Hi folks,
this is more of a philosophy topic so far, as there aren't any standardized laws for such,

What do you think about AI generated content (sounds, music, images, videos...)?

Should the intellectual property be linked to AI creator, or the "artist" who throws random requests onto it?

I feel like this gonna be a big deal in close future, because the AI could become an entirely new entity to be entitled to copyrights (as opposed to current physical or legal person)...

 

I've se en the future and no, only the artist gets the copyright, mainly because in the future everething is subscription based so the creator gets the revenue from that.

 

i have posted music videos on my facebook and all the material is my original production, but 1 i posted the other day said parts of your video are muted due to copyright infringment whis is stange so i made another with a different mix and it was fine so im not sure how it works

 

After all, we have had a lot of copyright gray areas since the invention and use of the Internet (World Wide Web),
which by now, after circa 20 years, has been largely brought in line with the case law with your new laws.

Who owns the Bible - can you quote from the book or do you have to pay for it?
Do you have to indicate the source when quoting from the Bible?

At the latest when you have mail from a lawyer in your mailbox, with a claim for copyright infringement, you will be
very surprised that what you have published was a copyright infringement. You go to a lawyer yourself and he explains
to the other party that everything in the Bible is not subject to copyright and that the claim is therefore illegal.

Back to your question about the AI, it will be that the inventors of an AI product first want to earn money with it. They have invested several years of money and manpower in it and want to be paid for it. Actually, the legislator is responsible for creating the framework for this, but since AI is new, it will first require practical experience to gather knowledge about it and to listen to all parties involved.

This can take years or decades until a law is created. The term artificial intelligence must first be defined,
I think there is no artificial intelligence, for me personally it is an artificial name that a hype läuterte,
that machines can suddenly think for themselves and once with the people in competition could step.

The data and the software program is written and entered by humans and stored on the chip/memory. Self-driving
cars - Self-acting combat robots are only as good or bad as the soft program that the human has written.

Well then, who owns AI? In America, as elsewhere, they are afraid that the enemy will get this
technology and thereby gain an advantage. That's why the military (Darpa) buys up some of these
companies or the intelligence services steal them. this information and that remains top secret.

Great topic @tzzsmk, am also curious where the journey goes!

 

The US Copyright Office says, art created by AI cannot be copyrighted:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...e-rules-ai-art-cant-be-copyrighted-180979808/

By the time an AI can create a complete song, the new artists will be the developers.

 

At the moment there is no real or strong AI only AI (-like/partial/weak) helpers.
For the time being the owner of the partial/specialized AI ? will hold the rights.

Once we'll have strong AI the AI itself will be the owner because AI will be an own person with rights of their own. That's a long time away (20-30y), but some of us may live to see it.

 

Last edited: Jan 2, 2025

As a music generation software developer I can say that yes, my system is influenced up to a point by my writing / production ideas and techniques. Should I get copyright from the music you generate by pressing the button? Maybe, but will I get? Of course not. Cause if it was this way, no one would buy the software.

 

For what it's worth, I signed up for OpenAI's DALL-E 2.0 and their ToS say:

You agree that OpenAI owns all Generations (including Generations with Uploads but not the Uploads themselves), and you hereby make any necessary assignments for this.

They 'pinky promise' not to take away content you create using their AI, you're even allowed to use 'your' (their?) stuff commercially, if your AI generations conform to what THEY consider acceptable to THEM.

What could possibly go wrong.
Just don't have the wrong political attitude or a slightly different set of moral standards!

 

AI is already mixing/mastering audio "ideas" you throw at it,
where exactly is the borderline between calling it "your" work or "someone else's" work when objectively AI does better finished job than you would, eventually?
as written above, DALL-E terms explicitly state OpenAI owns all the generated content, nobody cares about "smartness" of your input ideas

 

Not quite sure how you would define a "whole song". There are some successful artists where you can doubt if some songs are a "whole song".

I see the development towards strong AI as compelling. I also don't believe that we can prevent them from emerging in the foreseeable future. Whether intentional or not.

If an AI 'grows up', learns and is 'educated' in a similar way as a human child- and AI researchers see this as the way of choice - a similar thought structure will develop in AI as in humans. This includes emotions and empathy.
A strong AI can then do basically everything a human can do, only faster and better. Of course, a strong AI can also compose music, which is quite mathematically accessible.
I am convinced that shortly after their emergence AI will be able to compose music, which is in no way inferior to human and will be better over time.

When this situation is reached, there will be a time when man-made musik will see a similar appreciation, as 'analog' Gear today.
The small mistakes that human beings make will then result in that 'analog' feel (or human touch?).
But only until AI can do it just as well and eventually better.

ergo: I hope that only in the distant future strong AIs will emerge. But as I said above the time frame which is estimated by researchers is 30 to 50y.

Let's use the time and make music and find it beautiful until the machines take over.

Spoiler: Artificial Intelligence

All in all, this is a fascinating but partly also frightening field of research.

I am not quite sure if I want to see the emergence of a superintelligence or even a singularity or not:
I hope humanity is able to deal with the development of AIs in a more responsible way than it has done in the past with high technology.
Otherwise it can end badly for humanity.

