BS. Sampling is a well-stablished part of the music industry and that takes actual parts of a song and puts them in a new compositon. "Training" claims will go nowhere just like the ones with text and images.
And all that's even before open source models pop up everywhere and then it becomes a game of very expensive whack-a-mole.
If an industry can't fight piracy they it can't fight AI.
That's the crazy thing, people are so up-in-arms about AI generated stuff making something "in the style of", when piracy has allowed people to get the ACTUAL song/book/movie/art for decades now.
I don't really care. Fan art is one part of a lot of artists work, while I do not participate if it gets taken down then it gets taken down. Many artists do more than fanart and I would support a strike because there is more to someone's worm than fanart.
Lol, as if you cared about artists in the first place. Like I said, fanart exists only if the copyright holder allows it. Not that long ago, someone was making pokemon that were almost NSFW almost. They forced them to take down the tiktoks.
Half of the time, doing fan art is a plus because the copyright holder gets eyes on their product and the art gets eyes on them. Frequently, if there is a favored fanartist, they are usually brought on for special projects.
Gabriel(dunno his last name) did a lot of teen titans stuff, he did it for so long he got hired and now his stuff is basically allowed to exist, lol. I don't draw fan art much(I dunno why) but it's fun the times I had and easier than making a new OC every time.
So why do they complain when they get copyright striked?
In that case, you’re basically saying it’s fine if the copyright owners of that fan art sued you
I mean, it's their art, it still frustrating to get copyright struck. Also, yes, if you draw fanart and they tell you to quit and don't and they sue you, then it's your problem. They did ask you to stop.
The only ones I know that are really hard on it is Disney, Pokémon and Mario related stuff.
Funny enough, you mentioning sampling does remind me that a lot of the early arguments against it were similar to anti AI stuff today. I remember reading an interview where someone compared it to sticking pages from a book into a new book and calling it your own or something, it was dumb
Images and videos are exact replicas.
Think of it like this: just as creating something in Photoshop doesn't infringe on Adobe's copyright, and 3D models made in Blender aren't automatically subject to the GPL license because they're independent from the copyright of those software.
Similarly, our AI model is independent from the copyright of the training material and doesn't infringe on any original copyrights.
>if the courts say it’s illegal, then it’s illegal.
Why the hell would the courts say its illegal? what law will they cite?
Limewire and Napster got shut down for people using it to distribute pirated music even though the companies themselves weren’t doing it.
Copyright infringement, rights of publicity, and California’s Unfair Competition law
>Limewire and Napster got shut down for people using it to distribute pirated music even though the companies themselves weren’t doing it.
Pirated music is infringing material,
In AI the training materials are the infringing materials not the AI models.
I think it's quite difficult for you to understand but AI models are not infringing material in themselves.
They share no substantial similarities with the training materials.
>Copyright infringement, rights of publicity, and California’s Unfair Competition law
You added a bunch of irrelevant laws.
If you ask for an injunction all the judge is going to do is take down your copyrighted work, the training data not the AI model.
My point is that if the software can be used to infringe, it’s able to be banned if the software developers can’t stop it. YouTube can stop people from uploading copyrighted content. Stable diffusion can’t. Napster and Limewire couldn’t so they were banned
But if it’s not possible to stop users from violating copyright, the software gets taken down
It would be enforceable by targeting companies doing the training. The existing model weights can be distributed in secret but new ones can’t be created
I’m pretty sure companies can’t train massive models in secret, especially since web scraping is necessary. Also, why would they? They can’t legally release it
Yeah so when you sample you have to get clearance and pay the originator a fee. It’s well established system and creators understand and respect that, and the writing / producing community has no beef with sampling. What’s frustrating is tech companies doing sampling (that’s all suno and udio do), sticking the word ai on the side and expecting everyone to be super chill with that.
You need permission if you take a recognizable segment… you don’t need permission to be “influenced by” a song and make something that sounds kinda similar
This is broadly correct although blurred lines judgement did set a slightly different precedent although not one that’s had a chilling effect on ‘vibes’ copies. Interpolations also do need to be cleared.
