Entertainment Attorney Warns Against AI Music Legal Hazards
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июн 2024
- Udio's Terms Of Service Video by Top Music Attorney:
• Udio AI Terms Of Servi...
0:00 Intro
4:10 Risks of using AI Music
7:51 What if we can't tell if it's AI?
11:31 Can they sell copyright?
14:29 Fair Use Defense?
26:24 Predictions for Court Rulings
30:13 Feelings About The Future
Free TV/Film Sync Licensing Course:
www.syncmymusic.com/freecourse
Get Professional Feedback On Your Music:
www.profeedback.me
Music Library Directory (300+ Companies):
www.syncmymusic.com/musicdire...
My Music Library Recommendation Service:
www.syncedge.me
Video Tutorials On Creating Licensable Music For TV:
www.syncacademy.me
SMM Podcast:
www.syncmymusic.com/podcast
Sync My Music Main Site:
www.syncmymusic.com 
Видеоклипы
![Megan Thee Stallion - Otaku Hot Girl [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/USxIYOaIpig/mqdefault.jpg)
Subscribe to Top Music Lawyer’s channel here: youtube.com/@TopMusicAttorney?si=2_3RNVXX4zDBUIDo
🫶
Couldn't we just call AI an instrument????
kind of like a synthesizer just because you're pushing the buttons of the synthesizer doesn't make it not human.....
Thank you for continuing to spread important information and helping those in the music business 🙏 You have a great channel and community. Looking forward to the next one!
Thanks so much for coming on for a very insightful chat! I'm sure we'll have plenty to talk about for the many months and years to come! 🙏
I was just about to mention this channel for Jesse, but I see it was destiny!
Great stuff! Top Music Attorney brought me here 🙌
The collab we’ve been waiting for
Great Convo!! This is such an important issue. 💪
Thank you for the info! 💪
You can break music down to math elements and you can't copywrite math.
You can copyright music, just cant copyright AI.
Amazing video, really appreciate how informative it is! Love the Get it Done TShirt too! 🔥 🎸
Great video thank for info and video
Love love love Top Music Attorney. She makes everything make SENSE. Love that she is hopping onto other podcasts and speaking the truth about all of this!
Thanks Jesse, great to see you knocking out the lawyer with the fourth criteria of fair use 😁That's what will happen in the lawsuits.
I also add that the fourth factor of fair use involves also considering the effect of the theft on the potential market. So, for example, any label, big or small, can argue that they have the exclusive right to use their catalogue to train their own AI. And this argument is fatal, there is no way to get around it. Indeed, copyright was created to enable copyright holders to have control of all economic exploitations of the copyrighted work, while these tech guys are making money out of it without permission. And by the way they're not artists, so also the whole argument "artists also do that" is wrong. We are not in the business of selling software, and the analogy CEO of Udio = Artist makes no sense at all.
Really interesting point! We'll see how that plays out in the courts!
I really like this post. Im so tired of the arrogance of ones who try to use the whole comparison when it is totally out of context. EVEN SO, just because you can size it up in the gray area of legality doesn't mean its ethical. These laws werent preset for AI technology or its use or even its practice! Now we have debates that you cant sing Happy Birthday unless you own it? Isnt that the same thing as what you are saying Udio is doing? smh Where has human intellect disappeared to?
nice video ,i generated & posted a AI music call jessica - Flight and for youtube the first 10sec is (A Flock Of Seagulls - Space Age Love Song ) 1982 ,maybe a mistake, or a pure coincidence ,or prove the AI learning from copyright stuff, idk i leave that here
Great advice
Great conversation. Would be interesting to hear views on bills that mandate the release of AI training data?
Wow! A great contribution to the discussion! I think things are and will become much more complicated: What if, for example, I "put together" a song with my own lyrics from Udio and Suno elements, then use Audacity AI to separate the vocal, bass and drum tracks and partially re-record them myself by adding lots of audio effects? What if just one vocal line or solo, in a self made song, is based on AI...?
