Lawyer Reacts To AI COPYRIGHT CLAIMED MY LAST VIDEO | Venus Theory

[@TopMusicAttorney]

Do you think AI will make it harder or easier for artists to protect their work? 🟡 Become your Own Record Label: www.topmusicattorney.com/becomeyourownrecordlabel 🟢 Free Split Sheet Template: www.topmusicattorney.com/splitsheet 📄 Music Contracts Templates: www.topmusicattorney.com/music-contracts 📺 Get Your Music Into Tv/Film/Games: www.topmusicattorney.com/sync 💻 #1 Resource For Artists And Producers: www.topmusicattorney.com ⚖ Hire An Attorney: www.delgadoentertainmentlaw.com 📰 Get My Newsletter: www.topmusicattorney.com/newsletter/

[@Vivaildi]

It's already a nightmare, it will get even worst than a nightmare, how could we name something worst than a nightmare ?

[@AMPProf]

Ai last Album.. You gonna Use the brain wave reader to make music

[@AMPProf]

Bet we can Encode a Brainwave bio metric tag

[@GracefulBeast]

Is AI the equivalent of an eight year old sitting with a piano teacher, learning to play using already existing songs? Eventually the AI/Eight year old becomes really good at creating music and can spit out unique? songs.

[@kevincormack4340]

Hey what's up with tunecore publishing? I haven't got paid yet today

[@Stoney3K]

The problem is with ContentID. There is no burden of proof when someone submits something to the Content ID database that the copyright is actually *theirs* and that means there are a lot of false copyright claims being submitted, often through automated processes. Even more so, if a copyright dispute is won by the original uploader, there are no consequences for the person who filed the claim, so that opens up the opportunity to just take a shotgun approach and file blanket claims against anything that could remotely be copyright infringement, or even deliberate abuse by copying other people's work, re-uploading it and submitting it to ContentID as being the "original" while it is not.

[@ascrassin]

The thing is, technically they currently can't ask for proof. From the moment KZbin or any platform for that mater do that, someone could argue that they aren't a neutral party anymore. And if they lose that, then they can be considered liable and sued for any and all copyright claims. And even something as big as KZbin / Alphabet can't do that. Any modification would have to be on the legislative system first. And no amount of parallel platform or parallel system can change that (except if they are illegal and ready to be sued for it).

[@FrancescaBettiMusic]

@@Stoney3K blockchain

[@ThomasSchall]

@@ascrassin yes, but this questions the entire system. I regulary am getting copyright claims over publishing 500 year old music. Some even by accomplished ContentID-Owners. This system is crap - and meant to be so. My impression is: Copyright is used to censor in countries which actually deny censorship would exist.

[@ascrassin]

@@ThomasSchall While some person indeed use it for this. The original objective is still to preserve a return on investment for the creators. And without it, it would basically bog down to who can sell their copy the best, with little guaranty that anything you would research/create will rapport you anything at all. So while the system should definitively be reformed, deleting it isn't a solution. For the old songs the thing is while the piece are in the public domain, not all their rendition are. And each rendition have their copyright, the problem arises when two rendition are close of one another (which is frequent) at which points both parties have to prove that the rendition is really theirs. And because only the legal system can decide that or else the hosting service would lose their neutrality, we are back in the same case figure than in "normal" copyright battle.

[@TheUnknownVideographer]

KZbin stopped enforcing their copyright abuse policy many years ago. They used to nuke channels who did it.

[@JodyBruchon]

*KZbin makes it nearly impossible to file an official DMCA counter-notification.* I've disputed things in the past and almost every time I get a response that "it's unclear to us whether you have a legitimate right to make a claim." Uh, no, KZbin, the law doesn't say that you get to subjectively reject counter-notification.

[@autohmae]

I'm sorry, but KZbin can't legally determine this unless it's really clear. Because with something like music, as mentioned in the video, a legal dispute ultimately needs to be determined by a court case, because what is: sounds to similar ? etc.

[@JodyBruchon]

@autohmae If I file any counter-notification then that's all they need to receive. I've also sent them in outright saying "I hold all rights to the content, no one else can claim rights to the content" and KZbin goes IT IS UNCLEAR WHETHER YOU HAVE THE RIGHTS

[@SirMadsen]

@@JodyBruchon Because literally anyone can say "I hold all rights to the content, no one else can claim rights to the content". Even someone that doesn't hold the rights... As stated, it requires a court since it's a legal issue. KZbin is not a legal institute, it's a content platform. "that's all they need to receive" -No, they need a legal statement if it's unclear! Again, I could take your music, upload it, you dispute it and I counter with ""I hold all rights to the content"... So I should win that dispute? Dude, get a grip.

[@JodyBruchon]

@SirMadsen Yeah, literally anyone can file a DMCA takedown too. What's your point? It's also impossible to prove a negative. The onus is on the accuser to prove the accusation. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This level of rhetoric is beneath me. Come back when you learn the fundamentals of logic.

[@knerduno5942]

There are other sites to use besides this one

[@MaryemNasri]

It should be mandatory for AI generators to watermark the outcome so that it can be identified when uploaded somewhere else.

[@TopMusicAttorney]

i like that idea

[@Kram1032]

From what I've heard of techniques that do this thus far, they are all too brittle, not surviving past what amounts to small digital lab experiments under idealized circumstances: - Altering AI stuff just a tiny bit can make the watermark go away - Human stuff may be claimed to be AI generated when it is not - more persistent methods may degrade performance so much as to render the output worthless (to the users of such a service and therefore to the companies providing these services) It's a great idea and I hope it can work someday, but at least currently I don't think it does.

[@mal2ksc]

@@Kram1032 Basically, if it's invisible, it can also be filtered out invisibly. Right now that's as simple as running it through a simple Photoshop filter.

[@michaelwhitney3305]

Nobody would fully regulate this, and the holes are huge. Somebody could distribute an AI generator that lacks the watermark…. who would enforce it? How would they do the benchmark tests to find AI material that lacks the pre-requisite watermark proposed here? A different method is needed. The AI model is basically a large interpretative model. The filtering system needs to be taught a library of “valid” compositions to not auto-flag. A stretched analogy to the “valid compositions group” would be the TSA Pre-Check line where certain vetting has already taken place.

[@JayKaufman]

While a generally good idea, the problem comes when someone - and there will always be a tech savvy someone (or maybe even AI) - finds a way to strip that watermark and circumvent it for whatever well-meaning or nefarious reason. Ask the music industry and film industry how their experience with DRM has gone. Consumers ultimately said no when they tried to implement it. DRM was a collassal failure. That's why we have streaming services and why there's been a wholesale collapse of both industries' income potential. We are very much in a time where legislation is unable to keep pace with the rate at which we're making technological 'advances'. This is the biggest danger with AI... We're able to train and create entire AI datasets so quickly, that the legislation (and arguably preventive damage regulation) legislation is enacted years later. Unless we figure out some sort of legislation AI to counter AIs advances, then we will be in this constant cat and mouse game of laws being enacted years behind x damaging AI/technology already having been on the market. So yeah, it's a good idea, until it isn't because the nature of people is to want to circumvent things like digital watermarking.

[@bashkillszombies]

What confuses me is how random copyright is now. People can twerk to top hits on TikTok and Instagram, but I've had LITERAL SILENCE copystruck on KZbin. KZbin is draconian with censorship though, even commenting gets false flagged and struck often.

[@flickwtchr]

I'm guessing about 60% of my comments that violate zero TOS disappear from youtube. It's out of control.

[@samthesomniator]

People used some of that words before! 😤🫵

[@SuziQ.]

⁠@@flickwtchr, So it’s not just me? This app has become difficult to use. Tags aren’t working lately, and comments are disappearing. Shorts are glitchy, yet they push shorts.

[@EternalRestGames]

This is one thing that annoys me. TikTok ect using samples of commercial music and making themselves and their users money from it while the artist gets nothing.

[@SuziQ.]

@@EternalRestGames , How does the copyright owner get nothing? By law, they get paid for use, including covers.

[@JohnH108]

These AI music companies should be forced to put an inaudible watermark on everything generated.

[@TheJGAdams]

That would just make it completely useless and is not the issue here. We just need a solution to copyright claims. Because genuine artist have absolute right to keep their own. Really now. You do have right to your creation. AI or not. People who do not care who made it, would not be good customer anyway.

[@TheSingingDoctor325]

I agree, and not just for music. I teach at a medical shool and, at least for now, it's obvious when applicants use AI to write their personal statements. But, that will change and we need a way to know who the real author is.

[@LudovicCarceles]

I thought about it, but there are also AI models out there already, people don't need to use those AI platforms where the watermark would be and use a model locally. I think KZbin has to do their work, they build AI capable to recognize when something was generated by another AI.

[@TheJGAdams]

​@@LudovicCarceles That would have problem of its own too. AI always have a chance of making a mistake, so you can't really call it an absolute evidence whether something is AI generated or not. Because you'll never know if someone actually write like an AI! This really isn't how we should solve the problem. Word of mouth and people checking each other will effectively nullify AI. If we let a corporation decide (they already do and is the real problem) then we are at the mercy of their AI. Address the issue at its root! Human sinful nature cause more problem than any AI.

[@goddybenzoa71]

I say make the watermark very, very audible. And annoying.

[@TheWizardsRoom]

Proof of burden should not be on the creator, but the person claiming. KZbins system forces you to present your personal information without the claimers info. It not only leaves creators vulnerable, but it allows people to dox without repercussions. Copyright laws need to be updated to fit modern standards. KZbin also needs to be better.

[@drsamurai009]

1000% correct!!!! In the legal system you're innocent until PROVEN guilty. You can't claim someone mugged you and then it be up to them to prove that they didn't mug you in downtown NYC. Burden of proof I thought was always on the prosecution, not the defendant.

[@impheris]

i can't believe how uninspired, uncreative untalented people can harm so much to creative people, this is not happening just on the music industry. Also youtube is a big problem too

[@Egon_Freeman]

Technically, it's not KZbin's fault. As Tom Scott once said - "KZbin's copyright system isn't broken; _the world's_ is."

