Submitted by markhachman t3_10bddey in MachineLearning
As in, "Pink Floyd, Another Brick in the Wall, ska, heavy trumpet, female vocalist"
It seems that if copyright issues are a controversial element of AI art, then copyrighted music will run into the same issue. Or is this not true?
Also MeloForm, a Microsoft project that composes music using expert systems.
Expert systems as in hand-crafted rule-based expert system?
>Specifically, 1) we design an expert system to generate a melody by developing musical elements from motifs to phrases then to sections with repetitions and variations according to pre-given musical form; 2) considering the generated melody is lack of musical richness, we design a Transformer based refinement model to improve the melody without changing its musical form. MeloForm enjoys the advantages of precise musical form control by expert systems and musical richness learning via neural models.
[deleted]
There is https://openai.com/blog/jukebox/, which does generate music from prompt, but the prompt is not as detailed ("Hip Hop, in the style of Kanye West") and I don't think there is an easy way to use it online.
Notably many of openAI's open-source projects, including jukebox, have a license that both disclaim any ownership of the generated works and forbid commercial use, which should largely sidestep potentially thorny copyright questions.
Nope, from terms of use regarding ai output.
OpenAI hereby assigns to you all its right, title and interest in and to Output.
Besides, they have commercial apis, paid plans etc. Obviously they endorse commercial use.
Jukebox license is different from the one you're thinking of.
Not really. Attribution only, no other restrictions.
>No portion of the Software, nor any content created with the Software, may be used for commercial purposes.
ah it does say that, and noncommercial license at the top as well.
Doesn't matter much, you can't realistically use it anyways.
The source is there, but I don't think it's a pre-trained model, and it sounds really slow (like a second of audio will be like an hour of processing). It'd probably cost less to commission a real musician.
Copyright is not a big obstacle for generative AI. Research Author's Guild vs Google.
Copyright is an enormous issue for AI models - did you not read the post? [Oops, I meant this post.] Have you not heard everyone talking about it lately? The Google case is irrelevant to this question. It was decided that Google building a search database of books was fair use, and didn't have an adverse economic impact on the books' authors - on the contrary, it boosted sales.
Had Google built an AI trained on the books' content, and then generated books for sale, it would have been a different outcome.
I read the 30 word OP here and the jukebox blog post and have read multiple analyses of AGI vs Google. The best I can guess, you're referring to the jukebox post, which only references IP in the sentence:
> As generative modeling across various domains continues to advance, we are also conducting research into issues like bias and intellectual property rights
So, I question if you know what discussion you're replying in, if you yourself read the post, or if I'm just so confused I can't believe my own reading comprehension anymore (which could happen any day now).
The multi-part fair use test established in AGI vs Google is widely held to be applicable to AI and ML models. There are no guarantees when it comes to credible legal theories and the winds can shift after a Supreme Court decision or two, but that's the state of the art today.
You're right, sorry, I had several tabs open on a similar subject... the post I was referring to is this:
> The multi-part fair use test established in AGI vs Google is widely held to be applicable to AI and ML models.
The US four-part fair use test was established long before AGI v. Google: in the 19th century in Folsom v. Marsh. It was encoded into copyright law in 1976. It's applicable to everything.
The case only decided that Google's specific book service did in fact pass the test. The most important aspect is that the judge found that there was no economic damage to the book authors, that it did not replace the books or negatively impact the market for books.
The decision is not applicable to other projects that may be substantially different in character. I'm sure OpenAI's lawyers are hoping that DALL-E will be considered to be equivalent to Google's book search - that they have fair use rights to digitize copyrighted material without permission, and publish something transformed that only contains "snippets" of it. But they will have to get around the fourth factor. Who will commission an expensive original artwork from Greg Rutkowski, when they can simply type a prompt including "in the style of..." and get something substantially similar, for less than a nickel? Will companies use GPL3 code in their products, when they can get a mashed-up facsimile with the restrictive license removed? The question of fair use in the context of generative neural networks is far from settled; hence the lawsuits in the (other) post.
