FAMM Demands A Cut Of Haven’s Viral Hit
FAMM, the label representing Jorja Smith, wants a portion of the royalties generated by Haven’s breakout single “I Run,” arguing that the track relied on an artificial-intelligence replica of Smith’s voice. At the heart of the disagreement is a clash over ownership: the label contends the release drew on Smith’s rights and on the efforts of the songwriters who work alongside her, whereas the people behind the song insist they manipulated their own vocal recordings with AI rather than borrowing hers.
“I Run” first caught fire on TikTok back in October, propelled by warm, soulful vocals from a singer who wasn’t credited, and it looked headed for chart success on both sides of the Atlantic until streaming platforms pulled it in response to takedown notices from music-industry organizations. Those notices claimed the song broke copyright rules by mimicking another performer. A new edition of the track, featuring different vocals, has since replaced the original, though FAMM maintains that swap does nothing to address its underlying complaints about how the song came together.
Haven’s Team Says AI Was Applied To Their Own Voices
Those responsible for the song have not denied using artificial intelligence during its creation. Harrison Walker, who produces and writes for the project, stated that the vocals originally came from him but were extensively reworked using Suno, an AI music platform sometimes nicknamed the ChatGPT of the music world. Jacob Donaghue, who performs as Waypoint, echoed this online, confirming that AI tools were applied to shift the original vocal into a female register.
Both Walker and Donaghue insist the writing and production were entirely their own work, going as far as sharing screen recordings of their original project files with Billboard to back up the claim. Walker said there was never any attempt to hide the fact that AI-driven vocal manipulation was used to alter only his voice for “I Run,” framing the Haven project overall as human-crafted music built with modern tools. According to Haven, the software was simply directed to draw on soulful vocal textures during the song’s creation.
FAMM Positions The Dispute As A Wider Reckoning For AI In Music
According to FAMM, the stakes go well beyond Smith or this one song. Posting on Instagram, the label stated its belief that both editions of “I Run” infringe on Smith’s rights and improperly exploit the labor of the songwriters who collaborate with her, adding that it refuses to let this kind of practice become standard. Smith reposted the label’s statement to her own Instagram account.
The label further framed the episode as symptomatic of a broader upheaval within the music industry, warning that artificial intelligence is advancing at a troubling pace, outrunning the rules meant to govern it. FAMM called for clear labeling of AI-generated content so audiences can make informed choices about what they engage with, and argued that artists and other creative workers are being caught in the crossfire as governments and companies race to dominate the AI space.
Any Recovered Royalties Would Flow To Smith’s Co-Writers
Should FAMM manage to prove that artificial intelligence played a role in composing the lyrics or melody of “I Run,” the label has pledged to distribute any resulting royalties among the songwriters who work with Smith. Because any AI-derived material would likely trace back to Smith’s own body of work, the label said it would split whatever share it wins on a pro-rata basis among each of her collaborating writers.
Smith herself is a Brit Award recipient recognized for tracks like “Be Honest” and “Little Things,” and she took home the best British female honor at the 2019 Brit Awards. FAMM has emphasized that the conflict isn’t limited to Smith’s voice alone but also touches on the rights of the broader circle of writers and collaborators tied to her recordings.
An Altered Version Of The Song Is Still Climbing The Charts
Both the UK’s Official Charts Company and Billboard in the US pulled the original recording from their rankings, yet the reworked version managed to crack the UK Top 40 within the past week. FAMM says it is not backing down from seeking compensation and continues to argue that neither version of the song should be considered free of infringement.
For editorial consideration and industry coverage inquiries, contact [email protected]
