The war between emerging technologies and creative rights has taken a turn as Jorja Smith’s label, FAMM, publicly challenged the viral success of I Run, a dance-pop track released by the British act Haven. The song took off on TikTok and streaming platforms, rising into the top tiers of Spotify’s US and global charts. But its momentum stalled after accusations that the vocals were actually an AI voice cloning imitation of Smith.
According to FAMM, when early snippets of the track began circulating, they immediately assumed they were hearing an unreleased Jorja Smith song. Several of Haven’s own social media posts were tagged with Smith’s name, and a doctored clip even appeared to show Offset playing the track during a Boiler Room set. The confusion, FAMM argues, was not an accident but a marketing strategy built on ambiguity. The label claims Haven’s team implied Smith’s involvement while the speculation helped push the track into virality.
Harrison Walker, the artist behind the Haven project, acknowledges using Suno, a generative music platform, but insists the vocals were his own, stylized through AI. He has denied intentionally copying Smith’s tone, though FAMM says its engineers detect unmistakable markings of training on Smith’s catalogue. This, as the label argues, is grounds for compensation as well as for takedown.
Streaming platforms appear to the side, at least initially, with caution. After takedown notices from FAMM, as well as industry bodies including the RIAA and IFPI, I Run was removed from major services. Spotify stated that it had identified impersonation, pulled the track, and withheld royalty payouts. Billboard, which oversees the Hot 100, confirmed it can exclude songs involved in music copyright disputes.
In an attempt to salvage the momentum behind the song, Haven re-released I Run with new vocals by singer Kaitlin Aragon. Although the updated version moved up the UK charts at NO. 37, FAMM maintains that the foundation of the track still relies on the models trained with Smith’s work. The label also alleges the song remained online longer than expected because it was distributed through four different companies, complicating standard takedown procedures and allowing it to continue spreading across social platforms.
One of the most striking claims in FAMM’s statement involves a request from Haven’s team for Smith to feature on a remix. The label describes this as an attempt to “legitimize” the track once the public assumed Smith was already involved. FAMM says it declined the offer, refusing what it called a “back-room deal,” and instead chose to challenge what it sees as a misuse of Smith’s identity.
This dispute takes place during a turbulent time in the music industry, where major labels such as Universal, Sony, and Warner have spent the past year filing lawsuits and negotiating licensing deals with AI companies. Warner recently finalized a partnership with Suno, arguing that such agreements can create new revenue for artists. However, Smith’s situation seems a prime example of the gap between high-level industry deals and the lived experiences of working musicians watching their likeness or sound replicated without consent.
In recent months, several AI-generated songs have topped Spotify’s viral charts, sometimes without anyone even realizing that there was no human artist behind them. With generated vocals becoming more realistic and accessible by the day, the risk of both accidental and intentional impersonation has become a concern for artists, labels, and regulators.
FAMM emphasizes the urgent need for clearer guardrails. The label is calling for any track created with AI tools to be clearly labelled as such so that listeners can make informed choices. It also argues that artists whose catalogues train these systems should receive credit and compensation, especially in cases where their signature sounds contribute to a hit song, even indirectly.
A young singer who performs under the name Haven has reported being targeted by those mistaking her for the AI-associated act.
Ultimately, FAMM states that the issue goes beyond one artist or one viral hit.