Sure, there will probably be plenty of litigation in the next few years. I find it probable that these suits fail. Sorry for my imprecision on the origin and application of the four-part test. I think we'll just hold our same opinions on the matter coming out so I don't really care enough about this debate to formulate my sentences that carefully or continue.
Copyright at this point is largely obsolete as a tool to protect creativity.
Non-commercial use doesn't give you a pass on copyright infringement. It's just that the punishment is less severe. You can't freely share your music and movie libraries on Bittorrent. You can still get cease and desist orders, DMCA takedown notices, fines, loss of Internet, etc. (depending where you live).
I find it hilarious jukebox trained on a fuckton of copyrighted shit and now OpenAI points the finger at the potential users.
Certainly the RIAA is trying to claim that training a machine learning model on music constitutes copyright infringement.
Then again, back in the day they also tried to claim that ripping a CD constituted copyright infringement, and that didn't work out for them either.
Man, all these years I was listening to music to train my learning model I had no idea that my ears are illegal.
A conservative Supreme Court is very friendly to business interests, so we could see a major legal shift in this domain.
RIAA vs Big Tech. Both are business interests...
Copyright issues never stopped research in the past, so why would it be different for music?
Furthermore, in order for this to work right, it would have to sound similar to a composition by an artist that was merely influenced by the prompt.
It won't directly stop research, because that's fair use. It may well stop commercial exploitation of the research, at least to some extent. If so, companies would be less willing to invest in research, so it would have a chilling effect on the research anyway. But copyright issues can be worked out, if there's money to be made. It's just a question of how it's collected and to whom it's distributed...
Because the DMCA lawyers are aggressively litigious and have laws/precedent to back it up. Artists have limited legal recourse and fewer laws to protect them.
If an AI is trained on existing artists music, then the output from the AI is and should be considered as derivative work.
Thus the original artists should be compensated.
If it can be proven is a different challenge in itself.
By that logic, all music is derivative and all musicians should pay a subscription fee to play music
An AI does not know the concept of original work, compared to humans.
Humans can decide which data it wants to derive from, and how much of the selected data it wants to derive from.
AI cannot do this.
That’s why the art image AI’s always look like something it’s been trained on, and why music AI’s always sound like something they’ve been trained on.
And that’s why you are wrong, and I am right.
And that’s also why you and many others will downvote me.
Humans can't at all decide if they are original or not. You clearly don't know anything about playing music, but it happens VERY often that people record a cool original tune they like, show it to people and they go "you know this is mostly just song x by y in a different key, right". I can't remember how many times I've heard that but it's a lot.
I am a music producer and I’ve worked in the music industry for over 10 years. Read one of my other comments where I explain a little what I’ve been through.
Don’t just pull things out of your ass.
You've been in the music industry for ten years and never heard unoriginal music or heard a musician play something familiar by accident? Wild!
The law doesn’t care if a composition was created by accident.
If the composition has already been made by someone else before and it’s not in the public domain, then the rightful author is entitled to 100% of the revenue, pretty much.
It’s the law!
You can argue as much as you want about it, the law is the law and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.
But as always, internet people who have zero knowledge in a certain domain argue with professionals and think they’ll win the debate.
Ignorance at its finest.
You're very arrogant in your assumptions and completely oblivious to the issue at hand.
There was no issue to begin with. You created an issue out of thin air.
You have no idea what you’re even debating anymore, so personal insults is all that you have left.
It’s the same thing with internet people, every time.
Lol mate whatever, you're the one being uncivilized and uneducated on the internet. Look up cases like chuck Berry vs the beatles for a classic case that demonstrates the thin line between inspiration, accident and derivative copyright infringing art. It happens literally all the time (but often isn't published) making your music producing claims very untrustworthy. The only thing I'm convinced of by you is that you're a child who likes to dream some years ahead on the internet. We've all been there. But try not to make these ridiculous arguments based on nonexistent authority, it's evident from your post history that you know jack about music production lol.