Happy colored Greetinx
I've done exactly that numerous times. In my case I have used original lyrics and remixed or recreated the tracks in Ableton, added others, made modifications, then changed the singers vocals. In my view, that's my song. But to use the 'microeconomic' view of this, the only possible negative impact of this process would be if someone stole that exact song, then what would my status be? Well, in the real world I live in, I don't have the werewithal to sue anyone over a potential copyright issue. So it's a moot point.
Great interview. You should look into Will.i.am opinion on udio and the ai music technology. He's 10 years ahead of us, and has a great vision of what's to come...
I wonder if the best hope for human creators is not to be found in trying to apply existing law to the unforeseen and unprecedented challenge of generative AI, but in creating new law with the explicit purpose of preserving the market value of human creativity, new law that purposely and explicitly treats AI generated content differently than it treats human created content, and does so to level the playing field between humans and robots.
What I propose is something like a tariff on AI generated content, in the same way and for the same reason that nations impose tariffs on the goods of other nations: To preserve a domestic industry that would otherwise be swamped by foreign competition. Let's make it so the tech companies can't flood the market with inexpensive music, illustrations, prose, videos, legal briefs, etc.
Musicians can and should band together with everyone whose livelihood is or will be threatened by AI-and that probably includes pretty much all of humanity- to press for legisative protection.
Good!
What is the situation if you live outside the US? What should we do?
I don't really think there is any legal force capable to put this back into the bottle. 😅
I feel this. Its not as small as Udio and music, but AI tech in general. Its here and its not going anywhere.
Great Interview, Miss Krystle rocks !!
The major problem here, fundamentally, is where does ownership of copyright ultimately lie. For example eMastered has listens to millions of tracks to determine the best mastering techniques for songs. Is its capability to learn from this source material a breach of potential copyright. If not, then why it’s it different. It’s learnt from the same source material potentially as services such as Udio, It’s a form of generative AI after all, just in the application of applying the relevant mastering settings based on the type of song. And what about all the AI becoming available directly within a DAW? To what extent does copyright apply if for example it comprises half of the stems that make up a song?
The other thing is, irrespective of whatever US law is in place, unless it’s an international law enforceable across all countries it’s irrelevant, is it not? Put simply the competitive advantage of one or more countries not applying the same rigour than other countries may fundamentally place that country in an significant advantage over others. Which country is ultimately going to put their hand up and say, yeah, we will impose these rulings, despite giving a fundamental benefit to other countries that will ultimately hurt the marketplaces they are trying to protect anyway.
The problem we face with all IP is that the barrier to entry for someone else to come up with potential breaches is rapidly falling. So the market of potential breaches is infinitely larger than it was say 5 years ago. Is an artist going to sue 1000 people separately and clog up the court systems with complicated and not necessarily guaranteed outcomes (as IP disputes are not a black and white scenario)
I feel for anyone that produces content right now, but I also know that many artists will feel compelled to leverage the same AI tools that they are disputing, because the market forces will force them to. All industries are being distrusted, this is only one of many facing a revolution, but I cannot see anything realistically other than acceptance that the nature of things have change and like all, need to evolve and move on
Instead of distrusted it should be *disrupted*
Somtimes when i see an AI album on youtube i comment "Thank you i'm going to use it for myself now, thanks for your time and hard work, i'm gonna reused it, modify it and monetize it, you have no rights over this music". Somehow people who put efforts to make AI music will be exploited like hard workers by people who have the abilities to make a revenue out of their "work". Amusing.
Except you cannot reuse the human written lyrics in the ai song. The lyrics writer can claim copyright on the lyrics that you copy.
Edit: You can however create new song using same ai melody and vocal with different lyrics.
@@Max-zv1bu lol
Thanks for the guardians and the copyright law on Ai jah bless
We've now seen the video mentioned about the Christmas music and the statement is that the music "is" Mariah Carey is not correct. The music sounds a lot like it, but is not the original. Hence its not a simple case of copyright. So if a prompter, using carefully crafted prompts, makes the tool (eg Udio) create a close cover of Mariah Carey, then is the tool at fault or is it the prompter?