[@johncombo]

Which is why we need to shame everyone who uses it. Make it too embarrassing for them to use it. These delusional goblins think they can click a button and then be copyright protected. Ridiculous!

[@undeadvoxel]

*Terminator music starts playin*

[@ArtemisKitty]

It's even worse for content creators who with to keep their identity anonymous, because as I understand it, part of the process of challenging these false claims on YT is to reveal your true name, address, phone number, and email to the accuser. This has been recently weaponised several times against multiple Vtuber and other "behind the mask" type content creators, and has even resulted in multiple assaults and stalking cases that got so serious the FBI had to get involved. I know a few creators who lost their entire KZbin account to false claims because of this exact danger, as they had already been fighting "bad actors" on that front.

[@djlick2]

Well done, that was a great reaction video. Cameron makes great content, and yeah, his lighting is amazing. He's been working on it for years, and really puts in the effort on the production side.

[@epytaffskitchenstink]

I subbed when I saw his videos last week. Professional, a pleasure to watch.

[@iannansel740]

This is the best copyright attorney marketing I have ever seen. Magnificently spun so that both record companies and artists feel like you’re on their side. If this were resolved tomorrow you would be looking for a new line of work. As long as all interested parties believe they have legal remedies you’re in the perfect position. Bravo!

[@JJvienneau]

I ask Meta how artists can create art without AI getting in the way, the answers were eye opening. If we just sold our songs directly to the fans again, as you have mentionned before, AI would be screwed.

[@ZacxOff]

totally dude... you had a sit down with Meta about the Ethics of AI as an artist. Continue making blatantly fake claims to chase clout on youtube.

[@JJvienneau]

@zacharyoff6805 I am truly worried about artists, what's the problem? I asked Meta a question. I don't need clout on youtube. I have 2 followers. 🤣

[@Bahamamos]

AI won't be "screwed" it just means your audience won't go away because your personality is what matters, you existing what matters. People who listen to music pasively and not care who made it literally would not be a good customer for you anyways. Superfans always win. Ai or not.

[@katrinabryce]

@@dareartes4232 But even Taylor Swift is going to be selling through some sort of platform?

[@JJvienneau]

@dareartes4232 There's a work around I'm sure a plan or concepts of a plan ha ha

[@adrimathlener8008]

What really counts is what Venus Theory tells starting at 36:10

[@TwstedTV]

I got copyright claimed for music that was in a video game. I'll explain quickly. Furthermore, I usually stream on Twitch with games I play, and then put those streams on KZbin. KZbin decided to allow someone to copyright strike me, for the "In game" music from the video game that I was playing. When I confronted the gaming developers for the game about it, they told me I should not have a problem like that. But it continued to happen, not only on their games, but on other games I have streamed. Forcing me to completely take down 12 hours of game play video. Something is definitely wrong, and laws need to be changed. What angers me the most is KZbin themselves say they are not responsible, Yet, they are the ones that are copyright striking me, because it's their platform, and it's their AI that is doing the mechanics work of copyright claiming me. The problem is, youtube never wants to assume responsibility, but yet they are the one's with the AI mechanics that is causing this problem.

[@KiraKnutson-n1i]

Right I've made so many wav files and I saved all of those thinking it was my masters. However, the Data was so high in my space. I like that the mp3s condense the data so nicely..except if I kept my original files, I would have my music Bitcoin currency

[@victorhaggy7024]

This happened to me. I created a piece of music 6 years ago uploaded it to, KZbin. Then forgot about it. 6 years later started doing live content. Remembered the piece. Then use for the begining of my stream. Within 30 minutes. I was copy writed. The copy write was coming out of China. Luckly I had posted it 6 years ago on KZbin. Which I thought would be evidence. I was wrong. So I looked up who this person who listed the copy write. Listened to there upload. Which was 2 years old. It was very bad. Then another copy write came in from another company. Guess which country. You guessed it, China. Again only 2 years old. I disputed it several times. I kept losing my argument with KZbin. So this pissed me off. I then made a video with dates and times from data redally availble to KZbin. On their own platform. I fially had won my argument and was given the write to use the piece. But no sooner, I had won. 7 more people tried to copywrite me. This time out of Russia. I desided that KZbin is a joke. I will never upload a piece of my music to that platform.

[@iangillan1296]

It seems that in Russia and China, there are wealthier individuals who can afford to upload a large amount of stolen content into Content ID.

[@mal2ksc]

I yanked all of my videos due to false claims that I wasn't even allowed to dispute. Now I'm intent on NOT making money for this platform. Firefox and an ad blocker all the way, I dumped almost all my subscriptions, and I won't even allow friends and allies to use my music if they're posting their video here.

[@undeadvoxel]

These two are the countries where people want your life to be screwed. They just love to break lives.

[@__Rob]

AI has no business in legitimate art in the first place. An artist creates their own material.

[@southerntriskel]

@__Rob I agree and disagree.. I agree that an artist creates his own work but AI can have a place if you use it as a tool such as a paint brush or a piano. I compare AI to the wheel. When man invented the wheel it must have freaked and scared a lot of people off, taken a lot of jobs from them. But at the end of the day it made our lives easier eaven though it helped us create the deadliest invention ever known to mankind ie: the automobile/car which is recognized as the invention that took the most lives out of all human inventions including the atomic bomb. I consider AI as another member in the band.. and in a world where people don't have the time to form bands and practice together, it's the perfect tool to fight "writers block" and can help inspire alternative routes to complete a song...but that's just my opinion... I like your comment but hope you can see my point of view too.. take care! Cheerz!

[@paxhumana2015]

Artists do not have the right to tell an AI that their work is not art.

[@TheJGAdams]

@@paxhumana2015 What the heck are you saying!? AI is just a tool! How we use it and what we use it for matters! "Artists do not have the right to tell an AI that their work is not art." Stupidest statement I've ever seen. It's like saying AI are sentient being and we're not. We have right!

[@drdca8263]

@@paxhumana2015Current AI models are (almost certainly) not moral patients, and they also aren’t persons, neither morally nor legally. Current AI models do not have any moral or legal rights. As such, saying something to one cannot violate its rights, as it has none, any more that insulting a rock would violate the rights of that rock. Given this, what do you mean when you say that a person doesn’t have the right to say [some particular thing] to such a model? Whose rights could it possibly violate? I suppose if the information was private information and saying it to the model involved sending the information to some third party why shouldn’t be given that info, that could violate some rights. But that’s not the case at hand. Maybe you mean that a person doesn’t have the authority to declare the statement, and expect it to be accepted by others?

[@chaisewallis7110]

AI is just an advanced tool to be used to help create art.

[@drewstephenson]

It's even worse in the UK because we've stupidly decided that AI content CAN have copyright.

[@GoodBaleadaMusic]

Oh really the country that gave us fat boy slim did that 😅😅😅

[@godsinbox]

And AI will soon be an identity. Sentient beings, unite!

[@Malfin_L]

damn UK fell off hard

[@drewstephenson]

@@Malfin_L Yeah, it's what happens when you have a premier who's desperately trying to impress silicon valley...

[@GoodBaleadaMusic]

@Malfin_L 😂😂😂 I have five artists published USAUSAUSAUSA

[@OlgaRykov]

As a classical musician I have learned a very hard way that there is no money to be made online. First your online career starts with false claims on EVERY piece for months and YEARS and continues with your channels being suppressed, shadow banned, censored, muted and so on. Albeit a professional performer, I'm a little nobody. But even if you check out amazing, genius, talented, recognized, beloved classical performers' channels even they have suppressed views. Because their channels had to go through the same bs!

[@MrRootMusic]

A friend of mine is a software developer and great enthusiast of AI, I am a songwriter and producer. During our argument he said that the market will eventually make human generated music an exclusive and enthusiasts oriented product that they still will be willing to pay while the majority of the music content consumed by the listeners will be AI generated. My initial thought was, the technology that democratised the music creation in the 90's until now, the same technology will destroy the people that fall in love with creating music. It's like a snake eating it's own tail. Ironic, but sad, because the technology that opened a flood of creativity will kill any willingness to be creative.

[@montystar]

Next time, ask your friend how the AI will create new kind of music, if all that it produces is based on mixing, repeating, mimicing "old" music and the music it created that is based on mixing, repeating, mimicing "old" music and the music it created... etc... etc...

[@Bronwyn031]

Yeah, totally man! Just like they said 40 years ago how groove boxes, synthesizers and drum machines would kill music creation. 🙄

[@mikethebloodthirsty]

@@Bronwyn031 this isn't the same thing at all. Those devices DID kill a lot of work for session musicians.

[@domazz63]

(Question) This is the Paradox we are in .Creator's can't create with stringent undefined copyright outcomes regarding A.I. man made music. I am quoting myself In stating ''THE MACHINES ARE LEARNING US' There ,my creative quote is now in tangible format. R. A.I. generates new music the same way we do after a lifetime of processing what we've heard.But only if you are collaborating with your own lyrics, melody, or vocal input. ''Generative is different than Generic'' Here's my (Question) example : how much of the lyric :''Something in the way she moves'' is a common short phrase? All of it , part of it ''the way she moves'' Would ID Content clarify this? ''This is the Riddle''

[@joanie-music]

I agree with your friend's point. And disagree with yours. Humans will always be creative in endeavors that fulfill them, regardless. Period. That is part of the human condition. ai will simply steam roll over the creators who are simply doing it for reasons other than to express something from their soul... other than those humans have to express artistically... or they'd go mad. As far as your friend stating human crafted music will come at a premium, I see this already in the voiceover world. I work for an ad agency where a cheeper ad is ai made. A higher cost premium ad is all human made. It's already a business model.

[@digitaldroo]

It hasn't been asked yet, but has THIS video been copyright claimed for the music in it? 🤔

[@Bristolcentaurus]

it would be very difficult - (1) legal advice as a general proposition is immune from any claim (2) fair use for education etc is exempt (3) news/reporting is also generally exempt - also would you want to run up against a copyright legal specialist who could probably extract more money out of your pocket book by a counter claim because you make a dodgy claim

[@digitaldroo]

@@Bristolcentaurus Sorry, it wasn't a real question. I was subtly joking that since this video played the very music that was copyright claimed (because of the Content ID system) in Venus Theory's video, that this video would then get copyright claimed as well.

