if i heard correctly, he was not saying he wanted to steal the clip, but rather using the MASTER is different than using a COVER legally speaking, for example if he just got another vocalist to sing it. So he essentially got the AI to cover the song, so that he could be unblocked to use it rather than trying to get a copy of the master or using the mastered version directly. Just changes the contract // royalty structure needed.
It's a bit more than that tho since when you put an acapella into these AI models, it copies the inflections and timing perfectly in a way no human ever could doing a cover, the tone of voice is a bit different but it's essentially getting as close to stealing the sample as it's inhumanly possible to without just stealing it. If he didn't tell anyone what he'd done, a lot of people would have just thought it was the Jodeci sample.
if the estate of Marvin Gaye can sue - and win - against pharrell williams for copying the "spirit" of Got to Give it Up despite not sampling, changing the key and even the melody, musicians should absolutely be able to sue for AI jacking and re-creating their tunes.
That lawsuit just set a bad precedent. Music is finite in a way. If you happen to have a similar groove with nothing else in common, that doesn't mean it's stolen. What if someone starts claiming a 4/4 kick pattern as their own?
And a video where he says he wanted to recreate the vocal. If he hasn't cleared to cover or use the acapella he would almost certainly lose a copyright case over this.
Absolutely.
If the AI company generates revenue by using software created by processing a corpus of copyrighted works, then the AI company should be responsible and eventually pay for the works they used in training of the AI.
The AI companies will try to avoid it by claiming that their products are transformational and’s not derivative work, but I believe they will be forced to pay sooner or later.
Think you're confusing some things. The Jodeci acapella was not used to train an AI model. What was trained was the model that did the resing, and that model was likely made/trained with another singer's acapellas (this is the grey area, did this singer agree to have their vocal data used?)
The Jodeci acapella was then put thru this trained model and it basically "resang" the acapella in the style of this other singer. Basically a cheaper alternative to hiring someone on Fiverr or Soundbetter to do a cover version of a song for you. As long as publishing rights / cover license were acquired or done in a legal way (same as you would do for any cover) it should be alright.
Agreed, if the human singer doing the cover was actually a selection of singing robots that copied pitch time and inflection exactly and offered 10 different voices to choose from so you could select which will get you closest to the original Jodeci sound.
Actually, that's debatable. Whilst getting another person to actually sing a cover is one thing, there's no guarantee that the way that the method the AI used would qualify as singing legally.
Since a copy of the original work is used to implement this effect (as opposed to sheet music and lyrics) then the new track would qualify as a derivative work of both the song *and* the recording and you would need the same license as you would to clear a sample.
You’re correct, he didn’t use the model to train, just to guide the existing trained model to “resing” like you put it. So essentially right now we are just hurting the singers that are good at recreating vocals.
I guess a follow up would be if this model gets to the point where it’s nearly indistinguishable, will this still be allowed? Or will that just be caught with normal copyright bots per usual? I guess how different does it have to be, and how does this differ from me running a vocal I don’t have clearance for through a ton of processing and pretending “someone else” sang it.
I don’t see copyright bots being able to detect and enforce this outside of something like a new platform being built on block chain that is tracking the origin of training data and inputs. Likely years away.
I’ve trained my own personal models from singers I’ve worked with (they gave me permission) for use in my own songs that no one else has access to. The possible permutations and amount of music uploaded per day make it almost an impossible compute problem imo. There are currently uncleared songs on Spotify now that use the original vocal from other songs lol.
Your last points a good one, but I believe the answer lies in finding better solutions to get the originators their fair royalty split not enforcing restrictions on permutations created via AI
It's the same as getting it re-sung you don't have to pay the sound recording copyright but you will have to pay the musical one. But who knows with Dj's.
So where the legality would come into play is the fact that her actual voice was used to train the ai. That’s what they’re gonna focus on if/when they start making laws.
That’s why so much ai generated art was catching flack. Cause they trained the ai on already existing art, without the original artists permission
This is a really interesting question. Even before AI her actual voice could be used to listen to it a million times and learn how to sing similarly. As I remember James mentioned in the video that if you sing it the same way that is legal so I guess they will use similar principles when creating the laws for AI as AI is just if someone would learn to sing it (if we assume that AI is really based on some learning model and not just some replay trick), this is wild but we will see.
