AI-generated music is not a work of art (US-SC)!

[Tiles]

And they most probably never will, since this is highly individual. Personal and case based. When a known artist does such tweaking, then it is more likely to be accepted as an artists work. When you just add a reverb then it is most likely not accepted as copyrightable work. It simply depends from case to case. And AI is not different to the traditional approaches here.

[BONES]

The assertion that you can freely use AI outputs to create your own works may be correct in clear cut cases, but there is already precedent that this doesn't necessarily allow your work to be copyrighted.

You don't have to copyright anything. Copyright exists on any original work. By default. You only register anything so you can prove you thought of it first, so no-one can take it from you.

Therefore, there is now a very high probability that AI-generated content in general cannot be copyrighted - and is thus completely exempt from commercial use.

That's not how it works. Any person, corporation or business entity can take non-copyrighted material and make as much money as they like from it and because no-one owns copyright on it, nothing can stop them from doing it.

Copyright only protects your work from others, it means that only you can use it. No copyright means anyone can use it. i.e. Whatever you can do with your copyrighted material, anyone can do exactly the same with non-copyrighted material.

To put it another way, copyright doesn't give you any extra rights, it only gives you exclusivity.

[jancivil]

Iif the melody is purely AI generated

and how does a judge or a jury arrive at a determination 'purely AI generated'; AI is matching patterns in audio somehow; if it has produced a melody it is by definition derivative.

The first I saw of this I said that for conformist, totally derivative musics this calls into question what an idea is ultimately. A whole lot of music is 'generated' by a process that qualitatively is as mechanically derivative as can be done 'manually', to where a technology meant to do the same thing should be no surprise to anyone.

This is a total clusterfuck. I'm happy to have zero interest in it but that's wild.

[Touch The Universe]

What percentage do you need to change before it's only AI assisted. How can you possibly prove that a melody is ai?

[ghettosynth]

What percentage do you need to change before it's only AI assisted. How can you possibly prove that a melody is ai?

You cannot, and this won't happen in that context in any case. This partly what I was getting at earlier, this is only sustainable in the very narrow sense of "this track was created in Suno or the like, was distributed as is, and the content ID can be heard. Or, this is suspected and discovery finds that this was the case.

Moreover, someone with standing has to bring suit for anyone to care. The recent SC court cased discussed here is related to someone being provocative and trying to test boundaries.

[Touch The Universe]

What percentage do you need to change before it's only AI assisted. How can you possibly prove that a melody is ai?

You cannot, and this won't happen in that context in any case. This partly what I was getting at earlier, this is only sustainable in the very narrow sense of "this track was created in Suno or the like, was distributed as is, and the content ID can be heard. Or, this is suspected and discovery finds that this was the case.

Moreover, someone with standing has to bring suit for anyone to care. The recent SC court cased discussed here is related to someone being provocative and trying to test boundaries.

Big money is at stake so this "ruling" changes nothing I'm afraid. You'd need to get quite specific to the the point of evetually, record the whole production process form beginning to end, from idea to recording, to prove it's not AI. That's seems unlikely, so AI assitent can't be ruled out entirely.

Indeed, right off the press from SUNO is "not allowed". There are 1 million other ways to utlize ai other than this. I guess in a sense, this is beginnger level 100% AI is a no go. That's something, but likely as clear as you can get.

[BONES]

No, that's not what it means at all. The fact that the Supreme Court declined to hear the case suggests that they don't want to set a precedent on this, that it's not cut and dried and they don't want to make it cut and dried, for whatever reasons.

More importantly, even if they did rule and dismissed the challenge, it wouldn't mean you couldn't use AI to generate songs, it would simply mean you couldn't copyright that stuff, which means you'd have no legal protection if someone else took what you created with AI and used it for their own purposes.

AI is matching patterns in audio somehow; if it has produced a melody it is by definition derivative.

That's not how it works at all. It does exactly what you or I would do - it takes the relevant training material as a guide or as inspiration and creates something in a similar style, but not exactly like anything else. If it was just pattern matching, you'd get the same result every time but you never, ever get the same result. In fact, even if you want it to do the same thing again, it can't manage it. It's not built that way.

What percentage do you need to change before it's only AI assisted. How can you possibly prove that a melody is ai?