You literally posted in a thread about this just 18 days ago by the way. https://www.reddit.com/r/WeAreTheMusicMakers/comments/zvxzcp/how_do_you_find_out_if_you_unconsciously/
It does not matter. The law is still the law.
What the judge decides is up to the judge.
You are missing the point completely.
Here is an example: Somone may kill someone, by accident, and the law says that the individual must go to jail.
However, the judge may still find the individual not guilty.
That’s an extreme example, but I hope you mind can comprehend the idea. I hope.
I have studied copyright laws. I understand it very well.
Fun fact: computer code written by humans is also protected by copyright laws.
Lmao if you knew anything about law you wouldn't be comparing criminal law with copyright law plus you're completely wrong, but I guess they didn't tell you about the distinction between manslaughter and murder or how these cases are usually judged in law school hahahahaha. I love you bring up programming, I've seen your dumbass comments in the node.js subreddit hahahahaha
There’s nothing to LMAO about.
It’s facts. And it’s the law 🤷♂️
Oh it's you I'm laughing at hahahaha
Yes, because that’s all you can do.
You cannot debate my facts, so you scramble to find a way to feel important.
But it’s not working now, is it? 😂
"facts" loooool
The law = Facts
🤣
There’s nothing to 🤣 about.
It’s facts.
What does it feel like to be both stupid and universally disliked on the internet? It looks like your entire comment history is downvotes because you're always so confidently and obviously wrong and berating lol
What happened to discussing the laws around copyrights?
Oh yeah I forgot, you’re one of those losers who knows nothing about a topic so you resort to personal insults and stalking because you have no constructive knowledge of value to offer regarding the topic that you yourself started debating.
How does it feel to care more about others than yourself?
Fyi: GME did me good 😉 and looking at who universally dislikes me exposes the profile of most people: a bunch of dumbasses who are less than knowledgable in most areas.
You ever seen a bell curve for intelligence? I doubt it, but I’d be on the far right of it.
”You shall accept defeat only when you are wise enough to understand your past stupidity. And only then will you grow out of your fragile shell and build a new one from an indestructible resource, which is knowledge.”
Guess who said that. (Now you’ll franatically start googling it and go nuts over that you can’t find the source, only to later realize ”why am I wasting my time on this?”, and then you’ll think back to me and accept that I was right all along)
You sound like you have mania, mate.
Why are you so interested in me? You seem a bit obsessed.
That’s weird. People on the internet are weird. You are hella weird that’s for sure.
Oh well, that’s just what I have to deal with.
Weird mfs on the internet 🤷♂️
What if we add past court cases as training data for the model? We can add another label (court decision) and a few additional billion parameters. Problem solved
I went off track answering you before. I was still in the mindset of music AI’s.
Your question was more generalized towards legal AI’s (legal as in law).
Answer to your question is: we must first ask what the purpose of the AI is, and what type of AI it is.
An AI that would solve the problem you mention would most likely be a classifier of some sort.
It would read cases, and depending on the input data it would generate a binary answer: guilty or not guilty.
That’s the simplest form.
A more complex version could maybe output a range of values, to more precisely dictate the sentence, such as: Social service 6 months, or prison 3 monrhs, or jail 2 years 4months 2 days 13 hours etc…
An even more complex model could maybe work as a Large Language Model much like OpenAI chatGPT or Google Lamda 2 which could output detailed information about the evidence presented, the defense presented, the circumstances, and the final decision, such as:
The defendant is found not guilty for murder because the victim had multiple times triggered psychological attacks by definition of the following medical research papers (see references) which caused defendant to enter a neuropsychotic mental state where the only perceived impression of the situation was death of defendant, which in such situation only fight would be the only solution to flight, given the layout of the room presented in the photos provided by law enforcement and the relative position between defendant and victim.
More so…
You get the idea.
Multiple models could be used to perform different tasks, such as describing by text, or visualizing by image and video, and speaking by audio.
Parameter count does not dictate output originality.
Nothing does.
No AI so far generates original output.