Is Garageband responsible for a cover created using it? I think its pretty clearly no, so the whole question is very murky with no clear answer.
I hate to break this to you guys, but UDIO, Sora, eleven labs, etc will win any legal battle about the content they trained their models with. OpenAI (partnered with Microsoft), Google AI, Apple AI, will all be watching how this plays out and assist the smaller Audio AI companies because it protects them as well. they have endless pockets of cash for legal battles.
the darn "Session AI bass player" in Apples new Logic 11 has Paul McCartney's bass as an image to tell you exactly what kind of sound it's modelled after, its no different when it comes to AI training on older music.
and as much as it is unsettling how good this stuff is, there's just no going back.
It was the same with Napster, then Spotify, now Musical AI.
Once the feathers of an opened pillow fly into the wind, you can't stuff them back. Sounds corny, but that's what's happening now with AI, its too far ahead of any legislation.
lol this is the exact kind of comment I’m making videos about next week. Hopefully you watch!
Wouldn't this completely wreck their businesses though. People would just stop using them. Right?
Here's my question. Let's say you use the A.I. to generate a song just for inspiration. You then extensively rewrite the lyrics, make major tweaks to the melody and chord progression, perhaps even change the time signature. Then you get a band together to perform and record it. To what degree do you have to acknowledge the use of A.I., how would you formally credit it, and what are the potential copyright issues? Would your song be considered a derivative work? If so, if no one really "owns' the copyright for the A.I. work, but you of course own rights to the derivative work, is there truly an issue?
All great questions that we don’t have the answers for right now, but if you just write everything yourself you won’t have to worry about these extra concerns.
Everything you do is built upon something someone has done before you. Something that inspired you to transform into something new and original, trying to improve upon it. The only difference here is you're starting with A.I. rather than a human. I don't think avoiding it is the solution, perhaps just the opposite - doubling down on it to force these questions to be answered.
@@NorthernKitty agreed, don’t advocate avoiding it, but we’re not settled yet in terms of AI output and copyright. Until that’s settled, proceed with caution.
"We can tell..." Really? Have you done a double-blind test?
A few things in this that is inaccurate based on law. The copyright office is still fighting with itself on what can or can not be copywritten for art. Music and those pieces pertaining to music is still a toss up because the current laws and discussion is ONLY relative to visual art. The discussions on music have only begun by default because it's also a part of the conversation but we have to first prove use cases, authorship and ownership. I don't think that the laws will stand going forward with AI because they are outdated and do not factor in tools. If I am using Protools or Garage Band to assist in production, I don't have to legally list that I used this TOOL to create this song. I think AI music creation is heading there and these world governments will begin to recognize it as not a stand alone options but a tool.
Tools can't operate without human interaction.
You can tell a gun to shoot all day but without the trigger being pulled, it's just a tool.
The human interaction in the case of AI is the prompt entry. Yeah it may seem a bit cheesy and cheapening the art, but the same was said of the before mentioned Pro Tools, and Fruity Loops and Logic and a ton of other apps/programs that electronically reproduced sounds that were played by actual instruments.
Once the law recognizes the human interaction, then we can begin having legitimate discussions about what to do with this stuff. For now, it's just speculative.
Where are we going thought?
Eventually we will have a separation.
Eventually the DSPs will accept AI music and/or begin segregating it in it's own space.
Eventually the Grammy's and the RIAA will accept where we are and where we are going and designate new categories for AI assisted music.
It's not something we can ignore anymore. Nor is it something we should be fearful of and start acting as if the Terminators are around the corner. It's a tool. Use it or not; your options but for those that are using it, does it make them less of a creator for doing so? maybe, they had help but the guy that makes a beat on Fruity Loops is still a beatmaker the same as the dude who plays the drums at Church on Sunday.
Are we faulting Warner Nashville for using AI to bring back Randy Travis's voice?
She implied that somewhere someone would fight for this technology to be legitimized I give you exhibit A, lol.
Are we saying that the estates of Prince, Michael Jackson, Amy Winehouse, Liberace, Luther Vandross, Whitney Houston and Ella Fitzgerald are not allowed to train AI on their voices to then bring new material to the fans of these people?
