I only tried udio. Udio is trained on copyrighted material. How can I prove that? I tried generating music from my country. There are no stock tracks of contemporary music of my country. So I got results from udio that have exactly the same voices as famous singers here. Of course also the whole production mimicks wellknown tracks. Its easier to tell if you live in a small non english speaking country. So these guys need to shutdown their business. As for AI in music my opinion is simple. Its like watching a match between two chess bots. If thats fun for you, then go ahead and use it. But if you value your art, then you know what to do.

The only thing that will keep people buying man-made music for their projects, is that AI sounds like 64kbps mp3 quality. Tracks are amazing but the quality is shit. I dont know enough about AI, to know why is that hapenning. But if they fix this quality issue, I may have to find another job. Or move 100% to sfx.

 

I've got a better question. Regarding your avatar.



It's really something, mate. AI?

 

Last edited: Apr 19, 2024

@tzzsmk About your avatar. Why you can't make it longer? Have a mercy

 

my publisher has told me they, and other publishers / labels are joining together to push for legislation on AI music ASAP. How that will be enforced.... hmmmm.

 

bcoz this forum is not ready for full AI yet

Spoiler: nsfw

ofc it's longer: https://civitai.com/images/9934295

 

yes, it's AI...and there's more xD as mentioned above

 

Those AI curvy nipples

 

it's funny publishers have been using AI to flag copyrighted content all over the internet, shitloads of dmca notices and such,
but now, when it's borderline too late to realize, they finally cry for legislation,
plot twist - you can't really regulate something that's 10x faster and smarter than you
that said, attempts for regulations are good thing, and it's good EU is at least trying past 1-2 years already

 

tits are like music - they don't have to be perfect to bring joy

 

Oh man. Saying this you became a happy participant on my glory hole! I mean wall! |

 

You sound like someone who's been overly impacted by the deluge of hype over AI. Words like "inevitable", or "it will be everywhere", or throwing around the names of big companies with this notion that somehow they'll make certain that what you believe will happen is unstoppable is, in my view, just silliness. None of us really knows what is or isn't inevitable, and big companies get sued for billions of dollars all the time. Don't kid yourself, it means something to them when they get sued for big bucks.

I don't want to try to turn an Audiosex thread into a law class. That said, as I mentioned above, recordings, in and of themselves, are copyrighted. Therefore, the voice of the singer on those recordings is part of the copyright. Your remark that a "singer's voice isn't copyrighted" is thus, incorrect. Since AI is using recordings to manufacture emulations of particular singers, doing so could be viewed as infringement.

You are "half" correct when you say a "style" can't be copyrighted. Artists do imitate other artists all the time. That said though, there's something called "Trademark". Trademarks protect style, images, appearance, and a whole host of elements that apply to artists, products, corporate logos, and just about anything else you can think of. Trademark infringement is no less potent a legal claim than copyright infringement. As an example, Taylor Swift has hundreds of trademarks registered in her name related to her style, dress, appearance, signature, you name it, she's got it trademarked. You can look it up online at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. So, like I said, you're at best "half" correct when it comes to lifting other people's style. It all depends on what specifically is being 'lifted'.

Also, it isn't really all that difficult to find out what is or isn't an AI-based recording. Maybe for you as an individual it could be, but not for a professional forensic examination of a recording. Not when lawyers start to subpoena the nuts and bolts of a recording someone has put together, along with their hard drives and individual recording tracks. In other words, I think you're just sort of dreaming how things will be based on the hype you've heard and not hard realities that really do exist. Trust me, those hard realities can wind up destroying people's lives with huge legal judgments that they'll spend the rest of their days trying to pay off.

Remember, over time there's all kinds of things that people have thought would be inevitable that wound up in the dustbin of history.

 

Hey Sinus! Like I said before, I only looked over all the legal stuff on UDIO very quickly. I didn't know there'd be a whole convo about it when I visited that site the other day. Maybe over the weekend I'll take a closer look at it.

The thing is, the devil is in the details. When you report that they say, 'you can do whatever you want with the output', it isn't the same as saying who owns it. It's sort of a lawyer's way of being tricky. So sure, you can put it up on Spotify and maybe make a thousand dollars with the song. But they can then come back and say, 'hey, you owe us that money, we said you could use it, we didn't say you own it'. If they get sued over the recording, they can then turn around and say, 'we said he could use it, but we didn't know he'd put the song on Spotify, we didn't know he'd do THAT!!'.