It's not something we have to worry about. The people they'll go after are those who try to pass something off as being from someone else. i.e. If you use a synthesised version of Drake's voice to make a new, AI generated song and don't get clearance to do so, they'll come after you and they'll have no trouble proving you were doing something dodgy. But if you're doing something that's not directly trying to sound like something else, you'll be fine.

Nobody is trying to stop the use of AI to generate songs altogether, they just want to make sure you're not trying to rip someone else off when you do it.

[jancivil]

When the SCOTUS denies certiorari, it isn't a SCOTUS case, the case is the lower court's decision allowed to stand.

Under current law, AI is a tool, not an author; whatever occurs as per a collaboration is outside the scope of the D.C. Circuit Court's ruling. So "if the melody is purely AI generated" or not is a moot question at this time in terms of copyright.

[enroe]

This isn't a gray area imho, it's always been this way. If you write a song and then use AI-generated lyrics, you've still written a song. You can't copyright the lyrics, but you can copyright the song itself. And since lyrics are always part of the song and almost always only fit that one specific song, it's a kind of de facto copyright.

That means, in effect, that this has always been a gray area.

Basically, not much changes. The judges have essentially just confirmed what's always been true. A certain level of intellectual and artistic originality was already required to copyright a work. There are entire fields of art and craft that can't copyright their work because they lack precisely that. Graphic designers and journalists know this all too well.

Mmmh, you're probably right.

Many journalists and artists interpret this behavior of the Supreme
Court as a "rejection of AI as a whole." And it is then considered a
milestone in the "fight against AI."

But ...

this "fight against AI" doesn't actually exist. And yes: nothing has
changed in the legal system. The level of originality is still decisive
in determining whether an artist can obtain copyright for a work
or not.

Where i have to disagree is the idea that you cannot make money from purely AI generated content. Lots of youtube channels does exactly that. And also spotify is flooded with AI songs. You can monetize everything as long as there is demand.

Yes - in principle, that's correct.

But ...

here too there is a difference: If there is no copyright – and no
reproduction rights – for a work, then commercial exploitation
is on shaky ground. No large company would take that risk.
Because anyone can copy the work – and piggyback on the
deal – and sell the work themselves.

It's similar to a pebble stall on a beach full of pebbles: A visitor
can simply collect lots of nice pebbles and take them with them
– or they can go to the pebble stall and buy pebbles there.
That's not very intelligent – ​​especially from an economic point of
view.

This is exactly what often happens in the real world: Companies
offer sparkling water even though tap water is also available.
Plugin developers take an open-source plugin, build their own
GUI on top of it, and then sell it at a high price.

So it's true: On a small scale, it is of course possible to monetize
non-copyrighted works.

[Tiles]

Well, big companies do it all the time. Newspapers, online magazines, book publishers, graphic agencies, game developers, craftsmen in the arts, and so on. They all use non-copyrighted material at some point and still manage to make money from it.

[BONES]

Yeah, we do it at work every day and nobody gives a shit.

Morons interpret this behavior of the Supreme Court as a "rejection of AI as a whole." And it is then considered amilestone in the "fight against AI."

There, I fixed that up for you.

The level of originality is still decisive in determining whether an artist can obtain copyright for a work or not.

I've tried to explain this but you don't "obtain" copyright, copyright simply exists. Australia doesn't even have anything like the copyright office, it's not needed.

If there is no copyright – and no reproduction rights – for a work, then commercial exploitation is on shaky ground.

No, it's not. Why? Because nobody else can claim ownership of it. As long as you're first off the mark, you'll have the commercial advantage and no-one will have any legal basis to challenge you.

No large company would take that risk.

Spotify seem to take that risk every second of every day.

Plugin developers take an open-source plugin, build their own
GUI on top of it, and then sell it at a high price.

Name one.

[enroe]

Well, big companies do it all the time. Newspapers, online magazines, book publishers, graphic agencies, game developers, craftsmen in the arts, and so on. They all use non-copyrighted material at some point and still manage to make money from it.

Sure, there are many in the media industry who work with "free
material". In doing so, they make it their own material - usually
with copyright.

The major record companies of the 80s and 90s fought tooth
and nail to maintain their "reproduction rights" to copyrighted
music by artists. That was their multi-billion dollar business
model. It only really collapsed in the 2000s (due to the internet).