Are we saying that artist who have lost their peak voice like David Lee Roth, Meatloaf, Vince Neil. Ozzy Ozborne, Mick Jagger, Julie Andrews, Phil Collins, Bill Withers and others are not allowed to use the current technological advances that are at their disposal to bring their voices back in order for them to continue to make music?
I am not accepting these implications.
Meat Loaf is not even alive anymore, but good point.
@@gaborkiss1425 FYI Neither is Bill Withers. AI in music has been around since 2015. It's just now in the news. I mentioned those people because since it's been in music they could have use the technology to continue to sing. Meatloaf just died in '22, Withers in '20. The tech wasnt perfected then but they definitely could have experimented with it.
❤❤❤
Oh, I see, music labels have gotten pissed off because of this new technology.
This did not happen with AI image and video generators, but music labels are special.
Is there not a musicians' union in the USA, big opportunity there.
'they reserve the right to use everything you create, for whatever they want - same goes for your original lyrics'... 'And of course we also have to credit Udio' = trouble ahead.
Just a thought. If you take a song you wrote and place it in AI to complete the song there is so much someone has to do to get the results they are looking for and not very often does the Ai nail it. If you write amazing lyrics, and then pay someone you do not know to create the music for them vs. paying an Ai app to do it, what is the difference? The Ai program is written by humans, which means less than half belongs to Ai, and the rest belongs to humans. You would be hard-pressed to say that a person should not be able to copyright such material. Especially if you take it a step further and have the song converted to sheet music. The change is coming whether or not people want it. Just a thought.
This two guys are really in denial mode ,obviously angry because their perception is that their job is about to be taken by AI ,but you simply cannot stop evolution, trying to make it illegal is just silly ,evolution runs a course that is completely independent and free from human laws it will happen regardless you think is fair or not ,if dinosaurs could have made a law against asteroid impacts it would have happened regardless ,because when it comes to evolution you either adapt or die ,complaining at it simply will not make the slightest difference
I see ai as an assistant I'm a writer Ai can write books I don't think ai is out to replace creatives it is can help creatives
What if I subscribe to Suno to make a song that I then own. Then I use my studio production facilities to remake this AI generated song, but using humans? Taking that further, what about making ‘rip and twists’ -(derivatives) using humans?
The starting assumption that you "own" an AI generated song is likely not going to hold up in courts.
@@SyncMyMusic Then is it the case that no one owns it because it's AI. So Therefore, if I remake it in my studio using humans and am the first to register it, isn't in my copyright?
@@sysdevman hire a lawyer and ask them!
@@SyncMyMusic OK, so there's no point to this channel.
@@sysdevman Correct, this is not the "free online legal advice show".
Udio now has subscription
Yeah ppl paying to train the AI lol and in return get screwed over with copyrighted creations lol
2 legends
🙌
Also, In relation to how the DSPs and Labels operate.
What's more economically sound, to spend millions of dollars trying to break an artist, dealing with real life liabilities and scenarios of artist saying what they do and don't want
OR
a label or a distributor using this tech to 100% create a virtual artist. And before anyone starts with your BS, this has been done for the last 4 years, especially in China and Japan. Now add in the option of an AI assisted songwriter, AI production and when Sora goes live you can even have AI motion, videos, and even social media post.
How is this a bad thing?
Well it's only bad when the industry can't control it and currently the big 3 have been buying, bidding on or partnering with various AI companies but on the flip side, what you have been seeing in the news is that "AI is bad, this has to stop". I don't believe or follow that narrative.
It's only bad until you have controlling rights, then it because acceptable.
AI is where Napster used to be. It's controlled by the masses. We get to play with it as is and do what we want.
What I would suggest is, the labels should stop fighting and embrace it. Embrace it to the point that they buy into sites like Udio and give the fans full access to creating what they want to create. Now instead of trying to figure out where and if the datasets came from X, you know 100% that it came from here and now you can't receive additional royalties from that.
I've been experimenting with the Udio stuff since it was in Beta, i recently played with a few songs.
