A legal inquiry regarding automatic chord and melody creators

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by Agent007, Nov 28, 2018.

  1. Agent007

    Agent007 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2018
    Messages:
    157
    Likes Received:
    73
    Location:
    Wherever Nord VPN takes me
    @blaqmatic and @XImpalerX I can't be satisfied with your answers because this issue is not as simple as both of you are thinking. We (my partner and I) contacted a known entertainment lawyer and here is the answer we were provided by him:

    " Your questions have stumped me, and I'm the first to admit when I don't know the answer. Let me think on this for a moment."

    Kurt Dahl
    Partner | Entertainment Lawyer

    Murphy & Company LLP
    203 - 815 Hornby Street
    Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 2E6
    Tel. 1-800-708-3884 ext 236
    Fax. (604) 648-9308
    Website: www.murphyandcompany.com

    As soon as I hear back from him, I would post his answer.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • List
  2. XImpalerX

    XImpalerX Ultrasonic

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2018
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    29
    I look forward to his response, it will give me validation as to whether or not I could have been a lawyer lol
     
  3. I don't know it hasn't been mentioned yet, but the legality depends entirely upon the jurisdiction. The safest option is usually to address its legality in the area where you live. But art can and does travel, and there are no assurances that your practices will be legal or effective everywhere.
     
  4. XImpalerX

    XImpalerX Ultrasonic

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2018
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    29
    True, I assumed he was in the USA
     
  5. famouslut

    famouslut Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    927
    I think (when talking about robot-produced music) the safest bet is to assume that either Simon Cowell or Steve Aoki will hold all the rights to it in perpetuity? They'll likely sue you for custody of the robot, anyway. And prolly use it to clean their pools or children or cars or something. I think that's how Kanye got his first break in the biz, but who knows...
     
  6. Matt777

    Matt777 Rock Star

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Messages:
    602
    Likes Received:
    410
    Dear Agent007, when I was reading this thread earlier today you went like "I'm gonna ask a real lawyer, can't believe there aren't any here.." I was tempted to bet that you will get an answer like:
    That is because most people think that a "real" lawyer (that goes for doctors too..;) will have the answer to any and every question you have. The truth is, they have very limited knowledge about extremely specific matters. A good lawyer is valuable mainly because he knows how the particular legal system works (practice), knows where to look for information, etc.. think of them more like of a secretaries.

    In real-life scenario, the answer that XImpalerX gave you is just what you'll get from almost every (good) lawyer. That is because you are implying yourself (and the other guy) being the potential copyright owners. That means your input was enough to satisfy what defines something can be copyrighted..

    Don't want to discard your question. In fact it will be even more important in the future. The real question though would be: who owns the copyright of something an Artificial Intelligence machine produced (so you admit you pressed a button, and the robot made the rest). For now, it depends on a country/jurisdiction you are in - e.g. in Germany something that can be copyrighted has to be created by a human. OTOH in Hong Kong the (c) would be attributed to let's say the programmer in your case. This is also solved on a case by case basis - evaluating your input.

    In this article, "Artificial intelligence and copyright" there are some interesting points:
    https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2017/05/article_0003.html

    Me too..! Would really like to know more.. and I can tell you, you would've made a great lawyer! :yes:

    Sorry to say, you are probably already doing it - google is financing AI program(s) that write news, articles ..and makes music

    From the linked article: The next big debate will be whether computers should be given the status and rights of people...
     
    • Interesting Interesting x 1
    • List
  7. That presupposes that we have the superiority to "grant" them anything. I think it's more respectful to let lifeforms negotiate their own place in the world rather than decree how they can fit into a human society.
     
  8. xbitz

    xbitz Rock Star

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Messages:
    843
    Likes Received:
    460
    there’s a YouTube interview with one the Orb creators and he is saying he’d like to put a limit on people generating and selling the compositions
     
  9. muffball

    muffball Kapellmeister

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    65
    Likes Received:
    57
    As a couple of other people have noted and, specifically, the article "Artificial intelligence and copyright" that was linked to makes clear is that it's kinda new territory.

    Originally copyright came about to protect people from have their work literally copied word for word back in the early days of the printing press. It's come along (too far some say) to become an issue of Intellectual Property of any kind.

    Does pressing a single button count as an intellectual creation process?

