|
Top-level
 @AlisonCreekside And 20 years ago a million kids listened to Metallica, learned to play Enter Sandman badly and went and wrote their own stuff in time legally. The real questions are not about using it, but then copying it and what degree of influence is copying. "AI" reading/listening to content is good, it's the same law and rights that lets you read content, lets search engines and screen readers work. When it starts sharing, redistributing stuff well beyond "influenced by" it's a problem 4 comments
@alfabravoteam @AlisonCreekside The AI and its owners probably signed no licence agreements so I doubt licenses of any kind have any bearing on the debate. "derived" in the sense of "derived work" has a specific meaning, so if something was Enter Sandman derived it wouldn't matter whether it was generated by an algorithm (and calling it 'AI' is misleading IMHO), or by a human. It would be subject to copyright law and the Enter Sandman rights owner would own some of the rights. @etchedpixels @AlisonCreekside The hard part for a songwriter is figuring out whether they went "well beyond influenced by." See, for example, George Harrison's accidental plagiarism of Ronald Mack's "He's So Fine" into "My Sweet Lord", resulting in a million-dollar judgment against Harrison. Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music. @PinoBatch @AlisonCreekside And probably even harder for an algorithm. This is one thing that I think a lot of people do not understand. There is an enormous amount of caselaw on what is and isn't derivative and is nor isn't copying. None of that caselaw is likely to be invalidated or changed just because someone had a computer do it for them. |
Gregory's Server
@etchedpixels @AlisonCreekside Not comparable, as the AI parrot cannot write its own Enter Sandman-derived song. It will redistribute a mesh of stuff.
So, it technically is violating several licenses at the same time hoping to rip so many people at once that it becomes unfeasible to sue them. There is no-one to "influence" on AI.