My approach was from a songwriters POV. What would X sound like if it were done in X genre. Purely from an experimental viewpoint. But after playing with the tech, I realized that I could create endless legal "Covers" of any song that has ever been released. And based on whatever distributor I have, I could do this without even have to get consent. I could just release it knowing that the authors and originators of the music would get their fair share. But as a label who owns those masters and copyrights, it just opened up a new revenue stream that didnt exist. Not to mention, it's fun. What if Udio had a Prince day? This day everyone copied and pasted lyrics from their favorite Prince song and allowed the software to create. Currently the site doesnt have direct distribution like Boomy used to but what if it did? Now the Prince estate, Primary Wave and whomever has stake in ownership just gained 100s and possibly 1000s of new revenue streams. And if you are a Prince fan, you will browse these other creations just to see what the site came up with... leading to more revenue lol.
I'm not going to be all doom and gloom on something that could/can/will be beneficial for others without hurting or harming the integrity of the industry. And I say that loosely because the industry doesnt have much...
I have created some great tracks using ai and I always start with my own lyrics. That way, I definitely have at least 50% legal ownership of the song. Even if they seized the other 50%, I would still be getting the same 50% rights to the song I , as a lyricist, would get from any other form of song creation. And I would like all the purists out there to explain to me what is the difference between ai training on established musical tracks and the very common practice of humans using a "reference track" when creating their own mixes, which essentially is stealing as much of the production work done by another human for one's own purposes? Another thing is it seems many people discuss making songs using ai without really knowing much about the process. I don't just paste my lyrics onto the lyrics box and tell the ai "hit song please" and out pops a perfectly ready to go song. My Create section is full of page after page of attempted generations of acceptable song stems. It's just as much work in trial and error as when I write my own songs in full, lyrics and music / melody. Each final "good" song has taken me hours of listening to possible starts, possible next stems, and hopefully an acceptable outro and end. I would argue that what mostly guides ai in making the songs is the lyrics I force it to follow. If I start with oh oh oh, the ai is going to have to make music with three notes, it can't wander all over, it has to follow my words. Don't you think every time Bernie Taupin handed Elton John a page with lyrics on it, those lyrics guided Elton in some ways he has to work with the demands of the lyrics in composing his many wonderful tunes? I think the basic problem IMO is lyrics and lyricists just don't get as much credit as they deserve. Words guide the meaning, feel, flow, and direction of a song. If I write the lyrics and make ai create a song following that blueprint, I have had a very significant input into the song output, and no other lyrics would produce that same song, so I legally created it with much work and attention to many details. Just like when I write a full song.
Using reference tracks is not stealing. You can't steal the production work of another human by using a reference track - you can use it as a guide to make your song sonically similar, but you still have to record your whole song yourself. And you can't steal the brand the original author built either. If you don't have the skills for it, the recording equipment, and etc. you won't succeed.
Think about AI music this way: I paid thousands of dollars to set up a studio, the equipment, the software, and etc. I spent years creating a library of my own music through trial and error and I own that music in its entirety. Then an AI company comes along and trains off of my music without my consent, and someone like you uses it to create "music" without paying for it, without any of the initial effort or cost put into making a unique genre of music. In such a case you would be indirectly stealing from me. And if you pitched such music to music libraries and got it placed in movies and what not, I would sue you for all of the money you made, without remorse. My music and the work I put into it is a piece of my soul that does not belong to a pre-pubescent thief pressing a few buttons on their phone and listening to it for hours to see what configuration they like. At best you'd just be remixing my music. Officially releasing and profiting from remixes requires consent and in this case I would not give it.
Now, if anyone actually consents to allowing their music to be trained on, that's on them. But at best, you'd still only be producing a remix. And if for whatever reason you made it big and people want to see you perform, you will not only fail to deliver on that - your entire music "career" would crumble to dust and everyone would see that you lack actual skills. If it's a music library or production team asking you for stems, midi, transcription, and etc. to get one of your songs produced live, you're toast.
