A cloud feature's fine print rarely names a retention date

The audio task

Uploading a session to a cloud-based mastering engine or a DAW's cloud feature means trusting a document, not a person, to state how long that audio is kept and whether it feeds a model. Two vendors' own policies show how differently that question gets answered even when both are asked the same thing.

What the documents show

LANDR's privacy policy, last updated 10 April 2025, states it stores user data as long as it needs it to provide the Services, or as required by applicable law, without a specific retention period, but does name a specific purpose: to improve the performance of its mastering algorithm and music engine based on the music a user uploads. LANDR's terms of service separately describe a distinct, opt-in Fair Trade AI Program under which a contributor who owns full rights to a recording can license it to named third-party AI developers for a revenue share, and state that an inactive free account may be deleted after twenty-four consecutive months. Image-Line's privacy policy, which shows no effective date in its current text, states only the general principle that personal data shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose, without naming a retention period for FL Cloud session data or mentioning AI training anywhere in the document.

Rights status

LANDR's documents distinguish two different uses of uploaded audio: an apparently non-opt-in use to improve its own mastering engine, and a separately gated, opt-in program for licensing recordings to outside AI developers. Image-Line's policy does not address either kind of use, which is a gap in the document rather than evidence that no such use exists. Neither vendor's document states a fixed number of days or months that uploaded session audio itself is retained.

What to check before you use it

This is an editorial method record. Before uploading a session to any cloud feature, search that vendor's current privacy policy for the words retain and artificial intelligence or machine learning specifically, rather than assuming a general data-protection statement covers audio. Where a vendor names an opt-in program, confirm the account setting actually reflects the intended choice, since a program framed as a promotion can default to enabled for some account types.

• Does this vendor's privacy policy name a retention period for audio specifically, or only a general principle?
• Is there a separate, named program for licensing audio to outside AI developers, and is it opt-in or opt-out?
• Would an inactive account's deletion policy affect a session left untouched for an extended period?

A privacy policy that names a specific purpose for uploaded audio, even an unflattering one, gives a producer more to act on than one that states only a general legal principle. Between the two documents compared here, the more detailed policy is the more useful one to have read before uploading, not necessarily the more reassuring.