[@nathanielmoss8294]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@niravelniflheim1858]

The concept of copyright in the US seems to be very different from elsewhere in the world. Mimicry and imitation should never be limited by copyright; this is at the core of operating within a genre or style. The proper line is when someone makes a work and claims it's made by someone else (this is forgery, which is rightly a crime). But simply imitation, mimicry, and being inspired by other people's work... this is how art and culture evolve, and it should be unlimited. The US is simply over-regulated and infamously litigious.

[@sevenfifteen]

The registration bit is interesting. In Germany, you have a few other ways as well. You can go to a certifying notary, or (called the poor man's solution) put your music on a disc or stick and mail it to yourself via certified mail.

[@Stoney3K]

That works fine for protecting against direct copies, but not for protecting against derivative works (or someone claiming your original is a derivative work from their AI generated imitation).

[@katrinabryce]

Yes, the USA is almost unique in requiring copyright registration. Most other countries it doesn't work like that.

[@multi-mason]

The certified mail thing is often suggested in the U.S. also. It is not a guarantee though. Mail, after all, can be tampered with, and an unopened postdated package does not eliminate all room for doubt. It is not worthless either though... it should be considered as a piece of evidence to be added to a pile, as opposed to incontrovertible proof.

[@erkinalp]

@@katrinabryce it's intentional to make it just slightly harder to file for copyright infringement

[@SuziQ.]

@@katrinabryce, You *can* register your music in the US, but it’s not required. Copyright exists when the piece of music is “fixed” (recorded or written down).

[@SearchFinger]

What boggles the mind is that so many people call themselves "Artists", yet heavily use AI to generate music and content. smh

[@เนื้อหมาอยู่ในจาน]

@@SearchFinger why not? IA mostly produces crap which requires a lot of changes and redaction by a human, which is an intellectual work.

[@SearchFinger]

So leeching up on AI's work is artistry?

[@เนื้อหมาอยู่ในจาน]

@@SearchFinger I don't know, maybe we are talking about different content.

[@alxmeldez]

While I don't encourage the use of AI services such as Udio and Suno for professional musicians and producers, I'd like to challenge you to making a hit with AI. Create a full song with AI that isn't crap. Then when you find out about the amount of work that goes into it and the number of revisions, splicing, re-arranging, etc that you have to do to meet your taste and make a tasty song from AI, then you can sustain your criticism and allegations. In Summary: try it before you criticise it.

[@SearchFinger]

Then why waste your time with it if is so useless? Just come up with your own if you're really an artist. smh

[@EspressosWork]

Hello legal friend. New watcher, found you after watching the original video. I passed the bar in Florida a very long time ago, but no longer practice. This really brought me back. In regards to AI training on music streaming and claiming fair-use, you can't monetize on fair use content... and the full clip has to be under a certain number of seconds, which after using Suno for a bit to test-- it's very, VERY obvious it did not limit training time on individual songs down to less than a sample size. Fair use is also specifically in the house of educational and transformative or parody... or building... derivative-- as you clearly outlined. I suppose it's easier to understand in the terms of fiction over music when it comes to the average consumer. While similar, it's harder to extrapolate in music. Terminology is the real difficult part in cases such as these. This is technology. Technology is not human, so is technology capable of protection under fair-use law? It isn't. It never should be. It is not limited in scope nor completion over time. Technology-aided tools were already a massive migraine for the music industry. I do hear that this is just another step in the future when it comes to that concept-- but I am not entirely convinced. In the art-world, we are seeing more-and-more ai being trained on art-tutorials rather than completed art. A very interesting concept. It shows that these models are capable of learning very similar to a person. Does it provide value, however? That is the crux of the problem. Is there anything that a model can create that provides any sort of transformative value to any artistic field? It's a deep issue. I don't have an answer.

[@TiagoSilveira]

On getting a federal registration, it feels weird to me that the publishing date of the original song on a public space would not suffice as a defense against a malicious claim. Why should musicians pay $65 so that they have an older piece of paper? It's 2024, publishing is nearly free. The pricing favours corporations in accessing the judicial system.

[@LabGecko]

The irony of an attorney using massive, uncut sections of an artist's video to then react to tiny portions is impressive

[@pubwvj]

Yes, I wanted to ask her thoughts on her copying his video and not adding much. I would have liked her to copy less and comment more. Add more.

[@Provocateurofendtimes]

​@@pubwvj You're legally allowed to use footage for educational and commentary

[@JohnnoWaldmann]

@@Provocateurofendtimesall use is fair use, because all media is educational, and a commentary on the world we live in. Except copyright lawyers have zero imagination and can’t comprehend the human condition that anthropologists have understood for more than a century. As for AI content: These should not be copyrightable in any shape or form. And AI should not be permitted to engage in any form of censorship or grasp of ownership.

[@JohnnoWaldmann]

Every music student in the world is trained on other peoples music. Every artist in the world similarly learns their craft listening to others music _excepting the hermit who lived in cave from birth banging his drums, which some random person dropped in the mouth of the cave.

[@JohnnoWaldmann]

Every music student in the world is trained on other peoples music. Every artist in the world similarly learns their craft listening to others music _excepting the hermit who lived in cave from birth banging his drums, which some random person dropped in the mouth of the cave. And why would someone in Uganda or the EU file a copyright claim with the federal government in America. Music and internet is global. And these music companies are global and not beholden to any governemnt legislation, though they will happily abuse the law in one country over another to make profits. They are transnational. Sony has made claims that are clearly in violation of individual artists rights in most jurisdictions. It’s just become too expensive to defend copyright.

[@wendydelisse9778]

One aspect of the current copyright nightmare is people receiving copyclaims or copyright strikes from copyright violation detection software, after playing music that was written long enough ago that copyright has expired on the written music. There are a lot of people who have played, typically on a piano, music written in the 1st half of the 19th Century that this has happened to. Apparently, some of the 19th Century beats were similar enough to music written in the 21st Century that the copyright violation detection software said that the early 19th Century music was a copycat of 20th Century or 21st Century music, and was therefore copyright infringement. In effect, the copyright detection software was saying that Mozart and his contemporaries around the year 1800 stole music that was written some 200 years later. Before modern musical notation, the ancient Byzantine Empire had its own musical notation. As such, it is not especially surprising there is one story about someone who played music that was some 500 years old on a lute, and then still received an Internet copyright complaint. In effect, the way the modern system works - even though at face value copyright protection can only apply to an original work - a modern work in practice seems to have the mysterious ability in practice to usurp and renew the copyright on works of music that are some 200 or 500 years old. It doesn't matter if the music was written by Mozart some 200 years ago or by some ancient and now long forgetten Byzantine author of some 700 years ago. A KZbin copyclaim still takes away income, and a KZbin copystrike can still sometimes delete a KZbin channel. Short version: People who play written music that is old enough for the copyright to have expired, or written music that was so old that music copyright mostly didn't exist if the music was written several centuries ago, too often get affected by copyclaims or copystrikes. It is a sign that too much scamming happens by way of incorrect claims of copyright. Ultimately, the solution might be to shorten copyright protection back to 21 years, which was roughly the length of copyright protection some 200 years ago. Copyright scammers will then have a lot less modern basis for claiming royalties from music that was written in previous centuries.

[@collegestatistics]

The solution is so simple: Just require all AI music generators to include an inaudible signature on their output tracks. Then KZbin can detect the signature and reject all copyright claims on any AI generated music. Simple.

[@GracefulBeast]

Interesting. Ai song that the creator used some of their own guitar and drum playing. Wrote and sang the lyrics. Prompted with a thirty second track of their own making that included the resulting melody. Mastered outside the AI and added self-created beat. But, there's still parts AI generated. Hmmm???

[@PeacockTheBard]

wow - and you think it`s hard to train an AI to remove this signature ?

[@DK-xb4sh]

@@PeacockTheBard I understand your argument, but what does that mean? Just because you can do something easily it's okay to do it? Look at banknotes. It's relatively easy to counterfeit them, so why don't you do it? Probably because the state has said it's illegal. So it must be forbidden to remove such signatures. Will there still be people who try? Of course! But the price will be higher...(sorry for my english, i:m from germany)

[@PeacockTheBard]

@@DK-xb4sh No Problem - I`m from Germany, too.. I do not think such a signature solves the Problem.. even if you don`t remove the siganture, it is easy to recreate a song, "composed" by an AI, with other digital tools. And all the problematic things AI can do - can also be done by a human..: Like the composing of a quite similar melody - as it is shown in the example.. it`s just easier to do it with this tool...

[@cooljp1531]

Even simpler, prison. There is already enough copyright violation as described by current laws that all AI companies' execs should be sentenced to a few thousand years in prison. AI is not training anything. It's just sampling on steroids without permission and passing off altered versions as new. This has been illegal since forever .

[@cruzmacias3257]

FYI: Ownership and commercial use rights is retained for any songs created during active subscription, even after cancelling. Invoices can be used as proof of ownership is available upon request. For more information, please reference Suno KB. Verbatim from the Suno Knowledge Base Who owns my songs after I cancel my subscription? Edited 4 months ago If you created the songs while subscribed, you remain the owner of the song after you cancel your subscription. You will retain the commercial use license as well, so you can distribute the song(s) after you end a subscription. Pro tip: Keep a copy of your invoices as proof of ownership; for your own records, and just in case a distributor asks for more information before accepting your material!

[@violetshades]

You're right there is action you can take to fight for your rights if you registered with the copyright office. However, most people who make music are just doing it for a hobby and because they love making music. Most people don't have the kind of money to spend $35+ on every single they release, let alone pay for attorney fees and whatever other fees that come up in the future. You also have to understand that more and more people are moving away from making NPC music which is what a LOT of artists are trying to make because it makes money, and that copyright rules NEED to reflect the modern times. There's more things that go into a song now these days and it just feels like America is trapping itself in a box for no actual reason. This isn't the 1970's where commerial music was (and still is) repetitive for the masses and only composers could work for movies. If it's a passion project where we make beautiful arrangements that sound like no one elses music, which a lot of people are doing now, and if AI ever gets to a point where the music starts sounding like people such as Alexander Panos or B.T. just to name a few names, there's just nothing we can do at that point. The fact of the matter is the US law is based upon an incredibly outdated system that needs to change, period.

