You are right brother, this is not as easy nor cut and dry as some of our fellow members think.

 

Guys, mathematically, with 12 notes and circle of 5ths, triads etc everyone has already used the common chord progressions already. There is a reason they don't hold up in court. Not only that but in order to bring a case you have to prove that the offending party had access, and then show willful intent on their part. Chord progression alone will not stand in US court.

 

There is a catch.
Whomever said whoever copyrights it first is only partially correct.
In these so-called melody|chord creators, the fine-print or EULA determines the real copyright. When you install it and agree to their terms, read the finerprint. If it says you are allowed to publish, sell, own etc etc anything from it, then the first one to copyright it as mentioned owns it and if, for whatever reason, you are not allowed to sell it, publish in the software terms, then nobody owns it technically, because it's not allowed to be sold.
Basically - read the fineprint on the software agreement.

 

Very intresting discussion regarding AI.

AI requires analysis of large data sets. What if the data set contains copywritten music?

 

There are two ways in which copyright law can deal with works where human interaction is minimal or non-existent. It can either deny copyright protection for works that have been generated by a computer (which is impossible to detect or easy to hide) or it can attribute authorship of such works to the creator of the program.

"What if two guitar players write the same melody?" is the same question as "What if two AI write the same melody?"
With current law, they both fall under the same laws.

New Zealand has a law though for AI and it read:
"“In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.”

Furthermore, section 178 of the CDPA defines a computer-generated work as one that “is generated by computer in circumstances such that there is no human author of the work”. The idea behind such a provision is to create an exception to all human authorship requirements by recognizing the work that goes into creating a program capable of generating works, even if the creative spark is undertaken by the machine.

Source: https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2017/05/article_0003.html

https://www.techworld.com/data/ip-r...right-on-content-created-by-machines-3671082/
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/09/how-ai-and-copyright-would-work/
https://alj.artrepreneur.com/the-next-rembrandt-who-holds-the-copyright-in-computer-generated-art/

There is enough information out there, to not only deduce what would happen under current laws, but also how it could work in the future. The reason lawyers don't know, is because there are no laws in the USA that would apply, other than current laws.

 

Last edited: Dec 2, 2018

All drama cleared.... Please, guys stay out of this sort of things.

 

Again, you insult and go off topic.

 

Last edited: Dec 3, 2018

All the questions have been answered here. Who would generate a melody from software and not even tweak it, what are the chances its actually any good, or that anyone will actually care to publish it. Thats why there arent any previous cases, it would be too hard to nail all those things. Impaler provided some good resources for whoever is interested in copyright.

 

Well, I think that if you composed the piece it is yours and also that you did it, it is assumed that you have all your right to protect your intellectual property on the other hand, I am not a lawyer but I can advise you to find out more here so that you can check the information that you need to take care of what is yours and that no one abuse your rights.