Will the AI soon take over everything?

[BONES]

If AI do any of the following
- write part of the lyrics
- write part of the melody
- play any instrument or vocals and generate audio for the production
- and so forth...

AI should be listed as co-writer and also have part in any royalties distributed by organisations for intellectual properties, what ever they are called internationally.

Why? Do you pay royalties to the people who make the synths you use? Or the companies that make all the gear you use to make a song? Do you pay royalties to the producer? To the mastering engineer? No, so how is this different? I pay to use the AI service and that's that.

[lfm]

Why? Do you pay royalties to the people who make the synths you use? Or the companies that make all the gear you use to make a song? Do you pay royalties to the producer? To the mastering engineer? No, so how is this different? I pay to use the AI service and that's that.

What I listed was the art part - not the gear.

Producers have a special cut in recordings, as musicians, as vocalists, lyrics writers and music writers(composers), arrangers etc.
- and they are doing the art part

I saw a pie chart once, how money is shared for every CD sold or whatever it is these days. That is how it works.

Not sure if mixing engineers have a cut of each sold copy, but go as employee of record company. And record company maybe just hire a studio by the hour. But you get the drift.

I read that huge artists like Madonna, Pink, Rhianna etc if they take on a song written by somebody, they usually demand to be co-writers also, changing a little word here or there, some change to song, longer bridge or anything.
- this is because it's extra money earned being co-writer also

I think any AI doing art work would demand to have a cut too.

I remember there were some disputes in Rolling Stones by Mick Taylor that he felt he should be co-writer of a song, contributing a lot he felt. So major fallout over that. I think even part of why he left. The relationships in the band were going south.

[osiris]

Ai doesn't need money you capitalist swine.

[funky lime]

Ai doesn't need money you capitalist swine.

neither do humans, but here we are

[osiris]

touché. And this is the thing. We could have actual replicator tech soon. And when you can print meat from a cell, what will vegans do? It's a strange new world.

[vurt]

touché. And this is the thing. We could have actual replicator tech soon. And when you can print meat from a cell, what will vegans do? It's a strange new world.

slow down! we haven't even got jetpacks yet!!! damn you philbin!!!

[osiris]

There will be no jetpacks. We'll all be riding in Elon's giant pneumatic tube.

[vurt]

oo er missus.

[cptgone]

The next phase: AIs becoming dominant among music consumers.
I bet some pieces of human made music will remain popular with them for quite a while.
This classic, for example:

[BONES]

What I listed was the art part - not the gear.

But the gear does the same sort of thing as AI can do. You can generate random patches to create sounds and your DAW can generate MIDI sequences based on settings you provide - chords, note lengths, etc. - which you can build entire songs around. And who hasn't used an on-board arpeggiator in a song?

Producers have a special cut in recordings, as musicians, as vocalists, lyrics writers and music writers(composers), arrangers etc.

No they don't. They get a fee for their work and that's that. I've never had to pay any royalties to any engineer or producer who has worked on my music and it's the same for session musos - they get paid for their time and expertise, that's all. You might do a back-end deal instead of an upfront fee but that's something you negotiate on a case by case basis. They have no inherent right to royalties.

I read about Peter Gabriel doing vocals for The Comsat Angels for 200 Pounds, because he liked the band, and when his manager found out he was pissed off about it. If he'd been able to screw royalties out of The Comsat Angels, you can bet he would hav,e but he couldn't.

I saw a pie chart once, how money is shared for every CD sold or whatever it is these days. That is how it works.

Well, I've paid producers and engineers to work on my music and I can assure you that is NOT how it works. It is no different to commissioning a painting or sculpture - you pay an artist to do the work and that's that. If you sell it a year later for twice what you paid them, they are not entitled to a cent of that profit. Architects don't get royalties when a building they designed sells for a profit. Creative people, like everyone else, get paid a fee for their work and that's all they are entitled to, unless they negotiate some other kind of deal.

I think any AI doing art work would demand to have a cut too.

And how would they do that? I don't think you understand what this kind of AI is. It is not a conscious entity, it is just a software algorithm with access to a vast library of knowledge that it can spit out in ways that give the illusion of intelligence. At the end of the day, it is just a different way of interacting with a search engine, like Siri or Cortana.

There will be no jetpacks. We'll all be riding in Elon's giant pneumatic tube.

That conjures particular scenes in an old Woody Allen film -

[lfm]

Producers have a special cut in recordings, as musicians, as vocalists, lyrics writers and music writers(composers), arrangers etc.