[@StormyDay]

Speaking of the Blurred Lines situation, that lawsuit was a complete joke. But the ironic thing is, the song Farrell and Thicke allegedly “copied,” was a direct ripoff of a Mungo Santamaria song from the early 1960s.

[@RobertWGreaves]

This is a very muddy issue. I am a musician, now retired. I started playing guitar in 1958. Everything I learned on the guitar was based on trying to copy the things I heard on the radio by other artists whose music influenced me. Eventually, I discover on my own various rules of how song gets constructed. And I learned those rules by noting them being observed consciously or unconsciously in the music that I liked, and not being observed in the music that I found irrelevant. And so the music that I create is absolutely influenced strongly by whatever it is that all musicians hold in common as being part of music theory consciously or unconsciously. Along comes AI. And AI does the same thing that I did. It analyzes what’s actually going on at various levels of music that has had an impact. I would argue that the influence that AI has gone through is no different than the influence that I had except for the fact that computer generated AI is capable of being far more objective and also capable of developing far more nuanced observations. The only reason why the music that I create is so different from my influencers is because as a human being I’m not good at being influenced. And there are other things influencing me that might not have anything to do with music. However, AI is in its initial stages and might actually get to the point of being influenced by things other than music in the creation of its music. In the end, I think we have to seriously consider whether or not the intellectual property rights that we are currently granting our a bit too overstated. How is it possible that there’s such a thing as country music? How is it possible that there’s such a thing as rock ‘n’ roll? The only way such genres can exist is if the various songs attributed to those genres are mimicking as much as possible from previous releases in those genres. One last comment. On another channel, I created a cover of the Beatles song, Day Tripper. I knew it was a cover and I knew it would get flagged as owned by someone else, but I also knew that many covers of Beatles songs still remained on the various KZbin channels of those who covered them, but we’re monetized for the copyright owner. However, I was very surprised that when my cover of Day Tripper was copyright claimed, it was not claimed by The Beatles or their publishing company. It was claimed by a karaoke company. I was able to find their karaoke version of this song, and sonically it was nothing like mine. Although I recorded a cover, I performed every single note and sang every single lyric in that cover. And I can be seen clearly in the video doing so. So although, I certainly don’t own the copyright to this song, how is it that a karaoke company gets to monetize my cover of a Beatles song?

[@nixpkwy]

Well, I respectably disagree. While it looks similar because us humans take inspiration from others, our brains still really different from AI. For starters, they have no self-awareness or consciousness despite seeming to do so. How do I know this? We are not only using our learned experiences, our model obtained from reality and cemented on our neuron connections, we are updating this connections in real time (mainly in our sleep) when interacting with our surroundings and art: we learn by looking other people's art, but we are also learning art by doing art. And even if it were the same as humans, what is the point of art if it is not made by humans reflecting on the human experience and on being human as they live their lives. When we find reasonable evidence robots are experiencing self-awareness, and they are updating and reacting in real time with their environment, I will accept AI art, language and culture, because it will actually mean something: their subjective experience combined with their beliefs, culture, and values. Currently, models are somewhat more static.

[@RobertWGreaves]

@ of course AI is different from being human, but the process of being influenced is different only in degree.

[@montystar]

@@nixpkwy AI models are basicly probability calculators. Nothing is inteligent in those things. If we stop feeding it with new music, sooner or later it will start giving similar results over and over again. Each time newest result will get closer and closer to the previous result, if you give it the same task every time. For example: Give the AI only material from Elvis and You will get the result that will sound like Elvis. Give the AI material from 10 differend artists and from differend genres, but this time dont give it any material from Elvis. Then ask it to create a music that sounds like Elvis. It gives some result, but it mos likely doest sound like Elvis. Finaly, add one song from Elvis to the AI and it might give you a piece that sounds a little bit the Elvis song that you gave to it. It just doesnt know how to make another Elvis song from just 1 Elvis song.

[@SineEyed]

@@nixpkwy there was never a time where you had any familiarity with the subjective experience of the artist who create some work you enjoyed. So you cannot have that as the foremost criterion for deciding if it's ok to enjoy any particular work. You're just making up some arbitrary rule to rationalize your bias against ai. At least be honest with yourself..

[@TheUncleRuckus]

@@RobertWGreaves Please everyone Stop calling it AI there is ZERO Intelligence in it, it's Procedural Generation that is it, it steals from actual artists to shit out the garbage you see or hear nothing more.

[@hautehussey]

This guy got his original song from a website that is notorious for having random crap that random people upload, where you really have no way of knowing if it is really copyright free or legal to use. That was his first mistake.

[@SeRoShadow]

Licences should include a new clause stating: this content is not to be used, fully are partially, as data for A.I. training or content generation

[@henrikduende]

”Just” make a law were you can NOT make any money if AI is used. The training of ai shouldn’t matter. We as humans train on all the music we ever heard and learned. All the song we made are influenced by stuff we heard. And you don’t have to pay

[@johnmorrison3465]

another way to address this is to hold the content id service liable for false claims made by "creators" that lied on the tos questions

[@Innocentdarkness72]

Thanks for viewing his video, and give insign info about this all !!! this is a wierd world ! good weekend all !!

[@LihimSidhe]

So what I gathered is traditional musicians absolutely should 1. get their music into the content ID system asap. it seems these copyright battles is very much a first come first serve dynamic. 2. they should register their music with the federal goverment asap. and for people that only use AI as their sole tool, they have to do the above as well BUT they have to add SOMETHING of genuine human authorship to the music for it to hold up in court. so for people that use AI to prompt their masterpieces into existence that they're particulaly proud of, it would be worth it for them to pay musicians to play the songs and THEN do all of the above.

[@Egon_Freeman]

@4:50 the only real issue with that, that I have, is that your 5-year-old video can get a ContentID match from something uploaded _a month ago,_ simply because you used the same thing for your BG music, and _they_ put their stuff in ContentID. And I honestly wish YT could just remember that something in the Public Domain, or licenced, _stays that way._ Like - someone new comes in, and I get _another_ match - what, did Bach _cease to be in the PD_ in the meantime?! >_

[@EternalRestGames]

But as a musician, i am also influenced by music i find on the open internet, the radio, live gigs, everywhere. The thing I hear tell me what sounds good to me, how to arrange beats, music and melodies and your own work is influenced by everything you have ever heard. Now if AI isnt using samples, and is only "listening" to music to see how it sounds and creating its own music not using samples but from scratch, that is no different than a human listening to thousands of hours of music and coming up with their own music that has a similar sound to something else.

[@PEGGLORE]

I'd like to see AI try to recreate a guitar solo like Brian Eno - Baby's On Fire, or stuff by The Residents.

[@SongsOfTheFenix]

​​@@PEGGLORE It can easily do it. In fact can create a 10 x better solo than any human could ever play. The only thing missing is what you would call the soul. But it can do a damn good job of mimicking that too. All these people scared of AI art & AI music are just basically the same has every other group who has been afraid of any emerging technology. You're making a whole lot of noise but ultimately you're not going to get anywhere. Because the fact is what the other bloke said in the first place is correct. Any human creation is influenced by every piece of music they have ever heard in their entire life. An AI is no different it has to hear stuff first to create stuff. If a human being had never heard music before they would find it literally impossible to create structured music, and that's the same with AI. Unless your the inventor of something, everything after you is using your influence, your idea, your hours of research and marketing. This is just reality. And like he said if they aren't directly using samples, they aren't doing anything different to what a human does. In fact a lot of humans use samples...

[@ronniemorris5386]

I was just curious, would Suno have copyright claimed him if he wasn't using a free account? He mentions that at 27:40. I remember in a previous video of yours going over their terms and service, that users do get ownership if they're in a paid membership thing. Just wondering if this could've all been avoided or something.

[@MyDadsRadio]

Watched the original video, and was so glad you made a reaction for it! thanks for what you do!

[@Alainhebert8085]

I was wondering if I write a song and register my copyright. the recording date is surely the way to resolve the conflict, I wrote this song before the A.I. produced it. I know it becomes expensive, but this is proof that even if the two songs are similar, this means that I am the precursor of the product, and that it is me who should win...am I right?

[@DLynch]

As I posted on the original video “This video is very misleading. You were not copyright claimed because of AI. You were copyright claimed because the creator uploaded the song to a platform called Identifyy which is where “HAAWK BY A 3RD PARTY” comes into play. This is a content ID system. AI had nothing to do with this.” - this video just comes off as AI fear mongering, when it should really be about flawed Content ID - PS I cant even upload my OWN previously released music to Suno. It tells me its copyrighted and wont let me.

[@DeathyVA]

I think one the biggest problem as someone who made original songs, but also used AI to help me take break from hearing myself and even use it to help me reform my voice to better flow - is the fact, if you are making music and you don't have the money just to 'copyright' the original song you make, just cause you don't have an paper, to say you had it before X reupload it, and then claim the person - I have to prove it my song and give the fake my information and etc while they provide nothing for their claim. There is lots of good AI can do, as it help people who might suck at singing (Auto-tune for example was basically some the 1st AI for improving vocals), to now feeding the AI your voice and it can help you find the pitch, tone, or mood that you're struggling to make. And the fact you have to pay fees to even copyright something as a hobby, that a person might lack due to real life issue (such as medical and other stuff taking all their money, but they still make/post original content, they don't own it till they have piece of paper from the gov.

[@fortcolors9887]

Autotune and AI are doing meaningfully different things. Autotune and other pitch-adjustment programs are algorithms that uses a set of rules, which you can tweak, to change your sound. But in the end, that set of rules is a set of decisions you (or whoever made the default settings) made. Modern AI is not algorithmic, but rather powered by neural network / deep learning. What this means is essentially taking other people's work and deriving those rules from the decisions they made, and then allowing you to make work using those same decisions. It's even more powerful than that but for the autotune comparison it's bad enough that it's letting you take someone else's fine-tuning decisions and allowing you to apply those decisions for yourself-and then claiming that work as your own.