I've read a lot of books about that matter (fiction and science). At the moment I'm reading a book from Nick Bostrom, "Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies" that I can recommend.
english https://www.amazon.com/-/de/gp/product/B00LOOCGB2/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i0
german: https://www.amazon.de/Superintelligenz-Szenarien-einer-kommenden-Revolution/dp/351858684X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=IKQ7TF8PRTR4&keywords=nick+bostrom+superintelligenz&qid=1661364959&sprefix=Nick+Bostrom,aps,86&sr=8-1

btw: $8.36 amazon US but 16,99€ amazon DE! WTF!

 

For music is still not there, but the debate is totally open with that famous DALL-E 2. It's a completely game-changing technology. Game-changing falls even short. New paradigm.

Saw some results and literally felt shivers down my spine. For both the good and bad things that implies.

 

Last edited: Aug 24, 2022

Many earthlings hope that the machines make better decisions than the people. Since humans have not
been able to cope with their problems, they hoped earlier that the technical achievements would lead
them out of the problem. Properly programmed and fed with a lot of knowledge, a robot can actually
make better decisions. But as so often in life, bullies and psychopaths will abuse this technology.

I need a household robot that cleans the bathroom and keeps the kitchen in order. However, should the robot
classify me as an enemy or a technical occur, it can happen that your household robot will wring your neck.

 

It depends on what future you are referring to, whether the near future or the more distant future.
It is difficult to know.
In the distant future, perhaps all creations that may exist will belong to a single entity, and the "creator" of a work will have to pay for the use of that work.
In the near future, rights are probably shared.
Now, if we take history as a reference, the human being loses more and more the right of individual property, they have even taken away our lands, they burn jungles killing every living being just to build their business, and even the freedom to express ourselves has a price, which sometimes is very high.
So, this may give an indication of what could happen with the rights of music.
But I'm just philosophizing and maybe I'm just talking nonsense.

 

The analog is going Digital and why will it come that way because it is a huge future market to make money.

Whether you and I are among the customers I don't think so. It may well be that we become more and more similar to the
machines and the social at some point freezes. That means our lives will become more and more impersonal and lonely.

It can also be that the power collapses and thus also your users go into madness or the Internet switches off due to old
defective components times. Then there are the hackers and the intelligence agencies that will do a lot of mischief.

 

Personally I was just speaking of the present and near future, like graphic designers and artists in trouble.
I'm not considering AIs ruling the world or other possible apocalyptic futures.

 

I'd say in a way it's like crediting music to my DAW developer. AI tools are just like other tools. I'd hope that someone wouldn't use them for entirely writing a track, but I suppose it can happen. But I think any tool, even AI-based generators, still requires some thought put into it by the artist creating the song. And really, if an AI creator wants all the credit of a song then maybe they shouldn't let people use their AI tool. Of course my opinion has no bearing on what is law, but it's just my 2 cents on how it should be.

 

This is a bit ambiguous. It depends on how you imagine AI might rule the world. If you imagine it Terminator-like, well, it sounds pretty fantastical. But if you imagine it where the AI does the work for you, that already exists. Like the "Auto" vst that you push a button and you're all set.

Then little by little they take over everything that humans do, until, yes, they "dominate" the world, but by human choice.

 

Tesla Robot Update For 2023 And Everything You Need to Know

 

I think it is a perception of things "dominate the world" "help man" "and replace man". I would put it in these three things. And this will depend on who or how you look at it.

Let's say that for many AI helps man, and let's go to a specific case. On the sister site we have seen several VST's that auto compress, auto eq, auto mix, etc. But we have two sides of the coin. On the one hand, it helps those who don't want to waste their time mixing, or can't or don't want to pay a mix engineer. Either way, you will benefit.
But now we also have the other side of the coin, the mixing and/or mastering engineer who studied all his life to have a VST replace his work. Sure, you will say, a vst won't replace the knowledge that an engineer has, and that's true, but most of those who use that vst, won't care.
And so we have many other examples, programs that auto design pages for you, programs that auto design logos for you. It will make it easier for some, but it will hurt others. So you could say that AI helps, but at the same time it replaces the human hand. If it replaces the hand of man, it means that it takes the place that used to belong to the human being. And it doesn't stop there, I have even seen robot dogs. But if you think about it, none of this happens without the consent of the human being, on the contrary, we consume the AI intelligence, that is to say, a robot does not come and kill you and make music for you. You call the AI and ask it for help, but at the same time it harms someone else.
And this is very crazy because, look at it this way. Let's say I'm a graphic designer, and I want to make a video about my designs, but I don't want to pay someone to make the video or the music for me, so I call the AI. Now, thanks to AI I got my work for almost no money, and in this process several people lost the opportunity to earn money. But now at the same time another person makes a song, but in order not to pay someone to make a logo or design, he uses the AI. That is, among ourselves we "harm" each other for a matter of interest.
But as I said before, all this will depend on who and how you look at it.

 

99% of corporate-sponsered culture today may as well have been made by machine for all the essential humanity it doesn't convey... and what happens once there's no punters with any jobs/money left to pay for all this meaningless, de-humanised artifice anyway?

Honetly, all this to me is merely yet more fiddling while Rome burns.