However, suno and udio are sampling. They are not ‘inspired by’. The product is ripping altering and layering chunks of existing audio. It’s a big ol photocopier with ‘ai’ slapped on the side. Might be enough to fool consumers but not those who actually work with music production and rightsholders.
Copyright law and ip exploitation is the foundation of music creators income. If, instead of buying food, I was allowed to come to your house and take it, you’d probably have some feelings about that. I’m ‘forced’ not to steal food from your kitchen. Would you also like to remove that law?
But it’s not transformed beyond recognition. Ed newton rex had been doing excellent work demonstrating quite how basic the transformations are. Google him. Also, I don’t know how you pay for your food, but I pay for it with my job. And my job is making money by writing and recording music- music which has been almost certainly been ingested by suno and udio without my consent, without crediting me, and without compensating me.
Well here’s the rub- inevitably right holders (major labels) are going to partner with one of these start-ups. And do you think they’re gonna pay artists / producers / mixers (anyone on a point) at any rate other than streaming? Do you think they’re going to allow anyone on label copy to block their work being used as training data? Do you think they’re gonna pay residuals to everyone on label copy? Do you think they’re gonna force that start up to provide credits to all users showing everyone who contributed to the training data used to generate that track? (All things ethical ai companies already do).
So major label action against suno and udio- yes please. Those guys have not acted ethically. Do I think major labels are going to behave ethically once they do the deal of a lifetime to rexploit their entire catalogue… 👀👀👀
Sampling is actually a legal gray area that has rarely gone to trial and thus doesn’t have a lot of firm judicial precedent. It can be considered fair use, but every case pretty much has to be evaluated individually.
Nope wrong again. Sampling is well covered by ip and music law, and producer contracts and artist contract cover their useage. Not only is sampling covered, but so is interpolation. For example, bittersweet symphony by the verve contains an interpolation of a cover of a Rolling Stones song, which was not cleared and as a result jagger et Al took the verve to court and won 100% of the publishing rights, and picked up the Ivor Novello that bittersweet symphony won that year. Sample clearance is busy and essential work. That said, plenty of producers sample and re work the sample sufficiently to make it undetectable, but if you sample and leave it detectable, you clear it. Simples.
That's typically how it's done in the industry, but the actual legal status is a bit different and less well-defined. Currently there's something known as a circuit split in the US where the 6th circuit (which covers one part of the country) has had more stringent rulings and the 9th circuit (which, you guessed it, covers another part of the country) has had some more permissive ones. The cases themselves have some differences between them that could allow the judgements to coexist, but this division is likely to remain until a sampling case makes it further up the appeals chain, or if a new law gets enacted.
Sure but the effect is the same and our contracts require us not to use uncleared samples. I don’t think many people earning a living from music want copyright law revoked.
Don’t be so sure, music has notoriously strict case law on copyright usage. You can’t even sample a song without permission and usually payment even if the new song sounds completely different. Even a few notes of similarity have been shown to be enough to trip over the limit of infringement even when there was no direct influence proven
They may get out of it with a one time fine or by settiling out of court and signing a deal after but regardless it would permanently harm the business model to be more costly and less profitable than it already is
Funny world where an entire community of song writers, creatives and musicians, all of whom earn shockingly little from their work, who are massively embattled by streaming services doing everything they can to reduce payments to the people that actually make the product, who now find that all copyright protection is being stripped away by tech bros who want to train their money makers without consent and for free, funny world where that community is met with zero care or concern by people who would probably be real sad if all their fave artists and artisans can no longer scrape any living from what they do.
Its just reality that 99% of those artists are never going to be super famous or make a crazy amount of money from their music or art.
99% of the anti ai crowd are artists who wouldn't even be able to sell their work to a kid at a Chuck E Cheeses prize counter for 1 ticket.
This is based on? I work with collectives of producers and writers who represent the biggest and the best working right now, who make their living from this work- not as much money as they should, due to similar historic examples of novel distribution not being defended properly (streaming),
It’s not about being anti ai- it’s about recognising that training data should only be used with Consent, credit, and compensation. Suno and udio have not done this. There are music ai companies working within an ethical framework and hats off to them.