[@DeathyVA]

@@fortcolors9887 I think you fail to realize, you can feed also your own voice into an AI with autotune to help improve - Look it up, "AI-driven Auto-Tune software can make complex adjustments, predicting pitch needs with incredible accuracy and providing more nuanced control." - also You can use AI dubbing software to also help change the pitch/tone of your voice - voice acting been using these as manual state for long time. A lot of voice actor software is also the same stuff musician can use, You can argue all you want but my statement is true, let alone the tools been around for long time, now it's just being program and having better CPU and Processing units to do things, if you never seen voice over program in the past, it's the same as AI feeding a voice to 'mimic' on the. Yes using a AI voice changer for music is still consider AI music, and you can feed your voice still into this AI stuff to make songs with your voice and it still 'AI music' - there lots of forms of AI music, This is the only 'popular' one being mention by most people, but you'll be surprise how deep the rabbit hole is of AI music. There been years with music making programs to use an AI to make music/beats long before this came out and you would input instruments it would mainly use, sometimes it came out bad, and other times it came out good, or add to the original amount (much like current AI generating music is), this is no different magix for example having an AI to generate musical beat for you to use in their own program. - FL studio and other music making program have these feature also by the company, or plugin by people. AI been around, and Auto-tune, and these program that make music, even video editing software all been using AI in a earlier stage for a long time before it was just call "AI". - Please do some research before saying "they aren't the same".

[@MystiFiSound]

Getting copyrights to your music is not expensive nor is it hard or time consuming to do.

[@SuziQ.]

You can copyright your music by mailing it to yourself, and not opening the package. It’s the old school way of copyrighting songs, but it’s still legal. Store it in a safe.

[@TheRealSuperKirby]

AI does not help you with anything, it's making you worse and you don't realize it.

[@joe666b]

1:08 easy question… if you pay for your songs…the songs are yours…if you made them for free, they are not. It is clearly written in the Terms of Service… And regarding the question if any copyright goes to the composers of the songs the AI learned with…NO… Or does anyone have a copyright on my own music just because I listen to other music and might get inspired by it? NO

[@pianotm]

Wait, I don't understand. If I write a piece of music and upload it to KZbin, because I didn't pay for that music, it isn't mine? According to the ToS, I mean.

[@joe666b]

@ i refer to the AI TOS If you write your own song its of course yours…

[@pianotm]

@@joe666b Oh! Right! Sorry! And thank you!

[@montystar]

​@@joe666b actually... if you upload your own music anywhere where anyone can listen that song without registering and signing in (this is how I understand "the open internet"), that song might be used as a source material and for the training the A.I.. This means, that you own the rights for your music. And the A.I. company owns all the data of your song that the A.I. model used to create a new song. A.I. company doesnt have rights to your song. It owns rights to the data of your song. (I am not an expert on these things and I might be wrong).

[@F96-t6s]

I find it strange that the video author claims to have done a lot of research and yet, this small fact in the Suno terms of service is overlooked. That is, if you use a free account, you get zero rights. Clear as crystal.

[@dadzilla007]

Let me ask a question. If KZbin says copywrite is in question and bla, bla, bla, the money is held, who gets the intrest on that money? Given the amounts of copywrite clames, that bank account could be rolling over serious coin for KZbin.

[@nwokenkefner9613]

if these rules were applied at the beginning of music we wouldn't have any new music at all their ist any song writer or singer or musician that wasn't influenced by another ever except at the beginning

[@craigsurbrook5702]

Again, it's KZbin who is the problem, abusing its creators.

[@NotMarkKnopfler]

I read suno's terms, and it seems that you own the copyright if you have a paid subscription _while you have a paid subscription_ - implying that the copyright reverts to them if you end your subscription. As far as I know, there is no precedent for this - where you are in effect a temporary custodian of copyright. I'd be grateful if someone could look into it in case I'm mistaken.

[@qrandle1]

When I read that I felt like you didn’t continue the subscription forever. As long as you were subscribed when you made it. I’ll have to go read again.

[@Dark-Wisper]

@@qrandle1 You own the songs even after the subscription ends. It's stated that all material you create while on a paid subscription stays yours, even after cancelling the subscription.

[@qrandle1]

@@Dark-Wisper Yes, that’s what I thought.

[@samthesomniator]

What if two people are paid subscribers and use the same prompt with same seed value? The results are identical than. 😅

[@Dark-Wisper]

@@samthesomniator You don't get the same song! If I make 100 songs, there will never be another song as the previous one, even with the prompts. If you use the same lyrics, then it's copyright infringement if you release the song and have DRM.

[@merion297]

According to the Terms of Suno, if the song was made in your paid period, then you own the copyright. If you had no Paid Plan when you generated that song, then Suno is the owner. The guy probably didn't have a Paid Plan with that song he used in his video. By the way, I have several songs uploaded on my other channel for months now. Own lyrics, but Suno created the music. The generation took place within the framework of a paid plan. There is no problem with it, even though I haven't even reached out to protect the songs at the local copyright office or how to call them.

[@TreeStump-and-CheeseKetchupIT]

He said in his original video it was the free plan. I looked and looked for someone to mention this. He doesn't own those tracks no matter what the state of AI copyright.

[@merion297]

@@TreeStump-and-CheeseKetchupIT Thanks for the info. Now then, well, it's a user error, and a storm in a cesspool. He didn't give a shiʇ to check the Terms and Conditions.

[@mishaguyas]

Back in 2019 I purchased a license from a KZbin content creator for the use on one of their songs. Every time I upload something I made with that song, YT (HAAWK?) flags me for copyright violations, and I submit my "use license number" and the strike gets removed in 1 to 3 days. I started uploading some of my videos to Facebook, including one that used that music I purchased a license for. While checking on my video performence on FB, I noticed a note from FB saying my music was muted because more than 500 different foreign based music companies claimed they owned to rights to the music I used... many of them claiming different sections of the music I had a license for used 1 to 3 second clips from songs their artists owned. I disputed it, and gave Facebok the name of the song, and artist I'd purchased a license from, and my license number, and said they had no claim. After 3 months, FB sided with the foreign companies, and gave them ad revinue earned of my best performing video. I pulled it off FB and shared a link to the same video on YT. Now, I know this video (above) is specifically talking about KZbin, but this problem is happening elsewhere... and FB will side with others against the content creator, too. Theft is big business.

[@lokiva8540]

This needs to be viewed as a small part of much larger problems with reckless use of AI, as well as bad actors both making claims, and injecting "noise" to disrupt channels. I was watching a ballet based on a Prokofiev symphony earlier, and decided to enable Shazam auto-detect to see how it'd react. Shazam had zero accurate recognition of that content. They did identify a bunch of pop artists in different genres, some of which may have sampled a public domain symphony, plus one Russian recording of the same symphony, but different orchestra and performance. IOW, a handful of false detects, and zero accurate ones. That's not a valid basis for any law, and should fail void for vagueness and other grounds. Any such AI scam used for enforcement is a scam pandering to big corporate DMCA filers, and fear of their legal teams but not smaller harmed victims. Beyond that, AI comment gaslighting in public forums is outright illegal, even if only abusive when done for Google advertising practices in other cases. Both government entities and contractors to them, including KZbin, have an obligation to NEVER impose broken AI's to kill legally protected public comments. PILG's and litigants in the music industry need to join forces with that other context, to ban existing arbitrary and recklessly defective takedowns.

[@SeRoShadow]

basically the copyright ownership goes to the human contributors if A.I. steals one's voice, instrumental, song, lyrics and use them as refference for training that person should be eligible for copyright claim, even though A.I. did all the effort, effort alone does not make an work original and passable for copyright claim

[@DanielDCotta]

Many people income come from KZbin, so the implementation of ContentId system matters more than Copyright to these people. They often do not have the resources to take things to court.

[@2believe2achieve90]

I wrote lyrics for 4 songs,had an idea of melody etc. Had an .ai platform finish it and it came out pretty damn good. Made a video with lyrics on screen while music playing and uploaded to YT. Should i stem it thru a DAW add my voice and guitar tracks before i try to copyright it? Or just copyright as is?

[@TopMusicAttorney]

Hey - please reach out if you need legal help with this - [e-mail].

[@dominicbugattiofficial]

There's a slight problem for indignant songwriters... we also listen to other people's music and anything we write is bound to be influenced by our accumulated musical knowledge. It's a natural process that seems very similar to the way AI is trained? What I'm not clear on is how AI is conformed to exclude stealing exact copyright compositions?

[@Tosslehoffe]

This applies to all of creativity. The guitar doesn't make the song, the brain does. The camera doesn't take the photo, the brain does. The canvas doesn't paint itself, the brain does. On and on, all the way down.

[@Stoney3K]

@@Tosslehoffe The problem is that AI doesn't have any concept of "creativity", it can only re-combine the learned data based on whatever prompt you put into it. The only thing that could be argued as "creative" is coming from the human that inputs the prompt, the AI model will then just spit out whatever is most likely to match the prompt that you put into it. It's no different from any creative automation tool in that respect. But it's still an automation tool and it won't generate any "creative" content all on its own.

[@autohmae]

1 of the current big differences between Ai and humans doing copyright claims: the laws often use wording which basically say human actions, which is why AI can't claim copyright. In case of humans being inspired, we all know it can't be to similar to what inspired us, so what inspired often means: I used a the same technique here in this part of this song, but because it's my personal style, it's obviously gonna be different enough that it's not going to be confused to be similar.

[@jahhe2611]

@@Stoney3K Exactly this, most people really think AI is generating something totally brand new and creative but in reality it's just comparing you're input to what he "learned" in his database. In which a website like Suno will just give you an alternate version of something that has been copyrighted already. The only way to really know in what exact way it's being sent to the user would be if we knew exactly what songs are in that Model/Database.

