Stunts like this have triggered concerns among artists that they will not be fairly paid for their work or that their likeness will be used without permission.
Earlier this year, Universal issued a furious response after a AI-generated song that mimicked Drake and The Weeknd racked up tens of millions of hits on streaming services.
Universal, which publishes both artists, described the two-minute song as “both a breach of our agreements and a violation of copyright law”.
Spotify, Apple and TikTok all removed the song from their platforms, but versions remain available on YouTube and Twitter.
Sir Lucian Grainge, Universal chairman and chief executive, said the new partnership with YouTube was aimed at ensuring that AI was built to “empower human creativity, and not the other way around”.
He added: “AI will never replace human creativity because it will always lack the essential spark that drives the most talented artists to do their best work, which is intention. From Mozart to The Beatles to Taylor Swift, genius is never random.”
The wrangling over royalties harks back to a years-long dispute between Google-owned YouTube and the music industry over copyright infringement on the video-sharing platform.
Google now pays record labels roughly $2bn each year in royalties, though many musicians and MPs have called for an upheaval of the music streaming model amid concerns artists and rights holders are not being fairly paid.
Neal Mohan, chief executive of YouTube, outlined the company’s new principles to ensure AI will enhance creative expression without harming artists.
He added: “Our goal is to partner with the music industry to empower creativity in a way that enhances our joint pursuit of responsible innovation.”