@@Baumarius I too have made my own recordings of my own wholly written songs. You think I am some kid with a new udio account making "songs" about dinosaurs with cheerios flying out their butt, that's not me. Thats a 14 year old in with his first strat guitar in the garage banging out a few power chords thinking he's a new Jimi Hendrix. My theory is your songwriting talent will show itself as it is whether you do it all yourself or use ai as the tool it is. You sound like a long-winded music industry wannabe lawyer.
What you are doing is not illegal as of now. there is lot of fear mongering to suppress AI music. As u said u can still claim copyright on the human written lyrics.if no copyright on ai, then Others can only copy the melody, music and vocal. Not that bad for you.
@@Max-zv1bu Amazing why a person is supposed to worry about others copying my ai song when it's a helluva task just to get some listeners.
you can put that " genius" in a poetry book .
music is 90% about melody , orchestration, sounds not lyricists
What about people using ai to generate or “write” songs for them, then the “artist” essentially COVERING the AI created song, and claiming it as an original work?
Is that the magic loophole atm?
It’s all just getting out of hand. I’ve said it for years… robots will be the death of us!! 😢
Some parts are kinda odd in suno you can build the beat then you write a song and upload it ok so there we have original beat making and original song writing so then your saying what now are you speaking of a situation where you just use automatic lyric because when you a build a beat how is that different from building in suno its a digital beat now in terms the voice if you end up splice the stem and have the vocal my gurl there are other agents to graph the voice so then that is an original piece from the producer just like if i go in the bush to record a bush tribe they not coming to talk to no lawyer ...
Q: Will the GATEKEEPERS (producers, publishers, proprietors) give up music to machines--or fight for human art?
Q: did they ever care about the art?
A:it’s possible but the death of physical media was the final nail in the coffin.
another area of concern is creating loops and samples that producers might unknowingly use (from splice) when they are against using ai (which they are in there right to feel).
Soon we will be able to prompt in very accurate ways, for example “16 bars of deep tuned ludvig drums recorded to tape in a dead studio” and then 16 bars of vintage p bass, distorted, picked, staccato”. we producers will be able to prompt and parts we could ever dream of and i think we’ll start pushing forward the level (hopefully surpassing basic general prompts). it’s exciting and scary.
I really do think the narrative should be not pushing producers away from ai music but getting them involved so it shapes a more skilled set of workflows
@@ArmaGeddon-iu1vv I think that the broader world of ai and more specifically artificial general intelligence (agi) will be the big thing that hits humanity.
A more positive outlook might be that the opinion the population will be anti ai to the extent that (in the same way as the resurgence of vinyl) people will start to favour obviously human made music. This is probably a little overly hopeful though maybe 😅
I HAVE an Ai music channel 4k subscribers 140 or videos . I am personally torn about the 2k to 3k I will spend and time it will take me to get this channel to 50k subs ...
I'm wondering if it's just going to be a loss in the end. I'm trying to write some of my own music but have to Dish out non vocals to keep the production cost down.
When it comes to ai songs with my own writing or without I have to actively refresh tons of songs to get the right feel for the lyrics. So, all I can hope for is a win for this industry ...
If you wait until things are sorted out, by that time, there will be Millions of AI music creators like you, think India China. This is the time to get head start and get followers. That's how it is with new technology.
@Max-zv1bu
Really appreciate your time and insight... I was thinking the same thing ....Either I'm ahead of the trend and fail to copyright law or move ahead and win some marlet share if the law favors us in some way or another.
after this video was published Suno and Udio released the function that extend a song that has been created previously so now what... is that still not "true original music"? well I guess nothing is original and copyright eligible if the tiniest part of it has created with the help of AI according to this 2 , In reality this conversation has been largely overwritten, making it a futile exercise of denial ... there is simply no way to stop AI in music , you can't stop EVOLUCION
Correct, we were trying to stop 'evolucion'. Damnit, I guess we lost.
Regarding fair use etc. What do you say to the following notion?
