End of the day.. if it sounds exactly like the original vocal then it should be illegal. Same way as a piano or guitar riff that sounds similar to other songs. The vocal is an instrument in my opinion and should be treated the same. This solves any issues.
ai can be a valid tool but its genuinely depressing how as it gets stronger people find ways like this (or derivative ai music generation trained on stolen material) to abuse it and cheat other artists. great video mate
But before AI you could still pay a replay company to resing the part. For recording samples you can play the resing company to recreate the section of the song. AI makes the resing part more affordable so this could be really bad for replay companies.
There a two copyrights in music, one on the recording and one on the composition itself. For a cover, you still need clearance to use the composition (lyrics) even if it's a different vocalist or AI.
You do need a mechanical license to release a cover song, but you don't need "clearance" as the original composer doesn't have to grant permission. As long as you obtain the appropriate license you can release the cover and the associate publishing revenue will be attributed to the original composer (or whoever controls the publishing).
I'm a noob on the copyright thing, but I think there might be 3 different things here: recording, cover, songwriting? like songwriters permission is for the lyric, in james case, the short phrase, a cover needs to match the composition very closely, but then you can use the same name of the song?
@@FatalFriction yeah, you're totally correct on the fact that James Hype isn't a cover of Jodeci. But there is a loophole, you can cover any song, even a song which samples another song. So James Hype track may very well be a cover of Sharam - Get Wild which was released in 2008 and sampled the same phrase from Jodeci. 🤓
Something I never see mentioned in these discussions is that the AI "cover" can't be generated without the input of the original acapella. There is no legal precedence set, but this feels a bit more reliant on the source material and therefore almost somewhere in between a cover and a sample.
yeah a year off, maybe 2. indistinguishable.. yeh bro thats a good idea having a sort of system where you can trace the lineage of the DNA of the tracks. unofficial remixes. maybe weather the og artist is in agreement or repudiates the mix (in the event they do) lol, shrug and setting up a sort of percentages system could be. solid also. as you say its doing nothing the way it is.
Back in the 80s: omfg MIDI is going to replace live performance the music industry is over folks. That’s what this all feels like. AI won’t be that big a deal like people are saying.
Honestly I don't see the problem with this? Why the fuck would you be mad about a sound that has been breathed out a specific way? It still takes skill to make it sound nice in a song even with all the AI.
End of the day.. if it sounds exactly like the original vocal then it should be illegal. Same way as a piano or guitar riff that sounds similar to other songs. The vocal is an instrument in my opinion and should be treated the same. This solves any issues.
The problem is largely that copyright is a load of outdated bs..
and people will know it very soon
ai can be a valid tool but its genuinely depressing how as it gets stronger people find ways like this (or derivative ai music generation trained on stolen material) to abuse it and cheat other artists. great video mate
But before AI you could still pay a replay company to resing the part. For recording samples you can play the resing company to recreate the section of the song. AI makes the resing part more affordable so this could be really bad for replay companies.
There a two copyrights in music, one on the recording and one on the composition itself. For a cover, you still need clearance to use the composition (lyrics) even if it's a different vocalist or AI.
This is true, but a lot easier to obtain with a mechanical license opposed to getting permission directly from the songwriter
You do need a mechanical license to release a cover song, but you don't need "clearance" as the original composer doesn't have to grant permission. As long as you obtain the appropriate license you can release the cover and the associate publishing revenue will be attributed to the original composer (or whoever controls the publishing).
I'm a noob on the copyright thing, but I think there might be 3 different things here: recording, cover, songwriting? like songwriters permission is for the lyric, in james case, the short phrase, a cover needs to match the composition very closely, but then you can use the same name of the song?
@@FatalFriction yeah, you're totally correct on the fact that James Hype isn't a cover of Jodeci. But there is a loophole, you can cover any song, even a song which samples another song. So James Hype track may very well be a cover of Sharam - Get Wild which was released in 2008 and sampled the same phrase from Jodeci. 🤓
You aren't wrong and a great solution you've come up with. I can see copyright laws being changed and adapted to the changes in the industry.
Something I never see mentioned in these discussions is that the AI "cover" can't be generated without the input of the original acapella. There is no legal precedence set, but this feels a bit more reliant on the source material and therefore almost somewhere in between a cover and a sample.
The cat is indeed out of the bag
Update: you are chatting absolute shit
All this video makes me realise is james hype is a complete clown
yeah a year off, maybe 2. indistinguishable..
yeh bro thats a good idea having a sort of system where you can trace the lineage of the DNA of the tracks. unofficial remixes. maybe weather the og artist is in agreement or repudiates the mix (in the event they do) lol, shrug
and setting up a sort of percentages system could be. solid also. as you say its doing nothing the way it is.
How about producers create new content using Ai that does not rip off other artists? Just a thought.
how? ai needs data to work.
a technology that can do that has not yet been created
Copy writes will have to change
Back in the 80s: omfg MIDI is going to replace live performance the music industry is over folks.
That’s what this all feels like. AI won’t be that big a deal like people are saying.
This makes me happy I was raised by a man.
I can play and write music.
so how about using the original already, how can the law prove you use ai or not at this rate ?
Honestly I don't see the problem with this? Why the fuck would you be mad about a sound that has been breathed out a specific way? It still takes skill to make it sound nice in a song even with all the AI.
I don't see an issue. I think this is just a symptom of major labels just wanting to have an oligopoly on the music industry.
I guess singers best learn a few instruments. Diversify your services you offer. Until AI hogs them all up.