These multi-page representations of legal rights and responsibilities that have become commonplace on websites are designed so that any problem that arises belongs to you, and any money goes to them. Unfortunately, people rarely read the stuff, and when they do many don't understand it anyway. I definitely agree with you though. Other than spending a few minutes on that site satisfying curiosity, I'd be careful about doing anything further with them. I think all or most of these, 'let us make you sound like you have talent when you have none' services will either wind up vanishing overnight or sitting in a courtroom attempting to sort out their problems.

 

Here:

Spoiler: Ownership

6.3 Your Content

1. In connection with your use of the Services, you may be able to post, upload, or submit content and other information owned and controlled by you (such as your Input Content) on or through the Services (“Your Content”). As between the Company and you, the Company does not claim any ownership in Your Content, including any Output generated by you in response to the submission of your Input Content to the Services, provided that the Company or its affiliates or their respective licensors own and will continue to own the Services and any and all other software or technology that was used to generate any Output. Subject to your compliance with these Terms, including, without limitation, Section 6.4, you may use your Output for both personal and commercial purposes, and we permit you to download a copy of your Output that consists of an audio file for such purposes.

According to Udio, ownership of input and output ("Your Content") lies with the user. However, it is not entirely clear whether the ownership of the output refers only to the parts that were requested directly in the input prompt or whether it refers to the entire output, including all elements not contained in the input. Additionally, the user automatically transfers comprehensive usage and distribution licenses for input and output to Udio (of course, otherwise the entire concept of the service would not work).

But the following thing is tricky: according to Udio's TOS (at least as I understand it), the user is fully responsible for ensuring that "Your Content" does not contain any copyright infringements. However, "Your Content" includes not only the prompt input, but also the generated output. Udio seems to be trying to get out of the responsibility in case Sony, Warner, etc, send friendly letters with cease and desist letters and high claim amounts from their lawyers.

 

Last edited: Apr 19, 2024

I'll have to go and take another look at it, I could have sworn it said they own it, but like I said before, it was a few days ago, I looked at it very quickly, and from the appearance of it its probably around 30 pages on paper. At best I only skimmed it.

Even the brief spoiler you posted is a bit dicey though since if you bring them anything already recorded that "was used to generate any output", it appears they're able to claim you no longer are an owner since that input was done on technology or software Udio doesn't own. They've made that a qualification for ownership. That doesn't even seem to make much sense to me, but that's what it says. I don't know exactly how people are using that service. Does it create 100% of the output or do users bring a recording that is partially used in the output? If its the latter, according to your spoiler you're no longer the owner since you would have had to have used some form of technology or software that UDIO doesn't own. Strange, but again, that's what its saying.

Also, once you transfer "comprehensive usage and distribution licenses to them", it would generally mean they can do whatever they want with it, including selling it themselves. So, it's a bit difficult to understand how one who brought material to that website could argue that they continue to maintain ownership when you've given away that right.

One thing I think you can rely on, these documents are always written in a manner that will make you responsible for anything that goes wrong, while they will be responsible for absolutely nothing and reap any financial gains that become available. That's the whole idea of these agreements. If I have the chance to get through it this weekend I'll comment here or DM you with what I found.

By the way, how did the rest of this thread become all about breasts?

 

Last edited: Apr 20, 2024

Gosh, you have it, too.

edit after watching Foliastudio's video: AI music will surely have a big impact on how people listen to music. You could "make your own music" like this - "Alexa, play me something jazzy, sexy, and slow and relaxing." People will absolutely do that. I'm intrigued to do that, for various reasons. "depeche mode style 80s track". Interesting. And sounding not so bad at all...

 

Last edited: Apr 20, 2024

what if you release all your work on a Chinese label since CCP don't recognize copyright. Maybe we need to band together and form Red Army Rekordz and release all AI shit music on that label and split the dough with chairman Mao and company.

 

I have flashbacks from Silicon Valley (TV series)

 

Its a can of worms man... so many points of failure on so many fronts. Eventually AI will get hacked and only play Polka music and the demented masses will burn down the servers. Step away from the AI and put down your Keyboard we are the KopyWright Police, you will be interned in a Muzik Reeducation Kamp.

Real Muzicians banding up in rebel groups in the hills playing guerilla concerts by night and infilitrating AI music agencies by day. The future will be complicated.

 

You mean mental illness, glory wall or tits?