King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard quits Spotify, only to be replaced by AI music clones

AI Clones Exploit King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard's Spotify Absence

When King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard pulled their music from Spotify in July 2024, they made a statement against CEO Daniel Ek's investments in military AI technology. What they didn't anticipate was becoming victims of the very technology they opposed. Months after their departure, fans discovered an AI-generated impersonator operating under the name 'King Lizard Wizard' on the streaming platform, hosting tracks that mimicked the Australian prog-rock band's distinctive sound 1

1

4

4

. The fake account featured AI music with identical song titles and lyrics to the original band's work, including a track called 'Rattlesnake' that copied the band's actual song word-for-word 5

5

. Frontman Stu Mackenzie responded with despair, telling The Music, 'we are truly doomed' 1

1

.

Spotify's Content Moderation Struggles With AI-Generated Knockoffs

The AI-generated knockoffs went undetected for weeks before a Reddit user spotted the fake 'Rattlesnake' track in their Release Radar playlist, Spotify's personalized recommendation feature 3

3

. The impersonator's tracks accumulated tens of thousands of streams, with Spotify's algorithms actively recommending the AI clones to users searching for the real band 5

5

. This incident is particularly troubling because King Gizzard had already been targeted by impersonators on Spotify before, raising questions about why the streaming platform wasn't monitoring the band more closely 5

5

. After media exposure, Spotify removed the fake account, stating it 'strictly prohibits any form of artist impersonation' and confirmed no royalties were paid to the fake account creator 4

4

. However, the incident highlights serious gaps in the platform's ability to enforce its own policies despite announcing new measures against spam and artist impersonation in September 3

3

.

Copyright Infringement and Trademark Law Implications

The King Lizard Wizard case raises significant legal questions around copyright infringement and trademark law. Using identical song titles and lyrics constitutes clear copyright infringement, while the similar-sounding AI music potentially infringes on the band's original sound recordings 2

2

. Courts would examine whether the AI tracks are direct copies or 'sound-alikes' that evoke the band's style without technically reproducing protected elements 2

2

. The near-identical band name creates false association issues under trademark law, particularly when Spotify's algorithms recommended the fake tracks, potentially confusing consumers about the source of the music 2

2

. While Spotify benefits from safe harbor laws that limit liability when content is removed after notification, this case exposes tensions between platforms actively promoting AI-generated content through algorithms while claiming to be passive hosts 2

2

.

Growing Wave of Artist Impersonation Across the Music Industry

King Gizzard joins a growing list of artists victimized by AI clones. Musicians from Beyoncé to experimental composer William Basinski have discovered fake songs appearing under their names on streaming platforms 1

1

. William Basinski, known for ambient pieces built around colliding black holes and crumbling tape loops, found an AI-generated reggaeton song on his Spotify page, calling it 'total bullshit' 1

1

. Luke Temple of Here We Go Magic, whose band hadn't released new music since 2015, discovered AI tracks reactivating their dormant Spotify page, telling NPR 'it is so awful' 1

1

. The scale of the problem is staggering: Spotify removed 75 million spam tracks last year, while Deezer reports that 50,000 AI-generated tracks are uploaded to its library per day, accounting for more than 34 percent of the music it ingests 1

1

4

4

.

Distribution Service Vulnerabilities Enable AI Music Fraud

Bad actors exploit a fundamental vulnerability in how streaming platforms operate. Music isn't uploaded directly to Spotify; instead, it passes through third-party distribution services like DistroKid 1

1

. It remains unclear what screening measures, if any, exist to verify that someone uploading a song is who they claim to be 1

1

. Generative AI tools like Suno and Udio have made creating convincing sound-alikes easier than ever, allowing anyone to generate entire songs with just a few text prompts 1

1

. While Suno is designed to ignore artist-specific prompts, the King Lizard Wizard case demonstrates how perpetrators can feed lyrics and style instructions into AI music generators to create deepfake versions of existing artists 5

5

. The fake tracks even listed Stu Mackenzie as the composer and lyricist, adding another layer of deception 5

5

.

Ethical Concerns and the Future of AI in the Music Industry

The incident raises profound ethical concerns about AI's role in music creation and distribution. Producer Haven's Harrison Walker faced backlash after creating a viral track with AI-manipulated vocals that too closely imitated British singer Jorja Smith, leading to takedown requests and demands for royalties from Smith's label FAMM 1

1

4

4

. An AI gospel creation called Solomon Ray sparked particular controversy, with Christianity Today saying it 'has no soul' and Christian artist Forrest Frank questioning the spiritual authenticity of AI-generated worship music 1

1

. Meanwhile, major labels Universal and Warner have struck deals with Udio and Suno, allowing users to create AI music from real artists' work, with artists able to opt in or out 4

4

. Irving Azoff, founder of the Music Artists Coalition, warned that artists could 'end up on the sidelines with scraps' without proper protections ensuring creative control, fair compensation, and clarity about deals based on their catalogs 4

4

. As AI detection policies struggle to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology, the music industry faces critical decisions about balancing innovation with protecting artists' rights and livelihoods.