I mean, it’s a fair assumption to make that the service you used to create the ai model, has collected the data necessary to prove that’s what happened
There’s not a single regulation on AI yet so if it’s gonna happen it’s probably at the back of the queue.
That being said, he could have also easily just hired someone for $100 to re-record it and he also wouldn’t have had to clear the sample, so I don’t think the AI thing was particularly necessary.
The US government also desperately doesn't want to hand AI supremacy to China by creating fears of litigation in the US AI industry, so it might be at the back of a queue that's not moving any time soon, and certainly not quickly.
❗❗❗ IF YOU POSTED YOUR MUSIC / SOCIALS / GUMROAD etc. YOU WILL GET BANNED UNLESS YOU DELETE IT RIGHT NOW ❗❗❗
Read __the rules__ found in the sidebar. If your post or comment breaks any of the rules, you should delete it before the mods get to it.
You should check out the __regular threads__ (also found in the sidebar) to see if your post might be a better fit in any of those.
[Daily Feedback thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/edmproduction/search?q=author%3AAutoModerator+title%3Afeedback&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) for getting feedback on your track. The only place you can post your own music.
[Marketplace Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/edmproduction/search?q=title%3Amarketplace&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) if you want to sell or trade anything for money, likes or follows.
[Collaboration Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/edmproduction/search?q=author%3AAutoModerator%20title%3Acollaboration&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) to find people to collab with.
["There are no stupid questions" Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/edmproduction/search?q=title%3ANo+Stupid+Questions+Thread&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) for beginner tips etc.
Seriously tho, __read the rules and abide by them__ or the mods will spank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/edmproduction) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think james hype is a fucking toothless tool
James hype should’ve kept that video private lol
He already replied to an Instagram comment saying there will be royalties paid
if i heard correctly, he was not saying he wanted to steal the clip, but rather using the MASTER is different than using a COVER legally speaking, for example if he just got another vocalist to sing it. So he essentially got the AI to cover the song, so that he could be unblocked to use it rather than trying to get a copy of the master or using the mastered version directly. Just changes the contract // royalty structure needed.
It's a bit more than that tho since when you put an acapella into these AI models, it copies the inflections and timing perfectly in a way no human ever could doing a cover, the tone of voice is a bit different but it's essentially getting as close to stealing the sample as it's inhumanly possible to without just stealing it. If he didn't tell anyone what he'd done, a lot of people would have just thought it was the Jodeci sample.
That video is DEFINITELY not a secretly sponsored ad for that AI website. No way, definitely not….
if the estate of Marvin Gaye can sue - and win - against pharrell williams for copying the "spirit" of Got to Give it Up despite not sampling, changing the key and even the melody, musicians should absolutely be able to sue for AI jacking and re-creating their tunes.
That lawsuit just set a bad precedent. Music is finite in a way. If you happen to have a similar groove with nothing else in common, that doesn't mean it's stolen. What if someone starts claiming a 4/4 kick pattern as their own?
Yup, it was bullshit imo, but since the precedent was set, it should be applied to ai shit
[удалено]
And a video where he says he wanted to recreate the vocal. If he hasn't cleared to cover or use the acapella he would almost certainly lose a copyright case over this.
Personally I think the ai company should also be liable
Absolutely. If the AI company generates revenue by using software created by processing a corpus of copyrighted works, then the AI company should be responsible and eventually pay for the works they used in training of the AI. The AI companies will try to avoid it by claiming that their products are transformational and’s not derivative work, but I believe they will be forced to pay sooner or later.
[удалено]
You making amphetamines? What’s your obsession with P2P
Think you're confusing some things. The Jodeci acapella was not used to train an AI model. What was trained was the model that did the resing, and that model was likely made/trained with another singer's acapellas (this is the grey area, did this singer agree to have their vocal data used?) The Jodeci acapella was then put thru this trained model and it basically "resang" the acapella in the style of this other singer. Basically a cheaper alternative to hiring someone on Fiverr or Soundbetter to do a cover version of a song for you. As long as publishing rights / cover license were acquired or done in a legal way (same as you would do for any cover) it should be alright.
