and the Travis case shows it has to cover the human singer underneath as well as the star on the label.</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2025 04:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>We are the music makers</dc:creator>
    <category>ai</category><category>artist-rights</category><category>voice-cloning</category><category>no-fakes-act</category>
  </item>

  <item>
    <guid>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2025/03/celine-dion-ai-fakes-sevdaliza-dahlia-licensed-voice</guid>
    <title>Two answers to AI voices: Céline Dion disowns the fakes, while Sevdaliza licenses hers for a 50% split</title>
    <link>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2025/03/celine-dion-ai-fakes-sevdaliza-dahlia-licensed-voice</link>
    <description>Céline Dion&#39;s team has warned fans that &quot;unsanctioned&quot; AI recordings using her voice and name are circulating on streaming services. In 2023 Sevdaliza went the other way, opening an AI model of her voice, Dahlia, to anyone on the Myvox platform for half the royalties. Both are legitimate choices, and each depends on consent being written down somewhere a platform can act on it.</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Mar 2025 04:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>We are the music makers</dc:creator>
    <category>ai</category><category>artist-rights</category><category>voice-cloning</category>
  </item>

  <item>
    <guid>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2024/05/fka-twigs-ai-twin-senate-testimony-artist-control</guid>
    <title>FKA twigs built a digital twin of herself, then told the Senate artists must control it</title>
    <link>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2024/05/fka-twigs-ai-twin-senate-testimony-artist-control</link>
    <description>At a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on the draft NO FAKES Act on 30 April 2024, FKA twigs said she had spent a year building an AI version of herself that speaks in her voice, and argued the line between a useful tool and a theft is whether the artist controls it. Her label&#39;s CEO, sitting beside her, argued the new right should be transferable. That tension is the real story.</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2024 04:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>We are the music makers</dc:creator>
    <category>ai</category><category>artist-rights</category><category>voice-cloning</category><category>no-fakes-act</category><category>policy</category>
  </item>

  <item>
    <guid>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2023/11/bad-bunny-nostalgia-flowgpt-ai-voice-takedowns</guid>
    <title>Bad Bunny vs. &quot;NostalgIA&quot;: when the artist says no to an AI hit</title>
    <link>https://wearethemusicmakers.co/news/2023/11/bad-bunny-nostalgia-flowgpt-ai-voice-takedowns</link>
    <description>A Chilean producer recorded a track with AI voices made to sound like Bad Bunny, Justin Bieber and Daddy Yankee, and it went viral on TikTok. Bad Bunny told fans who liked it to leave his WhatsApp channel, and the creator says Apple Music and Spotify then pulled versions of it. Nobody has said which rule was applied, which is the real story: without a law covering voice, takedown decisions are left to platforms.</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Nov 2023 04:30:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>We are the music makers</dc:creator>
    <category>artist-rights</category><category>ai</category><category>voice-cloning</category><category>platforms</category>
  </item>

    </channel>
  </rss>