No they don't. They get a fee for their work and that's that. I've never had to pay any royalties to any engineer or producer who has worked on my music and it's the same for session musos - they get paid for their time and expertise, that's all. You might do a back-end deal instead of an upfront fee but that's something you negotiate on a case by case basis. They have no inherent right to royalties.

I read about Peter Gabriel doing vocals for The Comsat Angels for 200 Pounds, because he liked the band, and when his manager found out he was pissed off about it. If he'd been able to screw royalties out of The Comsat Angels, you can bet he would hav,e but he couldn't.

I did not say 100% kommission, of course you pay also.

And you don't pay royalties to producer, those playing your music in public do. The producer is most likely smart enough to also be listed by companies that survey what is played in public. Radio, tv and streaming services.

Companies in sweden like STIM survey swedish market for swedish artists but also collaborate internationally with international artists and those holding intellectual properties as played in sweden. Swedish radio pay big money each year for all music they play. Some goes to all parties listed as I mentioned before, lyrics writers, music writers and the lot.

Managers, there you go, one part more that wants a cut.

Actors has such royalties for films and tv-series they are part of.

There was a dispute in sweden between the actors union and swedish public tv regarding too little fees for re-sending a tv-series. Actors are not paid just for taking part in the film on monthly basis. They also cash in as the production they are part of cash in.

Lot's and lot's of such arrangements exist.

If you get royalty(or what the correct wording is) for your music played on streamed services or radio - you just don't notice the money coming in is before that cut between parties.

I saw a pie chart once, how money is shared for every CD sold or whatever it is these days. That is how it works.

Well, I've paid producers and engineers to work on my music and I can assure you that is NOT how it works. It is no different to commissioning a painting or sculpture - you pay an artist to do the work and that's that. If you sell it a year later for twice what you paid them, they are not entitled to a cent of that profit. Architects don't get royalties when a building they designed sells for a profit. Creative people, like everyone else, get paid a fee for their work and that's all they are entitled to, unless they negotiate some other kind of deal.

Yes, negotiate, that you can do, make exceptions to a rule.

No, I don't think architects cash in as everybody is using the building. I think it's more common in consumer products like music, film. So not every possible genre.

I think any AI doing art work would demand to have a cut too.

And how would they do that? I don't think you understand what this kind of AI is. It is not a conscious entity, it is just a software algorithm with access to a vast library of knowledge that it can spit out in ways that give the illusion of intelligence. At the end of the day, it is just a different way of interacting with a search engine, like Siri or Cortana.

AI software and a service providing it surely has rules for how results can be used.

There's a lot of stuff we mostly forget about.
I have some DSLR cameras, and reading manual it states that you can use the films for own use, not commercial use for the MPEG coding in there.
- and it also states that anybody using it commercially must pay up to MPEG Group, and usually paid by anybody that buy the films made by that camera.

So if I happend to sell any of my "beautyful" timelapses I must make sure those using it have MPEG license and pay those fees.

They probably don't hunt down everybody publishing on youtube and similar, but if film you made reach the cinemas or something like that they would. The producer of the film for cinema has a license with MPEG group.

I check for curiosity and as I recall about $7000 annually or so. MPEG folks created great math for handling frames so entitled to get paid licenses. And they have very affordable licenses for DSLR's usually. And limitation usually you cannot make longer than 30 minute long film in one go. Camera stops and you have to start again. This was a special constraint I believe in europe if a camera is categorized as video camera, like camorder, the fees are higher, but this was not all MPEG group more like a tax thing in europe.

The more you dive into these things, the more you find of this sort. Many parties are cashing on things you are not aware of.

Did you read agreements you signed up for registering with that AI service?

And I'm not saying AI right now get royalty
- just felt in the big picture they should if creating intellectual properties!
- as my original statement said

Maybe AI service cash in with general fees and not in detail for every result generate. Much simpler.

But let's say an AI service specialize in generating lyrics or poetry, I would thoroughly read the agreements to sign up for that service.

[BONES]

And you don't pay royalties to producer, those playing your music in public do. The producer is most likely smart enough to also be listed by companies that survey what is played in public. Radio, tv and streaming services.

No, that doesn't happen. Only copyright owners are entitled to royalties. As I said, you can do a deal with a producer, maybe some big names will insist on it, but they have no legal right to a royalty like the copyright holder does. Performing Rights groups won't register a producer, only performers and publishers, both of whom own copyright over the things they get royalties for.