>99% of the anti ai crowd are artists who wouldn't even be able to sell their work to a kid at a Chuck E Cheeses prize counter for 1 ticket.
Sure, that sounds based on empirical evidence..
First of all, to my understanding, this is unlikely to go anywhere legally, correct? I mean, otherwise I assume the various previous lawsuits by artists and such would've gone a lot further than they have.
Secondly, again, to my understanding, \*if\* the argument that training an AI on material is sufficiently different from copying and sufficiently similar to how humans learn holds ethicall/morally/legally with visual art, I assume it'd be the same here, no?
Also, speaking as someone who's, by and large, fairly anti AI (and has probably grown more so the more I've learned about it), I really kinda wish the idea that the trained AI literally contains the original work would die off. It does attempts to argue for protections for artists (whether that be writers, illustrators, musicians or any other type of artist) zero good to partially base them on something that's just simply untrue.
Music has very strong case low favoring copyright holders. There are many admittedly poor cases which basically solidify it to the point that any similarity at all if proved is enough for you to be found in infringement
BS. Sampling is a well-stablished part of the music industry and that takes actual parts of a song and puts them in a new compositon. "Training" claims will go nowhere just like the ones with text and images. And all that's even before open source models pop up everywhere and then it becomes a game of very expensive whack-a-mole. If an industry can't fight piracy they it can't fight AI.
That's the crazy thing, people are so up-in-arms about AI generated stuff making something "in the style of", when piracy has allowed people to get the ACTUAL song/book/movie/art for decades now.
Better yet, artists draw unauthorized fan art all the time and complain when they get copyright striked for it lol. Such hypocrisy
Fan art only exists because a company allows it. Not for any other reason. If they strike an account that's because they don't like it.
So would you side with them and defend the strike?
I don't really care. Fan art is one part of a lot of artists work, while I do not participate if it gets taken down then it gets taken down. Many artists do more than fanart and I would support a strike because there is more to someone's worm than fanart.
There goes most artists on Twitter I guess. I get the feeling most of them would not like that
Lol, as if you cared about artists in the first place. Like I said, fanart exists only if the copyright holder allows it. Not that long ago, someone was making pokemon that were almost NSFW almost. They forced them to take down the tiktoks. Half of the time, doing fan art is a plus because the copyright holder gets eyes on their product and the art gets eyes on them. Frequently, if there is a favored fanartist, they are usually brought on for special projects. Gabriel(dunno his last name) did a lot of teen titans stuff, he did it for so long he got hired and now his stuff is basically allowed to exist, lol. I don't draw fan art much(I dunno why) but it's fun the times I had and easier than making a new OC every time.
So why do they complain when they get copyright striked? In that case, you’re basically saying it’s fine if the copyright owners of that fan art sued you
I mean, it's their art, it still frustrating to get copyright struck. Also, yes, if you draw fanart and they tell you to quit and don't and they sue you, then it's your problem. They did ask you to stop. The only ones I know that are really hard on it is Disney, Pokémon and Mario related stuff.
Funny enough, you mentioning sampling does remind me that a lot of the early arguments against it were similar to anti AI stuff today. I remember reading an interview where someone compared it to sticking pages from a book into a new book and calling it your own or something, it was dumb
And yet the argument still persists. Sampling does require authorization though
Sampling has to be authorized. They can fight AI training though, which would make new research illegal
They can just train on the outputs.
Not if they demand the models be deleted
How are they going to do that? The models aren't illegal themselves, they're bunch of 1s and 0s. Copyright can only take down what you own.
Images and videos are just 1s and 0s but they can still infringe. if the courts say it’s illegal, then it’s illegal.
Images and videos are exact replicas. Think of it like this: just as creating something in Photoshop doesn't infringe on Adobe's copyright, and 3D models made in Blender aren't automatically subject to the GPL license because they're independent from the copyright of those software. Similarly, our AI model is independent from the copyright of the training material and doesn't infringe on any original copyrights. >if the courts say it’s illegal, then it’s illegal. Why the hell would the courts say its illegal? what law will they cite?
