How do you know if music is AI.?

[lurksalot]

Probably the same concerns that arose when recordings became viable , the industry made plenty of money selling reproductions of artists performances , technically not actually real. The money and authenticity now is in the performance again. 
 

[Beer of the Bass]

I must admit, I have yet to click "play" on any of this AI music. Perhaps that makes my opinion on it uninformed, but I feel that if it wasn't worth someone's time to write, play and record it, it's not worth my time and attention to listen to it. 

[BigRedX]

22 hours ago, Mrbigstuff said:

AI can read and digest large volumes very quickly.

 

IMO the vast "data set" that AI uses to make something is part of its downfall. A bit like the musician who says they are open to everything but because they have no focus doesn't really get most of it and as a result what they come up with never really fits properly.

 

And if you were to get AI generation to restrict it's data set to a particular genre then it doesn't know when or how to borrow from outside of that genre, to make something just a little bit different and maybe more interesting.

 

 

12 hours ago, gjones said:

as you can't copyright AI created content

 

But where do you draw the line?

 

If I type some prompts into one of the AI music generators, it might come up with some interesting ideas, none of them will be perfect but there might be something that can be developed, in the same way that when my band writes a song the original idea that one of us come up will go through many changes and mutations as each of us adds their take to end up with something that has moved on quite a bit from the first musical themes.

 

If you start with an AI generated piece of music and develop it, how can anyone tell that the original was AI generated? 

[Hellzero]

17 minutes ago, BigRedX said:

If you start with an AI generated piece of music and develop it, how can anyone tell that the original was AI generated? 

If you use AI like you would use a dictionary or a grammar, there's no harm as it's considered like usual help, but if you use AI to fully generate a tune, it's, of course, legally, not possible to copyright it as it's not your work.

 

There lies the difference.

[Beer of the Bass]

I do wonder if in future we'll see predatory court cases in the other direction. As in, creator makes money on an artistic work, AI company pulls our that creator's prompt history and activates their legal team. Possible?

They're certainly well resourced operations who could afford serious legal rep. 

[BigRedX]

4 minutes ago, Hellzero said:

but if you use AI to fully generate a tune, it's, of course, legally, not possible to copyright it as it's not your work.

 

But how can anyone tell? There's only so many note combinations. Songwriters and composers come up with very similar tunes all the time.

 

If I sign up to an AI music generator via VPN using a one-off email address, and then by the same method use an on-line stem separator. Convert the results into MIDI. Redo the bits I don't like, and keep the rest but using my very similar sounds, or me playing guitar or bass parts, there is no trail back to me and no way it can be proved that I didn't come up with the idea all by myself.

[Hellzero]

Indeed @BigRedX, but that's exactly how music has always been composed, "stealing" parts from the others, but now with AI you don't have to learn music, just ask and use what seems interesting to you.

 

Plagiarism is still not really legal.

[BigRedX]

Just now, Hellzero said:

Plagiarism is still not really legal.

 

But no humans other than Tech Bros were disadvantaged in the process, and they don't really count.

[Mrbigstuff]

1 hour ago, BigRedX said:

 

IMO the vast "data set" that AI uses to make something is part of its downfall. A bit like the musician who says they are open to everything but because they have no focus doesn't really get most of it and as a result what they come up with never really fits properly.

 

And if you were to get AI generation to restrict it's data set to a particular genre then it doesn't know when or how to borrow from outside of that genre, to make something just a little bit different and maybe more interesting.

 

 

 

But where do you draw the line?

 

If I type some prompts into one of the AI music generators, it might come up with some interesting ideas, none of them will be perfect but there might be something that can be developed, in the same way that when my band writes a song the original idea that one of us come up will go through many changes and mutations as each of us adds their take to end up with something that has moved on quite a bit from the first musical themes.

 

If you start with an AI generated piece of music and develop it, how can anyone tell that the original was AI generated? 

I get what you mean about the first part, but then at the same time if AI were to be influenced by minimal sources it opens it up more to plagiarism.

 

AI and the construct of genre is interesting because I think AI really needs those sort of boundaries and organisation. Yet as we know the influences used in songs make the lines between genres incredibly blurred to the point where it’s almost meaningless!

[WinterMute]

Same issues came up when sampling became commonplace, and the courts had to rule on where the law drew the line. However, in the case of sampling there was an existing copyright owner to make a claim and a record company to pursue it, with an AI system, there is no copyright license as the LLM isn't a legal entity (they may well become legal entities in the future), so if I use one to create a song that goes on the make a pile of cash, who is going to claim the copyright infringement?

 

In the case BigRedX supposes, an AI based song with original (human) elements, it's almost entirely the same as the sampling cases, except there is no legal entity to claim the copyright or IP on the "original" work. Who is going to sue you?

 

There is also an argument to say that the LLM's base their output on other peoples work in any case and cannot create "original" work.

 

You'd be well advised to check the small print on the end user agreement for any LLM you use for creative purpose, as I suspect there will be copyright and IP claims in there somewhere.

[SimonK]

11 minutes ago, WinterMute said:

Same issues came up when sampling became commonplace, and the courts had to rule on where the law drew the line. However, in the case of sampling there was an existing copyright owner to make a claim and a record company to pursue it, with an AI system, there is no copyright license as the LLM isn't a legal entity (they may well become legal entities in the future), so if I use one to create a song that goes on the make a pile of cash, who is going to claim the copyright infringement?

 

In the case BigRedX supposes, an AI based song with original (human) elements, it's almost entirely the same as the sampling cases, except there is no legal entity to claim the copyright or IP on the "original" work. Who is going to sue you?

 

There is also an argument to say that the LLM's base their output on other peoples work in any case and cannot create "original" work.

 

You'd be well advised to check the small print on the end user agreement for any LLM you use for creative purpose, as I suspect there will be copyright and IP claims in there somewhere.

 

MIght be worth noting that the AI music generators I looked at had a paid-for subscription where you could buy the IP for the song. ie with the free version the AI owned the copywrite so you couldn't really use it, but pay the £15/month you could then use it for whatever you wanted to.

 

So I don't think "who owns the copywrite" is a particular problem.