AI’s so for are only math based relational machines.
The output will always be as good as the input data, never better.
Humans however have proven time and time again, every day, ever since inception of creation of life, that it is capable of learning little input and create large output that it was never trained on.
There’s something more fundamentally complex going on that gives us the capability to create original data. At least data that is so far away from the derived data that it no longer looks like the input data at all.
This is called: abstraction.
AI’s are not capable of abstraction… yet.
You are of course technically correct. I wouldn't rule out the possibility that sufficiently different but still derivative work is possible to generate.
That’s when we get into the legal greyzone area, which overlaps the concept of: genre.
A lotmof music sound alike. The idea or concept of a music style can be derived easily, without necessarily conflicting with the legalities of the original music.
So derived music is derived music, via AI or human, but is it similar enough to be considered plagiarism or simply inspiration?
That’s the discussion that people miss to discuss, and also something that people simply ignore.
The future of AI art will be interesting from a legal aspeect too.
There’ll be some interesting AI related lawsuits coming up in the future.
You seem to be knowledgeable on the domain (checked also your reddit profile). Would you know of any past court cases where artists accused someone of stealing their ideas (along with court decisions)? I would like to fine time my brain's parameters on this topic J
I run an AI audio startup. Ten years ago I fought a legal case against a major music label concerning one of my original songs, out of court.
We simply settled without taking it to court, because: who has the energy anyways.
Evidence was strong on my side. My arguments were strong.
Given that I have personaöly been through this legal process, I am extremely curious about the legalities around music AI’s.
More so around voice AI’s that directly imitate artists voices, and purposefulky intend to sound like the original artist with zero goals of only ”deriving”.
Think about. It’s about to get wild out there.
Guy doesn't know anything about it. There are many famous copyright claim lawsuits in music. Chuck Berry vs The beatles is a cool one I think. Lana del Rey vs I can't remember is a more recent case 🙂 I'm sure you can find a list of famous copyright cases in music.
I feel like unlike images, music has been copyrighted and restricted more heavily. For e.g. there isn't really a danbooru equivalent for music.
Isn't SoundCloud basically danbooru for music?
There might not be a nicely accessible dataset yet, but that probably won't stop major players
well it wouldn't be "MusicGPT", but yes, ai music is already a thing. Such as with riffusion (stable diffusion trained on spectrograms to create music).
you're correct about the controversy though. All modern AI work in the same way: by curating a dataset that's used to train a neural network's weights, and then those weights are used to produce something related to the dataset. So just as art AI uses images in the training that people yell about copyright issues, music AI will use music in the training that people may also complain about.
I think what I'm talking would be an algorithm that understands the sounds of different instruments, their tonality, rhythm, and so on, in much the same way ChatGPT understands the relationship between words or presumably Vall-E understands phonemes -- and then understands how to put them together in the style of various artists.
I'll have to check out Riffusion, though, as I'm unfamiliar with it, thanks.
Yes. Look at stable diffusion and riffusion for an example of this. Music isn't fundamentally different from images and text in terms of how modern AI works.
Images and text are already quite different from each other though, in terms of AI generators. The image generators include a language model, but work on a diffusion principle that the text generators don't use. Riffusion's approach of using a diffusion image generator with sonograms is interesting to some extent, but I sincerely doubt it will be the future direction of high-quality music generators.
I interviewed for a start up that was attempting to use AI to create original musics for movies, video games, and digital content.
I forgot their name…I wish I could remember it so I can check up on them.
Edit:
I think it's better to do various elements of music separately and combine them rather than try to do the whole song at once. It's a challenging problem. There is much less training data for example. I've worked on melodies so far: https://www.melodies.ai/, https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoCzMRqh5SkFPG0-RIAR8jYRaICWubUdx.
MuseNet from OpenAI uses GPT-2. IMO it is the best musical idea generator that exists. I used it to compose a number of classical solo piano pieces.