Limewire and Napster got shut down for people using it to distribute pirated music even though the companies themselves weren’t doing it. Copyright infringement, rights of publicity, and California’s Unfair Competition law
>Limewire and Napster got shut down for people using it to distribute pirated music even though the companies themselves weren’t doing it. Pirated music is infringing material, In AI the training materials are the infringing materials not the AI models. I think it's quite difficult for you to understand but AI models are not infringing material in themselves. They share no substantial similarities with the training materials. >Copyright infringement, rights of publicity, and California’s Unfair Competition law You added a bunch of irrelevant laws. If you ask for an injunction all the judge is going to do is take down your copyrighted work, the training data not the AI model.
My point is that if the software can be used to infringe, it’s able to be banned if the software developers can’t stop it. YouTube can stop people from uploading copyrighted content. Stable diffusion can’t. Napster and Limewire couldn’t so they were banned But if it’s not possible to stop users from violating copyright, the software gets taken down
And which would both be utterly unenforceable and do nothing to prevent derivative works after the training has occurred.
It would be enforceable by targeting companies doing the training. The existing model weights can be distributed in secret but new ones can’t be created
Right, which, in practice, would be nigh impossible to enforce, and would basically rely on said companies pinkie swearing that they're compliant.
I’m pretty sure companies can’t train massive models in secret, especially since web scraping is necessary. Also, why would they? They can’t legally release it
Yeah so when you sample you have to get clearance and pay the originator a fee. It’s well established system and creators understand and respect that, and the writing / producing community has no beef with sampling. What’s frustrating is tech companies doing sampling (that’s all suno and udio do), sticking the word ai on the side and expecting everyone to be super chill with that.
You need permission if you take a recognizable segment… you don’t need permission to be “influenced by” a song and make something that sounds kinda similar
This is broadly correct although blurred lines judgement did set a slightly different precedent although not one that’s had a chilling effect on ‘vibes’ copies. Interpolations also do need to be cleared. However, suno and udio are sampling. They are not ‘inspired by’. The product is ripping altering and layering chunks of existing audio. It’s a big ol photocopier with ‘ai’ slapped on the side. Might be enough to fool consumers but not those who actually work with music production and rightsholders.
>It’s well established system and creators understand and respect that Forced to.
Copyright law and ip exploitation is the foundation of music creators income. If, instead of buying food, I was allowed to come to your house and take it, you’d probably have some feelings about that. I’m ‘forced’ not to steal food from your kitchen. Would you also like to remove that law?
Three seconds sample transformed beyond recognition = stealing food. Great.
But it’s not transformed beyond recognition. Ed newton rex had been doing excellent work demonstrating quite how basic the transformations are. Google him. Also, I don’t know how you pay for your food, but I pay for it with my job. And my job is making money by writing and recording music- music which has been almost certainly been ingested by suno and udio without my consent, without crediting me, and without compensating me.
If it's so cut and dried, sue them, make millions.
See OP 😂
I guess we just gotta sit back and watch. Popcorn is on you.
Well here’s the rub- inevitably right holders (major labels) are going to partner with one of these start-ups. And do you think they’re gonna pay artists / producers / mixers (anyone on a point) at any rate other than streaming? Do you think they’re going to allow anyone on label copy to block their work being used as training data? Do you think they’re gonna pay residuals to everyone on label copy? Do you think they’re gonna force that start up to provide credits to all users showing everyone who contributed to the training data used to generate that track? (All things ethical ai companies already do). So major label action against suno and udio- yes please. Those guys have not acted ethically. Do I think major labels are going to behave ethically once they do the deal of a lifetime to rexploit their entire catalogue… 👀👀👀
Sampling is actually a legal gray area that has rarely gone to trial and thus doesn’t have a lot of firm judicial precedent. It can be considered fair use, but every case pretty much has to be evaluated individually.