There's a significant difference between human learning and machine learning because, a computer isn't able to authentically understand art or music the way that humans do, since the computer has no emotions or feelings, and it therefore cannot make its own judgement on whether or not something is beautiful. The only way that a computer is able to make something beautiful, is by looking at many things which humans have claimed to be beautiful, and then identifying a common pattern among their mathematical structures, and then making another variation that fits within that pattern. However, when a human makes beautiful art, even if their intent is to make something similar to someone else's art, using their own judgement about whether or not, what they're making is beautiful, plays a crucial role in their creativity. Thus, the human has a much more significant role in the authorship of the art (than the computer does). Thus, humans learning from humans, is not an equivalent to computers learning from humans.
Yes and this is why the copyright office has ruled that art generated purely by AI cannot be copyrighted. A work must have human authorship for legal protection 👍
@@SyncMyMusic Does it mean that it cannot be sold, either?
Like, if someone sees an AI-generated image they like, can they just put on a t-shirt and sell it?
@@gaborkiss1425 It can be sold, but anyone can copy and sell it as well without copyright protection.
@@SyncMyMusic What I meant was to apply this to the argument of "fair use", and the comparison of humans making something similar, to someone else's art vs. a computer doing it. As far as machines not being entitled to copyright protection, my understanding is that that's simply because of the mere fact that the computer is not human, (or living,) not because of the specific way in which the computer learns the information, or how they decide what's beautiful. What I was saying before is that when a computer copies human art, they're not exactly doing the same thing as humans are doing, and perhaps that can make a difference regarding the "fair use" argument.
@@SyncMyMusic I didn't understand what she was saying, that even though there's no copyright for AI generated music that Sunno and Udio, can still make conditions about what you're allowed to use the generated product for, since it was made with their software. she seemed to be saying that they can make rules about what you do with it even after it's off of their website. To me that would seem to imply that they have some kind of intellectual ownership over it, but I'm not sure what that would be if it's not a copyright. I don't think it would be a patten. (Would it be a trademark?)
An artist in fear of AI, is not a good artist... thats my opinion.
Folks this is not about the Copyright office per say. This is about the COURT OF LAW. You can always LIE but in the courts the truth comes out. Also NOT having the copyright means that if your AI song blows up, someone else can copy it and upload it with the exact same name without any LEGAL RECOURSE. UNTIL there is LEGAL PRESEDENCE, stay away from AI. Its not sorted out yet.
But if the lyrics are written by you that can't be done
@@VYings Just because your wrote it if AI made the song meaning sang it and put it together with the beat it’s not yours it’s AIs and up for anyone.
@@VYings
Shakespeare wake up
Since when lyrics are music High jackers ?
@@axton9080 That is not true. Many apps such as suno specifically say even if you use the free version, you still own your lyrics. So, if you copy protect your lyrics and put it in Ai, it is still your lyrics. Even if not copy-protected the original author of lyrics inherently owns the lyrics, but without copy-protection they obviously are not as safe especially in federal court. The music on the other hand, apparently not protected but I believe that will soon change. Just a thought
Well, this actually might not be true, if you make heavy edits in it.
Because, for AI generated images, as soon as you make substantial editing in the original generation, you can claim copyright...right?
The copyright office can simply require artists to supply the DAW files, MIDI files, audio files, etc. in order to prove that the artist actually made the music themselves. If they used AI, they won't be able to provide those files.
It's easy to genrated AI music, turn it into midi and drag it into a DAW and change the instruments, little mixing/changes and VOILA. Lol.
@@Vivaildi That's not the same. You'd be able to tell the difference. I don't about you, but most professionals have very detailed DAW files, filled with extra tracks that may have been used as scratch pads, text notes on tracks to provide extra information about the data contained in each track, etc. They also have specific plug-in chains, track routing, etc. Sure, if the music you produce is simple trash, then yes... creating the associated files may be easy, but then that music wouldn't be worth copyrighting anyway.
@@ScottGarrigus The Copyright Office will NEVER require that. You are either lying or telling the truth. That's the point to go on RECORD what you registered. The COURT OF LAW is where this will ALL be sorted out. The DAW files etc... will be a part of the discovery during a LAWSUIT.