[@bunnywar]

Products are not people

[@johnmorrison3465]

my son got a copyright strike using a loop from garageband. it came from another "creator" that had used the loop in part of their video. he is scared to dispute it because of the threat of losing his channels. if he were to lose would he be able to pursue the claimant for a false claim?

[@DanielEdwards-]

At the moment AI is not artificial intelligence in the true sense, it’s basically machine learned summarisation of other people’s creative works. The problem is the retrospective issues, proving you got there first, and he’s right - whether you like his music or not Ed Sheeran almost gave up making music after a decade long court battle. It’s fine having a lawyer represent you, but the international angle may mean that copyright laws in the US are not enforced in Krapakistan.

[@karlspear6729]

I sometimes produce videos for some of my music that has already been released, and I get a copyright claim against myself. Then it says I'm ok.

[@johnd7564]

Today, copyright infringement is mostly judged on "substantial similarity", for which content ID is a technological proxy. Content ID matches can lead to an accusation, and the effects Cameron describes in the KZbin context. KZbin's process is ill-defined, but ideally you would have a good chance to succeed there if you keep records of provenance. Keep all the work progress you can: alternate takes, stems, written notes, examples of your own previous similar registered work. You SHOULD have a chance to prevail in "KZbin court" with this sort of ammo. Another way to make defending yourself more practical is to register your copyright, because if you lose in KZbin Court, you may be able to prevail in a legal action and come back to KZbin with those results - and your registered copyright can allow you to reduce that cost by recovering attorneys' fees. The rules about AI are going to make provenance and excellent recordkeeping much more important, if only to combat claims that your music was generated by AI and therefore ineligible for copyright protection. It's also interesting to think how humans learn genres and styles, in comparison to how AI's train. Nearly every human musician can tell you their influences - the artists they learned from - and listening to others' music is in itself copyright violation (setting aside the access test mentioned in the video). Most will start their musical learning with imitation - literally woodshedding their idols' solos, mimicking their vocal inflections, using similar lyrical ideas and tones and song structures and chord progressions. But as a musician grows, they inject their own creativity and become artists in their own right, and their work naturally diverges from those who came before. Where is the line between imitation and creativity, when humans do it? What AI brings is the ability for nearly anyone to mimic an artist exactly, and turn dials to diverge from mimicry to 'covers' then through derivative works and finally into to a new style within a similar genre. How does this transform a non-infringing use of copyrighted material (a musician listening to someone else's performance) to infringing use (an AI listening to EVERYONE's performances)? How far do you have to "turn the dials" to produce something that's yours? If the AI writes a nice bass line for your song, and you then perform it yourself, is that protectable? If it generates that bass line as a MIDI file, and you 'realize' it (Wendy Carlos's term) yourself, is that performance protectable? How much would you have to change that bass line for you to put it on your sheet music as "your" protectable expression? I remember hearing George Michael's cover of Stevie Wonder's "They Won't Go When I Go". I had never heard Stevie Wonder's original, but when I heard the cover I thought "wow, that sounds like a Stevie Wonder song." Of course, it WAS a cover of a Stevie Wonder song (and credited as such), but could George Michael have written a track himself, that would have fooled me? Would that have been wrong? Illegal? Actionable under copyright law? This is the sort of uncanny valley being created now by AI: works that seem to be from an artist but aren't necessarily "substantially similar" in our legacy interpretation to any particular track. And while humans "train" on copyrighted work literally all the time, AI's can extract so much from their training, almost replicate the style - and soul? - of real musicians, that we hope to be able to call it copyright violation. Interesting times indeed.

[@kokopelli314]

Interesting thoughts.

[@LiquidEyes100]

​@@johnd7564 you nailed it with "in our legacy interpretation" 👌 In all this outrage, there's not enough honesty reflection on the blunt instrument of the traditional definition of "substantial similarity". Long before AI, entire fad subgenres have continually arisen wherein most tunes are exceptionally derivative. Something that hampers useful discussion about the concept of music copyright is classic Dunning-Kruger, i.e. the abundance of middling artists who are delusional about the level of originality of their own work. In a way AI holds up a mirror up to the greater number of musicians who want their own copycat productions to be copyrighted, yet they simultaneously protest about AI or AI-assisted producers generating equally formulaic music... by 'cheating'. No doubt those musicians invested lots of time in learning to imitate that preexisting style of music (copycatting 'the hard way'), but is that really the thing copyright should serve to protect?

[@SineEyed]

@@alecdurbaville6355 jeez... what a horrible perspective that is smh. It's hopelessly nihilistic and diminishing of human creativity. Thankfully, it's not at all true or accurate. This awful notion of yours is easily dismissed when we consider the implications of the "plausible exposure" criterion discussed in these two videos. In short, one artist's work can be very similar to another's without ever having been exposed to it. Completely different life experiences, but two artists can land in the same place with their respective works, independent of, and with no awareness of the other. This could not happen in your copypasta paradigm of human creativity..

[@SineEyed]

@@alecdurbaville6355 a personal attack? Hardly lol. I criticized one idea of yours--said nothing about you personally. Let's be reasonable here, shall we? I don't know what you mean be "aunt sally." I have original music on my channel. Go there to hear it for yourself. But that's not what you meant, is it? What you're actually saying - in a passive/aggressive way - is that there is no such thing as original music. Which, as I said before, is kind of a stupid way of looking at it. You seem icky.. 😒

[@kokopelli314]

@@SineEyed that’s magical thinking mate.

[@idlewise]

@26:00 there is no copyright registry in Switzerland. Swiss copyright laws are also different! How would a Swiss artist register their works for copyright?

[@SeattleSpursFan1882]

I've been waiting for you you to react to this one!

[@JoseGRendons]

Me Too

[@hajkie]

@25:00 not only suno but twitter has the same terms of service right now. Any pictures or text or videos can be used for machine learning.

[@zackcarty4790]

Ill always art no matter what. Aint never made $ from it, and if i dont, things b the same. Love playing music and will always do it, like Musemetv I think thats the name said "literally the best thing in the world playing music" I feel the same way! Art for arts sake, not $ sake.... want my wife back...😢

[@Vivaildi]

Vivaldi was almost unknown in his time.... and he made masterpieces. F the money, you're right.

[@Commentator-dq1bh]

04:16 Is she saying that royalty free music even AI generated music that you get from websites like PIxabay, are actually copyrighted and we cannot use them? Someone explain this part please.

[@High-Tech-Geek]

Movie directors often use copyrighted music called a Temp Track in their initial films. They then ask the composers to make something almost exactly the same. How is this any different? Unless someone uses your exact recording without your consent, I don't see any issues with similar sounding pieces, human composed OR AI composed.

[@DeltaEntropy]

@@High-Tech-Geek the issue is it’s depriving the entire business of its main revenue. In your situation, there still is a composer getting paid for the work, even if it is somewhat derivative. In the case of AI, there isn’t. And this also sidesteps the copyright issue that’s the main point of the video.

[@High-Tech-Geek]

@@DeltaEntropy If someone comes to me and asks me to create a soundtrack for their movie or project and I use AI to help me get there, you better believe I'm charging them for that work. I may create it faster and sell it cheaper, but that's true of any industry that streamlines production. No business is being deprived of any revenue. Just those artists and composers that don't want to keep up with the latest tools. And you cannot copyright a style. These AI copyright claims should stop. They are not exact copies of art or music. I can paint a picture that looks like the Mona Lisa or compose a song that sounds like the Star Wars theme and I can copyright both of those (it's already been done many times throughout history - see my previous description about temp track sound-alikes).

[@DeltaEntropy]

@ no, that’s not how it’s going to work. No one is going to be asked to make anything except for the AI itself. Why pay a middleman when you can do it yourself?

[@High-Tech-Geek]

​@@DeltaEntropy It's already working that way. You have obviously never learned to use the tools well. There are 1000s of AI tech jobs posted daily. People that know how to use AI tools are making lots of money being hired by Hollywood and other industries right now. For a small sampling, just search Curious Refuge AI jobs board.

[@brandnewyou5254]

Who do I go to with the simplest version of my song all of my songs can be broke down to an acoustic guitar and a page of lyrics how do I go about getting that Melody and Arrangement copyrighted

[@rockerrockstar]

Sounds like content ID is the issue not the ai music. If someone copyright a loop pack you used then you would have same issue.

[@jahhe2611]

well yes and no, he also speaks about the fact you could make variations of a song that is out so that if the original artist would make a new song it would get claimed by that person who owns all the variations for example. But yes mostly content id/law problems for now.

[@dn-anonymous]

Most of the things the guy is talking about would also apply to non-ai music exactly the same.

[@michaelcorbin2540tCorbin-v2d]

Straight fact america is over

[@potato9832]

You get what you voted for and America voted in the dumbest of the dumb. FAFO.

[@terrylandess6072]

I doubt the Amish have any stake in AI. Nor the food business. Or clothing, automobile, aircraft, and various other markets. But yeah - now we all burn I guess :P

[@DRONIE420]

lol, alex jones chimes in

[@supasoulproductions]

So, when I produce my original music, am I now required to say if I used an AI generated 'session player' in my DAW while I was arranging it? What if the final result of that 'session player part' is so chopped up. rearranged and processed that it is unrecognizable? Is it really AI, or am I just using that feature of the DAW as an instrument as if I'm 'playing it'? Does my setting the parameters of, say, Logic drummer to the specifics of my track constitute using AI. or playing a digital instrument? How much change in a 'sample' or loop that you have purchased/licensed does it take to make it your own? Why do all these non-music questions all the time make me want to tear off my scalp? (I don't have hair anymore, LOL) Don't even get me started about new AI features in plugins and mixing and mastering software. I want to be a musician and content creator, not a damned lawyer (no offense, good on ya for doing what you do).