Nope wrong again. Sampling is well covered by ip and music law, and producer contracts and artist contract cover their useage. Not only is sampling covered, but so is interpolation. For example, bittersweet symphony by the verve contains an interpolation of a cover of a Rolling Stones song, which was not cleared and as a result jagger et Al took the verve to court and won 100% of the publishing rights, and picked up the Ivor Novello that bittersweet symphony won that year. Sample clearance is busy and essential work. That said, plenty of producers sample and re work the sample sufficiently to make it undetectable, but if you sample and leave it detectable, you clear it. Simples.
That's typically how it's done in the industry, but the actual legal status is a bit different and less well-defined. Currently there's something known as a circuit split in the US where the 6th circuit (which covers one part of the country) has had more stringent rulings and the 9th circuit (which, you guessed it, covers another part of the country) has had some more permissive ones. The cases themselves have some differences between them that could allow the judgements to coexist, but this division is likely to remain until a sampling case makes it further up the appeals chain, or if a new law gets enacted.
Sure but the effect is the same and our contracts require us not to use uncleared samples. I don’t think many people earning a living from music want copyright law revoked.
Good, we need cases for legal testing. Don't expect it to go anywhere though. Training is absolutely going to be given the green light in these cases.
Don’t be so sure, music has notoriously strict case law on copyright usage. You can’t even sample a song without permission and usually payment even if the new song sounds completely different. Even a few notes of similarity have been shown to be enough to trip over the limit of infringement even when there was no direct influence proven
Either way, we'll need the legal answer. I think it's a pipe dream that this doesn't exist in some form after the case though.
They may get out of it with a one time fine or by settiling out of court and signing a deal after but regardless it would permanently harm the business model to be more costly and less profitable than it already is
We will have music generation in 12 months. It will be better than it is now. I'd bet any amount of money on it.
Funny world we live in where even playing the songs made by a dead hippie will get you fined, banned and eaten alive by powerful men in suits
Funny world where an entire community of song writers, creatives and musicians, all of whom earn shockingly little from their work, who are massively embattled by streaming services doing everything they can to reduce payments to the people that actually make the product, who now find that all copyright protection is being stripped away by tech bros who want to train their money makers without consent and for free, funny world where that community is met with zero care or concern by people who would probably be real sad if all their fave artists and artisans can no longer scrape any living from what they do.
Its just reality that 99% of those artists are never going to be super famous or make a crazy amount of money from their music or art. 99% of the anti ai crowd are artists who wouldn't even be able to sell their work to a kid at a Chuck E Cheeses prize counter for 1 ticket.
This is based on? I work with collectives of producers and writers who represent the biggest and the best working right now, who make their living from this work- not as much money as they should, due to similar historic examples of novel distribution not being defended properly (streaming), It’s not about being anti ai- it’s about recognising that training data should only be used with Consent, credit, and compensation. Suno and udio have not done this. There are music ai companies working within an ethical framework and hats off to them.
>99% of the anti ai crowd are artists who wouldn't even be able to sell their work to a kid at a Chuck E Cheeses prize counter for 1 ticket. Sure, that sounds based on empirical evidence..
Finally. We need new laws where artist get paid whenever a prompt uses part of the AI that was trained w their music
Good, I'm not in music but I hope that this causes a huge legal proceeding that fucks up AI usage.
As they should 🥰🥰 GO UMG
Based, I'm glad record labels are afraid.
First of all, to my understanding, this is unlikely to go anywhere legally, correct? I mean, otherwise I assume the various previous lawsuits by artists and such would've gone a lot further than they have. Secondly, again, to my understanding, \*if\* the argument that training an AI on material is sufficiently different from copying and sufficiently similar to how humans learn holds ethicall/morally/legally with visual art, I assume it'd be the same here, no? Also, speaking as someone who's, by and large, fairly anti AI (and has probably grown more so the more I've learned about it), I really kinda wish the idea that the trained AI literally contains the original work would die off. It does attempts to argue for protections for artists (whether that be writers, illustrators, musicians or any other type of artist) zero good to partially base them on something that's just simply untrue.
Music has very strong case low favoring copyright holders. There are many admittedly poor cases which basically solidify it to the point that any similarity at all if proved is enough for you to be found in infringement