That generates MIDI rather than raw audio. Impressive but the sounds still have to be generated via VSTs etc
Yes, exactly. That's what makes it useful for a composer or song writer because you edit and change the material to make it your own. With good libraries you can make it sound professional. An AI system that generates audio like jukebox is useless since everything intermingled.
You might like Cthulhu
Google Magenta has done a bunch of research in this area. This one based on Perceiver is pretty promising, but currently only trained on piano.
Copyright issues aren't problematic. The case law is well settled until there is new legislation. Some parties don't like it and some journalists want to write about it. 🤷
That's not remotely true. There was a Google case, but that was about creating a books search database, not actually selling AI-produced books. The lawsuits against Microsoft etc. are proceeding, and in the meantime many other major companies are staying (or backing) away from selling AI-produced content until it's clear what the legal situation is. It's certainly not settled.
Things aren't "true"/"false" in this context, unfortunately. It is commonly held by IP and copyright lawyers to be the most credible legal theory available today. The multi-part test for fair use it created has been generally upheld as usable in AI and machine learning scenarios.
Sorry, but that's entirely false. See my other comment. The US fair use test was created in 1841. The Google case only found that its book search product passed the test, including the publication of "snippets" not having a negative impact on the market for books. That doesn't mean every other arguably-similar project passes the test too. They would need to show that, for example, generated images do not impact the market for images made by the artists whose work was scanned - which is obviously not the case. The situation with generative neural networks is not at all "well settled" by the case about Google's book search.
AI output cannot be considered copyrighted if the original text is changed over 30% (same for humans like Weird Al).
Fun fact Weird Al still liceneses music from the orginal artists
> Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it’s important to maintain the relationships that he’s built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties. - Weird Al's site
The reason is because of "Write a word, Get a third" where if you write or change a lyric in a song you are entitled to a 1/3rd of the royalties.
He doesn't "license" them, he just asks politely because he's nice... which is what your quote says.
>> "Al does get permission"
> By obtaining official copyright permission from the artists, Weird Al’s attorneys negotiate royalties which vary from a flat fee buyout to royalty participation.
I.e. a licence
I don't think it's that simple - whether or not generative AI is considered "transformative" has not yet been tested by the courts.
Until somebody actually gets sued over this and it goes to court, we don't know how the legal system is going to handle it. There is currently a lawsuit against Github Copilot, so we will probably know in the next couple years.
There is no such 30% rule. Tests for copyright infringement are much more complex. And even if there were, a copyrighted work changed by a certain amount, so that it can by copyrighted itself, will still be a derivative work, subject to the original copyright.
Weird Al can do what he does, because it's satire, and there are exceptions for that as fair use and freedom of speech in copyright law. Try changing a Beatles song by 30%, in a non-satirical way, and see how far you get with publishing it...
It's not controversial as long as you don't share it and make money with it, you are pretty much free to do whatever you want.
If you plan to share the output, meaning here what's generated, not just the code and checkpoints, or a training set that's under copyright, publicly then it's another question entirely and if you are serious about that I recommend seeking legal advice.
We need PiedPiper
[deleted]
Always has been.
OpenAI’s Musenet uses GPT-2 to generate multi-part midi from text prompts. You can try it here: https://openai.com/blog/musenet/
It's definitely a viable possiblity, and there's quite a few companeis already doing it. If you want to explore doing it yourself, I'd check out https://web.mit.edu/music21/ and build some basic models using LSTM etc. to have some fun using open source MIDI data sets like https://magenta.tensorflow.org/datasets/maestro .
I think copyright is more an issue than with artwork. Human brains are so sensitive and well trained on music that you immediately recognise a familiar tune. Plus the music industry as a whole is much more sensitive in copyright aspects. Maybe because there is a lot of money involved in it. Not sure. I can understand why Google keep theirs away from the public for now.
Mmm! F ..!?d6ddddddzddzz55zztzzff8Zz .zzZ
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats!
6
+ 55
+ 8
= 69
^(Click here to have me scan all your future comments.)
^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
blueSGL t1_j49len1 wrote
There is already Riffusion and HarmonAI