3 ms·
It doesn’t prevent lawsuits, or do anything at all. Other comments here are close; this material is not an original work, so copyright does not subsist in it. N
by cormacrelf 7y ago
It doesn’t prevent lawsuits, or do anything at all. Other comments here are close; this material is not an original work, so copyright does not subsist in it. No copyright, no ability to place in public domain or issue licenses at all. This is the equivalent of pouring a glass of water in the ocean and then declaring you own all international waters.
- db48x 7y agoIt certainly contains many melodies which are not original. But what about the rest? It either contains some melodies which are original or it contains no original melodies. In the former case then they can be copyrighted, and in the later case they cannot (well, that hinges on access rather than mere equality, but I'll ignore that). However, in the latter case nobody else can get copyright on any new melodies either.
- cormacrelf 7y agoIn copyright law, original does not mean new. It means that a person originated the work. Here, this was done by a computer. Remember the monkey who took a selfie who couldn’t originate a work, and therefore there was no copyright work to be owned? This is a monkey on a typewriter. Copyright law protects expression, and the labour required to produce that expression. Just like people who copy others’ work to gain from it, the “authors” have attempted to gain from doing no work and letting a computer give them all the world’s music. Imagine if they didn’t release their library into the public domain, and instead started to immediately sue over every new song that came out? It is fortunate that they cannot do either.