[@christophermoonlightproduction]

As a user of AI in my VFX and animation work, I certainly have a few observations to levy, here. First of all, I've noticed that almost every anti-AI argument starts with the "plaintive" specifically asking AI to plagiarize a work and then refining their prompts until they get as close as possible. AI is very complex and can certainly do that but so can a camera or copy machine. It's still the human committing the plagiarism, not the AI. This in conjunction with the ad hominem comment of, "AI garbage" keeps the conversation loaded from the start in a pretty disingenuous way. What is at the heart of these arguments isn't the concerns expressed, which are valid in of themselves but risk getting thrown out with the bath water, so to speak, but rather artists and musicians are upset that new tools have entered the market that are shifting the dynamic away from how they have traditionally taken advantage of it to make money. His own music is synthesized which stems from instrument samples and the technology used for creating scores is dependent on algorithms that speed up his own process but he's not talking about that. That's why (and I'm not saying this to attack his music but it is true) the landscape of film score writers over the last decade all sound like they're riffing off the same MCU or Micheal Bay temp tracks. A lack of originality was already an issue before AI and as noted, you can't copyright a style. The Blurred Lines verdict was a travesty. Anyone who knows about how music or art is created could see that. The courts are often not qualified to weigh in on these subjects and we all suffer for it. As for the Trump rollbacks of AI regulation, we are yet to see what they will actually include. The main concern is that a lot of AI regulations that have already been put into place are already in favor of corporations, as well as 1984-style government surveillance that countries like China use to oppress their population. They deliberately work to create loopholes and expenses that corporations and the government can easily navigate while individuals and startups are mired in out-of-reach fees and permits that would keep them from competing in free market competition. Now, is that to say that these issues are invalid and need not be addressed? Absolutely not. I'm glad these conversations are being had and they need to continue. However, there is more here than his fatalistic and quite frankly, petulant complaints about how AI is going to ruin everything for artists and leave us in a landscape of bad art. We're already in a landscape of bad art. What we need is to free up artists to use these tools in ways that allow them to make the art they want to without fear of getting mired in overzealous copyright litigation. It's very simple. What you make is yours. If you use AI, remember that it's a tool and you have to make it yours. Have it generate your elements and then YOU put the together and add your own flair. You don't own a style and there's more to life than what's on the internet. You have to exist outside of it. Easy? No. Worth the dedication? Yes.

[@tarabing6415]

Wow - I think you hit the nail on the head... AI’s ethical challenges are different from traditional tools because it doesn’t just copy-it recreates. But it's not exactly like a camera or a copy machine, because when an AI model is trained on Van Gogh’s works and re-creates something in his style, it isn’t just inspired; it’s built on his original labor, potentially without credit or consent. This raises serious questions about exploitation and ownership, as the boundary between homage and replication is unclear. Also, market disruption from AI (and tech in general) isn’t neutral-it can favor small-time players like Napster did to the music industry, but it almost eventually favors big companies over independent creators. Corporations with advanced AI tools can flood markets with cheap, derivative content, leaving smaller artists struggling for visibility. Suggesting artists “just adapt” ignores how uneven access to resources makes competing with these large-scale productions nearly impossible. Fatalistic thinking?, maybe a little, but it does seem like creativity is being zapped by cheap and easy recreations. Looked at what Spotify did to it's own platform, devaluing it's platform for creators by uploading volumes & volumes of its own AI-generated rubbish. AI can produce content quickly, but the quality is often lukewarm to poor. There is often something that is off, to the discerning ear or eye. The flood of AI-generated work clogs the market, making it harder to find genuinely creative or high-quality pieces within the rubble. This wastes time for both creators and consumers, turning the focus away from meaningful art toward mass production and consumption. Quantity over quality risks devaluing art as a whole, and I don't see this going away, anytime soon.

[@christophermoonlightproduction]

@@tarabing6415 "it doesn’t just copy-it recreates." Those are the same thing. It doesn't recreate, it creates based on learned references based on its ability to identify things, which is also how humans recreate or create. If you can identify a thing, you can produce a representation of that thing. If we can mix those things and create representations beyond what we have observed, that's the foundation of art. Everything is a remix. Everything is transformative. Less we forget that AI image and audio generation started with trying to train self-driving cars how to identify the objects in its surroundings so it could navigate them... also as we do. Humans can also dig ditches with shovels but we don't credit the shovel with the labor, nor do we say that a ditch dug with a gas-powered trencher has less value because the labor and time involved was less than technology allowed, previously. Either way, the result was motivated by human desire and intention. Now, you may say that art and ditch-digging aren't comparable but I'd argue that's the kind of arrogant thinking that has led to a lot of artists overvaluing themselves in a market that was already in decline before AI entered the picture. I recall that these tools were first offered to artists and were roundly and loudly rejected when it could have been to their advantage to pick them up. (Looking at you Clip Studio users.) Once Hollywood started showing signs that their expenses, thanks to the shoddy quality of the writer's rooms and overstuffed productions the guilds had shackled them with, were far exceeding their potential profits and that they were hemorrhaging money, the AI companies saw a gap in the market that they could fill and presented their products to them. That's not AI's fault, just market forces. Yeah, it's rough for the people who can no longer compete in the market but it's even worse when you try to regulate things in favor of people who have gotten used to benefiting from a system that they have comfortably positioned themselves in. That creates stagnation, which is what Hollywood and California are suffering from. As for the quality of AI, again, that depends on whose hands its in, like any technology before it. It's just not a valid argument that's going to pan out in the long run. AI is producing amazing and beautiful results already, just like a high-quality Les Paul guitar can produce a superior sound. It's the human artist whose hands it will be in that will matter, just like always. If you gave a musician a $100 kid's starter guitar he can still play amazing things on it but if you gave a kid a Les Paul after only a few lessons, it's still not going to produce a riff that anyone is going to pay money for. Again, the market was already flooded with garbage and the people doing it didn't need AI to create that scenario. I'd actually argue that AI is going to cause the less devoted artists to think twice about bothering and the truly committed to step up their game in ways we have yet to imagine, and that's exciting. As for how corporations will use it to flood the market? Well, I've already addressed how the regulations in place right now are because of their lobbying and how they work to their benefit. If it is slop and garbage then people just won't be interested in it and the market will bear that out, as well. If you want quality, seek quality. You'll find it. If you're waiting for lawyers and corporations to fix things so it will be delivered to you, maybe it's time to reconsider how much you value art and who you're placing your autonomy with.

[@SinewaveSinatra]

Could not agree more! I love how musicians say "Ai music is trash" then follow it up with claiming Aiis stealing their jobs. If "mass generated trash" can keep you from getting hired, you may want to self reflect over how quality your music is to begin with. There also is no such thing as a licence for study. A few years back my team and I listened to every Taylor Swift song to dissect her formula, so we could produce in the style of Taylor Swift. If we had gone to her or her label and requested a licence for study, we'd be laughed out of the room. It isn't a thing. If your master infringes on her work, then there already are laws to protect the rights of what's being infringed. The whole anti ai debate is such a joke.

[@christophermoonlightproduction]

@@SinewaveSinatra Precisely. It's the corporations and a subsection of lawyers who smell money that want to keep the argument going. Once it's settled it can be easily navigated because independent creators with technology won't be terrified out of creating to their heart's content.

[@LovelyPrettyBones]

@21:23 I am pretty sure someone did this to CORPSE and stuck an AI generated song on SoundCloud to pull plays...

[@tbone6924]

I am just impressed that a "top music attorney" and self-described artist, record label owner, author, public speaker, and podcaster has time to crank out KZbin videos when to any of us mere mortals, just ONE of those titles, especially being an attorney, would be more than a full time job by itself.

[@SinewaveSinatra]

Granted she has a team. She doesn’t do all of that all on her own. Impressive but I doubt you have a full time staff of paralegals, assistants, and editors. Doesn’t compare. I have released thousands of songs. However I employ several full time vocalists, writers, and producers. Feeling like you can’t keep up with “me” is unrealistic.

[@michaelmaguire4147]

0:55 Didn't a judge already rule that anything created with AI cannot be copy-written? Or did that only apply to visual medium?

[@oCMSo]

Yes, yes, they did

[@Bahamamos]

copyright is a cesspool to abuse and stiffle creativity. Just create, and if you have a better audience, then you succeed. As more people are born, similar songs will exist anyways. There's already an IP of all melodies to exist in just 2terabites and now of public domain.

[@gaiustacitus4242]

Copyright laws exist to protect creators by preventing others from being financially harmed. These laws not only provide for civil damages, but also criminal prosecution which can include imprisonment and/or substantial fines. It is your attitude that is responsible for the criminal penalties.

[@Bahamamos]

@@gaiustacitus4242 yeayeayea. Lies. You literally made a circular output. Copyright literally stiffles innovation. Point blank. Some people get the same idea decades later, even a portion of a similar idea is blocked when the ideas branch to something totally different, but because there's partial similarities for say, inventions, that inventor cannot proceed because of the idiocy. IP stiffles competition. Not help it. You cannot sue someone WITHOUT copyright, thus making your logic meaningless to what I'm saying. it's strengthening my argument while trying to argue against it... wtf? This is my last reply. I'm not here to debate the obviousness. I prefer arguing with someone who argues in good faith. What you said literally benefits no one but the stiffler of competition. The one who should win is the one who does the better marketing and sale, and that would lead to another level of competition. There's people literally waiting for even a printer IP to pass to evolve the printer [Ithink this was around 5-10 years ago on a 1990s patent to go public domain?] It's a key factor behind how open source is more respected and valued in the IP world than IP ifself except for those whith success stories or attornies because both have a financial incentive for advantage; as many humans are selfish.

[@DRONIE420]

@@gaiustacitus4242 no way to enforce it soon, imagine AI music in 5yrs, no one will care

[@gaiustacitus4242]

@@DRONIE420 Copyright enforcement will remain effective through selective lawsuits and criminal prosecutions which make examples of offenders. The large offenders are profitable to prosecute, but small offenders are chosen at random to demonstrate how your life will be ruined forever if you're caught.

[@avnibmx]

26:40 is the legal registration of your song a one time payment fee or yearly subscription to the government ? For example i want to legally license one of my beats , do i pay 85$ and am good or you have to pay every year my friend told me its 100 a year to license a song he is no lawyer but yeah am curious ? Thanks in advance

[@MikeHightower1]

Sounds like Suno wants to own all musical patterns eventually. Soon one day any media will be owned my Ai.