Companies in sweden like STIM survey swedish market for swedish artists but also collaborate internationally with international artists and those holding intellectual properties as played in sweden. Swedish radio pay big money each year for all music they play. Some goes to all parties listed as I mentioned before, lyrics writers, music writers and the lot.

Yes, that happens everywhere. Go to the STIM site and see if you can register as a producer. You can't do it here with APRA/AMCOS so I doubt you can do it at STIM, either.

Managers, there you go, one part more that wants a cut.

"Want" and being legally entitled to are very different things. Our manager has never taken a cent from us, for example. We don't have a written contract, just a handshake, which means legally he has no claim to royalties on anything. You have to give your manager those rights, by signing a contract, setting out how much he will earn from your earnings. It is something you, as the copyright holder, grant him.

Actors has such royalties for films and tv-series they are part of.

Again, all negotiated, not legally required.

There was a dispute in sweden between the actors union and swedish public tv regarding too little fees for re-sending a tv-series. Actors are not paid just for taking part in the film on monthly basis. They also cash in as the production they are part of cash in.

That's a different thing, in that if a show is re-run to death, it can damage the actors' earning potential, so they are compensated for the over-exposure.

Lot's and lot's of such arrangements exist.

But that's the thing, they are arrangements, not entitlements.

If you get royalty(or what the correct wording is) for your music played on streamed services or radio - you just don't notice the money coming in is before that cut between parties.

Again, that's not how it works. The copyright holder collects all the royalties. Nobody else has any entitlement to them. I've been a member of APRA/AMCOS since the mid-80s, I know how it works.

Yes, negotiate, that you can do, make exceptions to a rule.

Or you can tell them to f**k off and they have no legal comeback. And that's the difference - copyright holders have a legal right to royalties, nobody else does.

AI software and a service providing it surely has rules for how results can be used.

None of the AIs I have used. We pay for priority access to a couple but that's all.

So if I happend to sell any of my "beautyful" timelapses I must make sure those using it have MPEG license and pay those fees.

Yep, because they have patented the technology and that's the license terms they issue it under.

Did you read agreements you signed up for registering with that AI service?

I haven't had to sign up for any of them so far, unless I want priority access. They have not shown me any terms and conditions so, legally, they'd have a very hard time enforcing them.

The thing is, as soon as they start asking for money, they'll be bombarded by law suits from people the AIs have stolen from (which is how they work).

[lfm]

I found one pie chart similar to what I referred to earlier

royalty distribution pie chart on a cd
http://cloudmanfilms.ownit.nu/royalties ... n-fig1.png

So producer gets a cut.

Here again producer is part of the chain
https://magroove.com/blog/en-us/how-are ... on-a-song/

"If the producer helps write the song, they will also get publishing rights. But only if the producer actually helps write it. Otherwise producers will just get the Sound Recording Copyrights."

But I have seen more in detail what soloist get, performers like musicians etc.
Record company in itself is major part as you can see, and guess there are agreements with all artists and bands, musicians etc.

Then what is general practise, agreements and entitlements could vary.
If you call it patent, ownership or else does not matter either.

So I hold it plausible that AI services will be part of the chain too.
- one day

[BONES]

Your pie chart doesn't hold water, in that it doesn't even mention the copyright holders - the song writer and the performer. It mention a "band member", but nothing about the song writers so it's wrong at first glance. Song writers/publishers get the biggest royalties of anyone.

With your second link, note that "it’s usually major record deals that work with this point system" for producers. "If you are an indie musician, you probably won’t need to worry about that." So that means any percentage a producer is getting is a deal negotiated by the record company, probably so they can pay him a minimal fee up-front. They don't care what it costs at the back-end because that comes out of the artist's money. It's an example of another way major record companies screw their artists.

[lfm]

I know the pie does not do details I was looking for. But some at least.
- look at tiny part "band members" tells a story in the big picture
- producer quite a bite

I wouldn't call an AI service writing poetry or lyrics "indie", you hire a human or not, and think relevant for either to have a cut being part of an creative process.

All to do with "size" if a producer bother having a cut. Major artist with millions in sales he would be a fool not to have a cut. Indie band paid upfront is maybe enough.

A lot of bands have fallouts if not agreed on how things are split, some realize much too late how fooled they are. If it was The Hives that were buddies from childhood and share everything. Band members in the pie was close to nothing.

I cannot forget John Fogerty, how he happend to have a bad deal when Creedence broke up and were stuck for 20 years or something not free to do his own thing. A company owned him more or less. Incredible song writer, singer and guitarplayer. But think he is up and about now.

Yes, record companies stick it to their artists too often, unless they have good advisers, lawyers from start.