    With these melody-makers it's not simply a matter of who got there first otherwise whoever used a plug-in with a default param first could claim copyright to that sound. Obviously there was no copying involved - intentionally or otherwise - with AI.

    If you were sued I would imagine that in almost any jurisdiction, currently, you would successfully defend if you could prove the melody was generated by AI. Look at the murkiness of cases in the past where artists have sued to see why there is no cut and dry answer even without AI involved.

    The law will have to evolve for AI. It may well get drafted by AI and then voted on by our representatives who are sometimes barely able to scrape into the natural intelligence category themselves. The only thing I would, cynically, say with any conviction is that corporations are likely to be the winners.
     
  10. KungPaoFist

    KungPaoFist Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2017
    Messages:
    1,696
    Likes Received:
    973
    Location:
    CA
    Most chord progressions would probably fall under "common chord progression" (actual law clause) and not be distinguishable enough to stand alone as someone's copyright. If all the song consists of is just a set of chords and someone else has those same chords in addition to melodies, timing, compositional elements that make it actually distinguishable they would have a clear copyright but that wouldn't necessarily mean the other person can't make their song with the same chord progression building blocks.
     
  11. Old X

    Old X Guest

    Chord progressions can't be copyrighted.
     
  12. XImpalerX

    XImpalerX Ultrasonic

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2018
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    29
    Like if I were to copy this chord progression in my own song (substituting the single notes for power chords) I could do that?
     
  13. Agent007

    Agent007 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2018
    Messages:
    157
    Likes Received:
    73
    Location:
    Wherever Nord VPN takes me
    @Matt777 thanks for replying and providing an intelligent answer. The problem with the answer provided by @XImpalerX is that it fails to do what a good lawyer does. You stated that "a good lawyer is valuable mainly because he knows how the particular legal system works (practice)". I will say that a good lawyer is one that knows how to apply the law to the facts of the case. The answer to my question relies of interpretation of current statutes and treaties. This is too complicated for a layman to be able to provide me with an accurate answer. That is why I directed my question to any member who happened to be a lawyer. I was not looking for speculation. My question hypothetically raises a couple of legal issues that should concern almost everyone involved in the creation of music assisted by software. I hope to hear back from a couple of lawyers i have contacted. As soon as I get an answer from them I will post it.
     
  14. Talmi

    Talmi Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2015
    Messages:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    1,701
    The legal question you're asking is only relevant for pure AI music creation softwares. Which are not really convincing nor used by much people.
    The situation you describeb in your op doesn't really rise any new legal matters imho.
    The chord assistant softwares as you put it, or the chord tracks in Cubase, S1, the chord/Scale assistant in Reaper, Rapid composer, scaler, or chord captain are the equivalent of a good theory book. They include vast collections of chord progressions based on theory, and classical chord prog used in pop music, the suggestions they make are based on that. And the scale and key you chose. Usually they offer the possibility for you to chose the order itself in which the chords that are part of the scale are used. You don't even have to pick a chord prog in their dictionary, you make your own. IE Cubase.
    There is as much sense making the software responsible of those suggestions, the "author" of those chord progressions then to say...that it's the teacher who taught those same chord prog to the student who is in fact the owner of the song rights, or the author of the theory books that I read and rely upon to choose chord prog.
    The melody or bass assistants are based on the same principle. They just suggest moves based on theory, and the chord prog you chose. They don't "compose" anything for anyone. Unless they have in addition an AI assistant that goes beyond that.

    Edit : regarding AI composition tools : probably no dev would be able to sell any, if they put in their conditions of use :"I made the software, the software composes, so I own the right of the songs you make with my software included in the process". Just like samples sellers wouldn't sell any samples, if they required you to give up your right to owning the song you've used those samples in , in order to have the right to legaly use those samples.
    Beside a song is never reductable to its samples or to just its melody (unless it's all there is in the song). It's pretty easy to demonstrate.