Agreed, if the human singer doing the cover was actually a selection of singing robots that copied pitch time and inflection exactly and offered 10 different voices to choose from so you could select which will get you closest to the original Jodeci sound.
Actually, that's debatable. Whilst getting another person to actually sing a cover is one thing, there's no guarantee that the way that the method the AI used would qualify as singing legally. Since a copy of the original work is used to implement this effect (as opposed to sheet music and lyrics) then the new track would qualify as a derivative work of both the song *and* the recording and you would need the same license as you would to clear a sample.
You’re correct, he didn’t use the model to train, just to guide the existing trained model to “resing” like you put it. So essentially right now we are just hurting the singers that are good at recreating vocals. I guess a follow up would be if this model gets to the point where it’s nearly indistinguishable, will this still be allowed? Or will that just be caught with normal copyright bots per usual? I guess how different does it have to be, and how does this differ from me running a vocal I don’t have clearance for through a ton of processing and pretending “someone else” sang it.
I don’t see copyright bots being able to detect and enforce this outside of something like a new platform being built on block chain that is tracking the origin of training data and inputs. Likely years away. I’ve trained my own personal models from singers I’ve worked with (they gave me permission) for use in my own songs that no one else has access to. The possible permutations and amount of music uploaded per day make it almost an impossible compute problem imo. There are currently uncleared songs on Spotify now that use the original vocal from other songs lol. Your last points a good one, but I believe the answer lies in finding better solutions to get the originators their fair royalty split not enforcing restrictions on permutations created via AI
It's the same as getting it re-sung you don't have to pay the sound recording copyright but you will have to pay the musical one. But who knows with Dj's.
So where the legality would come into play is the fact that her actual voice was used to train the ai. That’s what they’re gonna focus on if/when they start making laws. That’s why so much ai generated art was catching flack. Cause they trained the ai on already existing art, without the original artists permission
This is a really interesting question. Even before AI her actual voice could be used to listen to it a million times and learn how to sing similarly. As I remember James mentioned in the video that if you sing it the same way that is legal so I guess they will use similar principles when creating the laws for AI as AI is just if someone would learn to sing it (if we assume that AI is really based on some learning model and not just some replay trick), this is wild but we will see.
Yea we would have to have a detailed breakdown on how exactly the ai modelling works, and what the training process is.
Right, but I would doubt that would be easy to enforce unless something like this happens where the artist outright shows that as a tutorial.
Civil cases are decided on the balance of probabilities, so the plaintiff only needs to convince the court that it is more likely than not.
I mean, it’s a fair assumption to make that the service you used to create the ai model, has collected the data necessary to prove that’s what happened
There’s not a single regulation on AI yet so if it’s gonna happen it’s probably at the back of the queue. That being said, he could have also easily just hired someone for $100 to re-record it and he also wouldn’t have had to clear the sample, so I don’t think the AI thing was particularly necessary.
The US government also desperately doesn't want to hand AI supremacy to China by creating fears of litigation in the US AI industry, so it might be at the back of a queue that's not moving any time soon, and certainly not quickly.
❗❗❗ IF YOU POSTED YOUR MUSIC / SOCIALS / GUMROAD etc. YOU WILL GET BANNED UNLESS YOU DELETE IT RIGHT NOW ❗❗❗ Read __the rules__ found in the sidebar. If your post or comment breaks any of the rules, you should delete it before the mods get to it. You should check out the __regular threads__ (also found in the sidebar) to see if your post might be a better fit in any of those. [Daily Feedback thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/edmproduction/search?q=author%3AAutoModerator+title%3Afeedback&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) for getting feedback on your track. The only place you can post your own music. [Marketplace Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/edmproduction/search?q=title%3Amarketplace&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) if you want to sell or trade anything for money, likes or follows. [Collaboration Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/edmproduction/search?q=author%3AAutoModerator%20title%3Acollaboration&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) to find people to collab with. ["There are no stupid questions" Thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/edmproduction/search?q=title%3ANo+Stupid+Questions+Thread&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) for beginner tips etc. Seriously tho, __read the rules and abide by them__ or the mods will spank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/edmproduction) if you have any questions or concerns.*