@@ericgriffin120 Maybe... maybe not. It would certainty be much simpler for everyone if they just required the files. They already require a copy of the final product being copyrighted, so why not the files? That would solve the problem. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
@@ScottGarrigusthat would still be easy to fake
None of this will matter when major studios start using AI full-scale. For example, let's say Universal buys enterprise licence for the upcoming ElevenLabs music generator. Now they have the music done. Then they invite people for auditions to find most interesting voice. They record it, clone it to ElevenLabs and use it and pay some sub-licence to the singer. Then song is sent to all radios and streaming services.
Machines are replacing humans since the beginning, in the 20´s labor been replaced with mechanical tools, and so on, so it is only time. It will catch us all!
Replacing us or bumping us all up various notches in our focus of work? Most Americans used to be farmers and now it’s less than 5%. 95% of humans didn’t disappear - just moved onto other work.
Does Greta van Fleet have the "look and feel" of Led Zeppelin?
Despite copyright issues I could see large companies like Disney making deals with labels over the heads of artists to use the generative models so that no humans will ever do another cheesy Disney theme music again, which as an old punker rocker seems it could make human music much better if a lot less lucrative. While there is a Musicians Union it is so very toothless compared to SAG/AFTRA so I imagine the composers get eliminated first.
so Udio doesn't have anything ?
What do you mean?
@@SyncMyMusic so Udio doesn't have anything from the song because it's generated from Ai, same like their users ?
Udio’s large language model (and many others) are trained on music and they almost certainly dont have a license to do this. Its a new technological era where the laws are incomplete in this domain. its like ai is a train and the tracks are being thrown out in front of it as its speeding forward.
In a way the only way this will get sorted is when all the lawsuits start popping up.
@@happyshadow seems like i need to shutdown my Udio
Did she read the suno rights information?
Isn't the difference in which you're using for fair? Use not relateable to AI because AI wouldn't use it for training purposes. Because it intends to sell that product and tends to use that. As far as a goods like a commercial fair, use would be more reliable if it was making fun of or actually using to say, this is how that song was made as an educational type of situation. But it's not it's gonna be used in a commercial.
Is it possible that it could be written into legislation that all music generated by AI, has to be made public and available for others to use on that particular AI site? As well as anybody using an AI generated song for commercial purposes has to in some way state that the piece of music is generated by AI. I feel that would discourage a lot of individuals and companies from using AI. It would make it easier for individuals who’ve tried to pull the wool over a libraries eyes to be found out. Music supervisors would want to steer clear of AI music as it won’t be exclusive and maybe because of storage, AI companies would need to put a limit of Artificially generated music.
I’m not actually sure if what I just said makes any sense, but I thought I’d put that out there.
Some people use AI to create there original music as source material. This technology isn’t going anywhere.
On that same token, a person is a clown for using AI as solely as it’s music
Some people with no musician background might profit big money from prompting AI music, but most people using it might not be able to reach out with music that has nothing behind it except a prompt. It would be cool to create new genres, eg AI Pop, AI Rock, AI Soul etc. And AI prompted music should not be released through the now existing genres, without consequences.
You're worried about Udio, yet right now, Spotify is using AI to create thousands of AI songs and filling playlists with music created by faceless AI artists in order to drive royalties to the corp and away from the artists. Thousands now - millions to come. That should be your issue, not independant artists playing with a song generator. I would go there if I were you.
The sync industry will get killed off, companies could care less, they want speed, price and convenience.
She's pretty isn't she?
This woman is a plant. You can tell at 21:35 when she hem-haws about the central issue which makes the whole thing illegal from the get go. No artist has consented to letting these AI bots train on their music for commercial purposes. Never mind copyright, that’s a total red herring. This is about basic contract law. You sell your music for specified purposes, which exclude commercial use (except for nightclubs etc which have a separate arrangement). These outfits should be raided and their principals prosecuted.
Keep the respect please. She's a lawyer and has her own POV on these issues.
AI music is worthless.
AI is coming for your job. It will take your job. ACCEPT IT! Push for UBi instead of against the inevitable.