The pharmaceutical industry thrives on copyright on medicines,
a multi-billion dollar market!

Since AI-generated songs cannot be copyrighted per se, there
is initially no interest from large companies. This is because
there isn't "one big" marketing opportunity. This could even be
a positive thing.

For everyone else, for small labels, solo artists, etc., the
possibility arises to take AI-generated songs, add a few of their
own notes, and voilà: "Now this is my own song!" -- "I'll put it on
Spotify now - and I'll make it big!"

The catch is: Tens of thousands are already doing this, and
the impenetrable quantity of new songs is constantly increasing.

Therefore: The copyright situation does prevent large companies
from making massive changes. But nevertheless, AI is making its
way into the music and cultural scene.

[Tiles]

Well, big companies do it all the time. Newspapers, online magazines, book publishers, graphic agencies, game developers, craftsmen in the arts, and so on. They all use non-copyrighted material at some point and still manage to make money from it.

Sure, there are many in the media industry who work with "free
material". In doing so, they make it their own material - usually
with copyright.

The major record companies of the 80s and 90s fought tooth
and nail to maintain their "reproduction rights" to copyrighted
music by artists. That was their multi-billion dollar business
model. It only really collapsed in the 2000s (due to the internet).

The pharmaceutical industry thrives on copyright on medicines,
a multi-billion dollar market!

Since AI-generated songs cannot be copyrighted per se, there
is initially no interest from large companies. This is because
there isn't "one big" marketing opportunity. This could even be
a positive thing.

For everyone else, for small labels, solo artists, etc., the
possibility arises to take AI-generated songs, add a few of their
own notes, and voilà: "Now this is my own song!" -- "I'll put it on
Spotify now - and I'll make it big!"

The catch is: Tens of thousands are already doing this, and
the impenetrable quantity of new songs is constantly increasing.

Therefore: The copyright situation does prevent large companies
from making massive changes. But nevertheless, AI is making its
way into the music and cultural scene.

It's not this easy, and your argument imho mixes several things and draws some shaky conclusions.

AI-generated music is not “uncopyrightable” in general. As soon as there is meaningful human creative input, protection can apply. There is a german court ruling that did exactlyt that. The pharma comparison is also incorrect because that industry relies on patents, not copyright.

The idea that big companies have no interest is unrealistic. They are already using AI because it improves efficiency and scalability, regardless of copyright nuances. Also, slightly modifying an AI track does not automatically make it legally “your song”. Better be careful with that. See point one and the german ruling.

The only solid point where i agree with is the last one: AI massively increases output, which makes visibility and attention the real bottleneck, not copyright.

[BONES]

Sure, there are many in the media industry who work with "free material". In doing so, they make it their own material - usually with copyright.

Again, that's not how it works. Copyright exists and owning the copyright on something just makes you responsible for any copyright your work may infringe.

The major record companies of the 80s and 90s fought tooth and nail to maintain their "reproduction rights" to copyrighted music by artists.

No they didn't. They had contracts to protect their investments. It's actually music publishers who sue people for copyright violations on behalf their contracted artists.

The pharmaceutical industry thrives on copyright on medicines, a multi-billion dollar market!

No, that's patents. It's a very different process covered by different laws.

Since AI-generated songs cannot be copyrighted per se

You still don't understand that the ruling only applied to a piece of music generated entirely by AI without any human input, do you? There was no prompt involved but as soon as there is a human involved in any part of the process, then there is someone who can own the copyright. Tunee will even issue you a copyright certificate on any music that it generates from your prompt.

The other night I was using Co-Pilot for some lyrics and I wanted to go back to something we had worked on in a previous session. Co-Pilot was only happy to show me the session because it was able to identify me as the owner of the copyright on the lyrics it had generated for me in that session. i.e. You own the copyright on anything you tell an AI to do for you. That works in the AI company's favour because it makes you the target of any law suit, not them.

For everyone else, for small labels, solo artists, etc., the possibility arises to take AI-generated songs, add a few of their own notes, and voilà: "Now this is my own song!" -- "I'll put it on Spotify now - and I'll make it big!"

There is no need to do anything like that. If you write the prompt, you own the copyright on whatever is generated as a result.