    Either way, the first person that claims ownership, is probably the ones that gets ownership.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  15. Agent007

    Agent007 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2018
    Messages:
    157
    Likes Received:
    73
    Location:
    Wherever Nord VPN takes me
    @Talmi You are not considering what I said. In my scenario producers/songwriters A and B both have 2 songs for which the melody created by software is exactly the same" We are not talking about chords here. We are talking about 2 songs with the same melody which was not even created by humans or with very little human input. Contrary to what you said, it does rise a new legal issue because as of today there is no case on point. So the issue it is a novel one. I have spoken to 3 different entertainment lawyers and none of them has been able to give me an answer. Their response has been the same. They need to do some research before explaining how current law should be applied to the facts I posited. Lastly, an entertainment lawyer did explain that being the first one to register a work is not the same as "the date in which it was fixed in a tangible medium" which is what really counts when it comes to being the rightful holder of a copyright. Thus being the first one to register a work, is not the same as saying that you are the rightful owner of a work.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2018
  16. Talmi

    Talmi Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2015
    Messages:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    1,701
    I'm just saying that those humanless created melodies are marginal in use - probably why there hasn't been anycase - and even then a song isn't just a melody.
    Finally I don't understand why you don't consider the chronological aspect of thing as the relevant one. Whomever is behind the creation (I don't think the AI part is relevant at all and changes the case deeply), there has been countless cases of people having similar melodies in their songs. Well when that happens the first person who claims ownership, if the melodies are indeed similar, has it.
    The AI/software part just doesn't change anything to the case imo.
    There are ways where maybe it could be different, and where the particular way of generating the melody is indeed relevant to the case. Not really in the scenario you present.
    But for instance what if two people make a beat together and the central piece of the beat, the melody, has been made which such software. And the two people can't agree on who owns what in this creation. The guy who held the mouse says he is the responsible for the melody. The other guy owns the software, also thinks he does.
    Now here there are real new legal questions. But not in your scenario, again imo.
     
  17. XImpalerX

    XImpalerX Ultrasonic

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2018
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    29
    Even if there was some law regarding AI melody creation, once you export to MP3, there is absolutely no way to tell.

    A producer has the right to keep their production methods and secrets .

    If you were taken to court, you could just write the melody in the piano roll real quick, uninstall the software and say "Who uses AI?"

    Now if the government got all the AI software, kept a database of every melody that they can create and say "All these melodies can not be used, because there is a chance two people can create the same melody, at the same exact time."

    Seems doubtful, so current copyright laws would apply, you cant write new laws just because you asked a hypothetical.
     
  18. famouslut

    famouslut Audiosexual

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    927
    This is something I know (a small, inconsequential fragment) about. Most random, seed-based generation is not random, if left to computers / robots / w/e. Computers don't do random. In fact it is the one thing we humans are still needed for, our dogged uniqueness! I guess if that music is truly randomly generated, it needs some input by a person. Even something as simple as a key being pressed at a random clock cycle. I guess a (your?) lawyer could argue that without the person pressing a key to generate a seed for the algorithm that randomly generates the music... There would be no music - and it would not be the same music produced by different people. Something to put to the lawyer, if he ever wants to argue in court?
     
  19. Maizelman

    Maizelman Rock Star

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2017
    Messages:
    511
    Likes Received:
    305
    Location:
    Maizelheim
    @Agent007 Lawyers learn a lot from test cases and they receive updates on the latest precedents on a regular basis. So it won't be easy for them to give you a satisfying answer unless hard evidence was processed. So, as long as your question is only hypothetical it is very hard to judge. -> You may have to wait for a judge to judge. Or you have to present them something to what they can listen to. :dunno:
    This would be only possible up to a point where it gets too complex? On the other hand I think if you're able to write the melody as quick, you wouldn't end up in court.:bleh:
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  20. Agent007

    Agent007 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2018
    Messages:
    157
    Likes Received:
    73
    Location:
    Wherever Nord VPN takes me
    You are correct. Human input is going to be necessary in order to satisfy the creativity prong required to receive copyright protection.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - legal inquiry regarding Forum Date
Would it be illegal to sell (multi)samples from a hardware synth I own? Samplers, Synthesizers May 5, 2023
Precautions when going legal - FL Studio 21 ? FL Studio Dec 20, 2022
[macOS] Running both cracked and legal Plugin Alliance on macOS Mac / Hackintosh Jun 26, 2022
Does anyone know how to run cracked PA plugins along with legal ones? Mac / Hackintosh Apr 14, 2022
How to remix a song legally general discussion Jan 15, 2022
Loading...