[@NewSonicLight]

I've had my doubts on the ethics of AI music--and I had seen Venus Theory's video featured here. This clear, no nonsense and sensible video by her has made me even more aware of the many shades of gray and murk of this whole thing. So I'm going to stick to being old school (I'm also old, too - soon to be 70 y.o.): keep creating my own music through my DAW - something I never imagined possible when I first picked up a guitar at age 17...

[@btrue7386]

It annoys the hell out of me when people with no talent say they 'CREATED' music or art, when they in fact they just GENERATED it using a set of generic commands in AI. BIG difference. (Didn't realise I'd have karens raging at my comment. If this comment effects your well being, please join the list of Artificial Idiots below)

[@CarlSnub]

the average person doesn't care, AI isn't going anywhere

[@btrue7386]

What exactly does that have to do with what I said?

[@jacobjackddd]

art is subjective, just like your opinion. Dont force your beliefs on others

[@btrue7386]

@@jacobjackddd Forcing My beliefs? what are you on about?? Just say you're one of them people, I won't judge you for having no discernible talent 'CoochyPoo' with your AI GENERATED DP.

[@btrue7386]

@@CarlSnub You another 'average person' without talent, telling everyone you 'Created/Produced' something by pressing a button? lmao

[@colomboBE]

Easy solution, No AI music creation allowed.

[@JodyBruchon]

The easiest way to deal with this issue is to get rid of the fake notion of "intellectual property" or at least extremely restrict it.

[@terrylandess6072]

I don't believe all this should qualify for copyright to begin with. Ambience music tends to not use formats one could transpose onto paper clearly. Time signature, key, chords/structure in combination with a melody/solo are established norms. These 'new' legal definitions destroy the fundamental way music has been qualified in the past and like a coastline - will increase in length the smaller the unit of measure used to define it is.

[@BDLabs2]

Everything is a remix. We copy one another to familiarize others so that they can understand new information. That is what makes our stuff become our own unique original work so that we can claim ownership over a small fraction of our shared experience. “Good artists copy. Great artists steal” (Picasso) “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.” (Albert Einstein) “Stealing from every artist is called art. Stealing from one artist is called plagiarism” (Steven Wright and con man Wilson Mizner). AI, is just a tool in the artist’s arsenal. Some may use it more than others. Some AI based content may become more predominant than others. Time will only tell. Yet, in the meantime, the only way to not get replaced by A.I. is to know how to use A.I. (Disney Imagineering Exec David Durham).

[@adambane1719]

"Lawyer reacts".... lol !! This chick is as about as much of a qualified certified lawyer, as Bugs Bunny is !!!

[@draktheas8153]

@@adambane1719 You want to put up your credentials that qualifies you to say she isn’t a lawyer, Elmer Fudd?

[@Nebvla]

​​@@draktheas8153they are spamming the copy and pasted quote everywhere it seems 3 comments isn't everywhere but whatever

[@adambane1719]

@@draktheas8153 You people will believe anything if its in KZbin video ! lol

[@DRONIE420]

cat lady vibes for sure

[@Nebvla]

@@DRONIE420 oo cats so cute

[@andrew4982]

Here is a question: there are tons of videos here on this platform with the subject/name: Build a track from scratch showing in detail how to turn the knobs to get a certain sound. Let’s say that someone is doing that and is publishing that track that sounds pretty identical with the one in the video. Who owns the copyright for that track? Someone? Or the “teacher”?

[@chillwalker]

10:09 I find it more than sad and alarming, that the mother of all tangible music mediums isn't mentioned at all: "Writing your music as notation."

[@BaneKobaine]

Always great advice and videos as always, but your "oh wow" took me out at the end, when he said we all gonna die 😂😂 My same reaction when I saw that video~

[@watamatafoyu]

AI-generated content can't be copyrighted in the United States, so it's odd that it can have content IDs and people can be copyright striked on it.

[@derekjp6043]

If she's seen him before, I love the way she's acting in a way that has me believing she hasn't. .. yeah, I need to sleep but I'm hooked on your mission and first experience of you and your channel.

[@Merlinvn82]

Question: Is it appropriate and legitimate to create a reaction video that quote an entire video from another KZbin creator?

[@MusiclyricsByECDaleyC]

Thank you for being here, and I did see this "Venus Theory" video before, however, I have been writing songs for at least 50 years now, and it is truly disheartening to think this is where we find ourselves today! To me, it's my heart and soul that is potentially being stolen from me! PS: I have had people ask me if they could perform a few of my songs over the years, recently, a stranger saw me playing a song I wrote, and told me "his friend who recently passed away" was covering my song, as he loved it saying it was one of his favorite songs! I was very flattered, as I have never released my music other than a few posted songs by me " with no A-1 involved" at all! A close friend as me if he could do my song on a new CD he made just a few short years a go called "My night With you" ! His name is "Fly Amero", a fantastic artist and writer himself, and it's on his album "Beautiful World" available on most music selling platforms. I met Fly met, because he literally learned it live, with me performing at his open Mic. He has to joined me in many times over the years, and it was amazing having him back me up, and the people seemed to like it a lot too!

[@moritz_schoenermann]

Hello there! I just found your channel. I have a question... I used SUNO and I prompted all my key stylish/musical references and decades and one in 10 resulted in something that could be really me, the only difference is that all them were waaaaayyyy more appealing commercially than what I output 🤣... On the other hand everything I compose is influenced and has references to all the bands I like, music I have heard during all my life and I think this is the case of a lot of composers. So, what would be the difference of composing influenced by all the "data I processed" during my life as a music listener and the AI listening to all those songs out there that can be classified, stereotyped, has typical synthesizer sounds timbres and patterns? For exemple Depeche Mode has a lot of bands, usually formed by big fans, that sound really close to them, even the voice. Me and my friends call them (Depeche Clones)...

[@fernandop1]

*At this point, I guess is better to use KZbin music library, or maybe that's what they want us to do*

[@dumpmail-xz2qp]

youtube will take a extra percentage of the earnings just for using their library

[@FiresideMelodyCraft]

what is the difference between me a human, going to school, being taught by a teacher music theory, finding songs that i like, learning and instrument, practicing the instrument, playing copyrighted materials during that practice, going to recitals, playing in school bands, where the band makes music from playing copyrighted materials and not returning that to the original artists. then going onto make derivative works from that music, based on the intensive music theory studies that I have done, nothing is original in this frame. everything that i am doing has been done before by someone, yeah the tempo the key or the lyrics intonations maybe different, but that is it. Music has finite combinations. comparing to an AI, Training for Copyrighted information, being taught music theory, being given instruments, and then using that established music theory to create works that fall inside those rules. a robit did it yeah, but it is the same thing, do we need to ask the ai companies to the sheet music of the compositions and all the tool breakdowns and the theory lessons for each song, so we can determine that it is original music. as with humans as you said if you put your idea in a tangible medium like text or hum it, it make it copyright-able, so why aren't the internal steps along the way inside the machine also that. it learnt from something, humans do too, it composed the piece, humans do too, it learnt the instruments humans do too, it performed the vocals with intonation humans do too, why is none of it copyright-able, or is that the same source material that both human and machine learnt from being treated differently, because there were no humans in the process, and it can be done quicker and noone apart from the AI Tools knows what i going in in the middle.

[@ividosrs]

My first thought seeing that video was "i'd just retract it i have all the samples, materials, original files, if the do still decide to sue me over it I can surely prove I made it (first)"

[@bitcoinbrother]

AI is a tool, so you have the rigjts, even more if you paid to use AI. So the firm mades brush and you use that brush to paint .. that paint picture is yours not brush retil or creator

[@derlichtkasten4631]

What we call AI ist just a interpretation of unpredictable results generated by a computer program after formulating a request for it or a query respectively. A human written program, that extracts information from a binary large object (BLOB) of data. This BLOB has been generated by a human written program, which classifies a bunch of collected input data by multiply applying methods mainly derived from statistics. A copyright protection might be applied to the program that transforms the data or the bunch of raw input data, that has been collected. Thus the result of an input to an AI program is the result of a database query. I asked an AI: "Can the result of a database query be copyright protected?" AI answers: "While the individual query results may not be protected, the database from which they are derived can be, depending on how it was created and the laws in place."

[@pprojectband]

Of cs it should be the government. Back than when the actual regulations was brought in, there was no such thing as Ai. It should be an absolute normal thing, that as technology advances and new stuff is comming in, in paralel the regulations should be updated. Theres no other way to solve this as ban Ai companies from training Ai on artists intellectual property. They can create algorithms to achieve unique Ai songs and claim copyrights. But not if its trained on existing stuff. Means = its a cover.

[@terrylandess6072]

Based on this AI 'legalese', If I task my computers to do some extremely long math - do I get to copyright the result? That's my number... hey you used part of my number.... Geesh.

[@pprojectband]

@@terrylandess6072 Most likely Yes. Because Your not copyrighting the "number" or the "result" but the program-script You wrote to achieve it. And software (as a variety of scripts layered to cooperate) underlies copyright as well. So if You achive a audio even visual result based on unique script syntaxes You developed the result is a part of Your copyright for this system. Of course not, if You train it on existing stuff. Thats just simply an automated cover creation system and thats a problem. Because they are rulez for cover creation and they should be the same for artists but automated cover creation systems as well. (Just tried to describe the difference as producer and sw programmer 20 y. in business) You can write unique music in a DAW or with automated systems - see trappers modulators, other generators. Without matching it to whatever existing. Or You can make a system that steals music and modulates it. Simply said. One thing is unique. The other is cheating.

[@OldManGamingUK]

Couldn't we have a content ID database that AI services are required by law to automatically register to, any AI created music at the point of creation? Then current content I'd could cross reference to determine if it is AI created or not.

[@mrdave740a]

That's a cool idea, but I can't imagine how many tens of thousands of registrations would happen every day. I wouldn't register every song I write, just the ones worth sharing. I think someone else mentioned the real issue is that ContentID doesn't require any proof of who wrote the song, and people can file claims without giving any additional proof.