Author Topic: Rick Beato representing humans vs the rise of AI in music  (Read 719 times)

Aleph Null

  • Electron Doctor
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
  • Too obtuse to be square
    • View Profile
    • The Hard Problem
Re: Rick Beato representing humans vs the rise of AI in music
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2023, 10:59:35 AM »
Just watched the video. Rick makes two suggestions: 1) a license should be required to use music as part of a training data set, similar to the way there are sync or public performance licenses. 2) Anything that's 100% AI generated should have no copyright.

The first suggestion is reasonable and probably pretty uncontroversial. The second suggestion is subtly subversive. It assumes that AI is incapable of holding copyright. Tacit in his suggestion is the ineligibility of AI for legal personhood. That may or may not be a good thing, depending on your perspective. It also begs for a testable standard to be set for what is 100% AI and what is a significant human contribution. I imagine similar language to what is currently used to test "fair use" could be used: "Was the human contribution transformative of the original AI output?"

Any legal framework they do put in place will definitely be tested in the courts (read lots of lawsuits!) here in the states at least.

GrindCustoms

  • Electron Doctor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3929
  • Electrons are'nt bullshit dependant.
    • View Profile
Re: Rick Beato representing humans vs the rise of AI in music
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2023, 11:21:07 AM »
Just watched the video. Rick makes two suggestions: 1) a license should be required to use music as part of a training data set, similar to the way there are sync or public performance licenses. 2) Anything that's 100% AI generated should have no copyright.

The first suggestion is reasonable and probably pretty uncontroversial. The second suggestion is subtly subversive. It assumes that AI is incapable of holding copyright. Tacit in his suggestion is the ineligibility of AI for legal personhood. That may or may not be a good thing, depending on your perspective. It also begs for a testable standard to be set for what is 100% AI and what is a significant human contribution. I imagine similar language to what is currently used to test "fair use" could be used: "Was the human contribution transformative of the original AI output?"

Any legal framework they do put in place will definitely be tested in the courts (read lots of lawsuits!) here in the states at least.

The same process/forum/discussion is also taking place here in Canada, i'm a registered member of the SODEC, the governing body for artists up here, every month i receive my .25cents of royalties LMAO! But beside that we also receive emails about the current state of the music in Canada, the change to copyrights and intellectual properties and all that stuff. We've been receiving a lot of documentation lately in regards of the implication of AI in music production so we're aware of how it can and can't be used. The defining lines are still blurry as they're in USA. But i find it to be an excellent tool to stay in the loop of what's going on and stay well informed.

A close friend of me owns a motion picture production company and they're also in that same process of educating and building the guidelines for the laws and regulations to come.

It will for sure be a total legal shitshow once the regulating bodies comes into play, no matter on which side of the border you're standing, since your music, art, picture are usually globally available or broadcasted.
Killing Unicorns, day after day...

Building a better world brick by brick:https://rebrickable.com/users/GrindingBricks/mocs/