5 ms·

So if you train an audio model on say, Eminem's voice, then write some songs and have it perform them...Would this output be legal to publish?

polishdude20 3y ago
What's the difference between that and someone else who just happens to sound like Eminem in terms out output? As long as you don't market yourself as Eminem that should be completely legal.
- scottiebarnes 3y ago
  I suppose so. I'm just imagining these "ghost AI artists" who publish catalogues of music using the audible likeness of more prolific artists. I know that you could have always just hired an Eminem impersonator and have them lay down tracks...but this technology lets you achieve speed and scale. At least the Eminem impersonator was a real person. This is just a model learned off an artists voice.
  - 2023throwawayy 3y ago
    > At least the Eminem impersonator was a real person. This is just a model learned off an artists voice. I fail to see how that has any difference on the output.
    - AlexandrB 3y ago
      We're all fucking doomed. All these "clever" comparisons between AI and human processes (e.g. "training an AI is just like a human learning"), is not elevating AI to the status of a real person. It's degrading real human creations to homogeneous "content" that is increasingly seen as equivalent to what can be churned out by a GPU farm. 50 years from now we'll still be listening to "AI Eminem" while watching "Avengers Midgame 12, The Revengening" and any concept of cultural or artistic expression beyond what will sell next quarter will be dead and buried.
  - rocketbop 3y ago
    > I'm just imagining these "ghost AI artists" who publish catalogues of music using the audible likeness of more prolific artists. Possibly so, but who is the market for such a catalogue? I don’t see how the artist is going to lose out. I’m reminded, though, if the episode of Mad Men where they want to get the Beatles as the soundtrack to an ad, but on finding out that the Beatles won’t do it they try to get some music that sounds similar to the Beatles. Maybe that’s the market.
    - slyall 3y ago
      A New Zealand political party got into trouble for using a "sound alike" of "Lose Yourself" by Eminem in a political advertisement. They licensed the song from a music library but the court determined the song they licensed was too close to the original. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Mile_Style_v_New_Zealand_National_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Mile_Style_v_New_Zealand...
      - rocketbop 3y ago
        Doesn’t sound like a core market for Eminem. I mean, I find it hard to think of use cases where an artist will really lose out in business terms because someone chooses an AI version of their music over the original. In this case I suspect they wouldn’t have really licensed or tried to licence Lose Yourself.
  - goolz 3y ago
    These "ghost artists" sound verbatim is the issue I have. A Drake song recently went viral and had tons of hits only to turn out it was made with AI. Fans could not even tell the difference and I most certainly could not either.
- echelon 3y ago
  Moreover, a zero shot Eminem might have a vector encoding smaller than the data required to store a fingerprint or small image. Can you own a few numbers that represent "you"? What if someone reaches those same numbers via vocal impression or simply manually dialing and tuning some knobs and levers? This brings up the question as to what actually makes us unique.
- m463 3y ago
  well, cover bands have to abide by copyright.
numpad0 3y ago
IIUC/IANAL: depends on whether anyone feels the data to be "it" or not. Provenance is not too relevant.
shagie 3y ago
I've been amused by the WH40k videos narrated by David Attenborough. There was some discussion about this a few years ago regarding Lyrebird - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14182580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14182580 In particular, celebrities have an additional right - Right of Publicity. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/publicity https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/publicity > In the United States, the right of publicity is largely protected by state common or statutory law. Only about half the states have distinctly recognized a right of publicity. Of these, many do not recognize a right by that name but protect it as part of the Right of Privacy. The Restatement Second of Torts recognizes four types of invasions of privacy: intrusion, appropriation of name or likeness, unreasonable publicity, and false light. https://www.inta.org/topics/right-of-publicity/ https://www.inta.org/topics/right-of-publicity/ > In the United States, no federal statute or case law recognizes the right of publicity, although federal unfair competition law recognizes a related statutory right to protection against false endorsement, association, or affiliation. A majority of states do, however, recognize the right of publicity by statute and/or case law. States diverge on whether the right survives posthumously and, if so, for how long, and also on whether the right of publicity is inheritable or assignable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights (and in particular https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#Japan ) > In October 2007, J-pop duo Pink Lady sued Kobunsha for ¥3.7 million after the publisher's magazine Josei Jishin used photos of the duo on an article on dieting through dancing without their permission. The case was rejected by the Tokyo District Court. In February 2012, the Supreme Court rejected the duo's appeal based on the right of publicity.
- sclarisse 3y ago
  > I've been amused by the WH40k videos narrated by David Attenborough. Have you seen the Thomas the Tank Engine videos narrated by Ringo Starr and George Carlin? …
  - justinclift 3y ago
    Heh Heh Heh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a_gW1KvuFk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a_gW1KvuFk
dpflan 3y ago
So I believe David Guetta of all people did this at a recent performance. - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dj-david-guetta-used-eminem-210446083.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dj-david-guetta-used-eminem-2... - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pNP1MqmzaZg&pp=ygUWZGF2aWQgZ3VldHRhIGVtaW5lbSBhaQ%3D%3D https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pNP1MqmzaZg&pp=ygUWZGF2aWQgZ3V...
madeofpalk 3y ago
Take it to court and find out!
tiahura 3y ago
Although no longer a copyright violation it would still be misappropriation of likeness, and a violation of his right to publicity.
trafficante 3y ago
I hope smarter minds than myself will somehow figure out a way to square this circle and get heavy restrictions on commercial usage without killing the technology outright. As far as AI rap goes: Notorious BIG is (by far) my favorite rapper of all time, yet he died in his early 20s with barely any unreleased songs in the vault. For me, as an aging superfan, AI deepfakes have me feeling 15 again - like Biggie is still alive somewhere and dropping covers of other classic rap tracks on YouTube. I wanted to link an example of an AI Biggie cover of a Nas classic, but the full thing seems to have vanished off YT after getting some press a few weeks back. A Shorts snippet is all I could find quickly.[1] And if you’re not a fan of old rap, these Michael Jackson[2] and Freddy Mercury[3] “AI cover songs” are absolutely wild. I just don’t see how this sort of stuff holds zero cultural value. Yes, it’s fake and a cover song to boot - but if the music elicits an emotional response that differs from both “original” artists of the deepfake, isn’t that art? 1. https://youtube.com/shorts/l81JqY2uhEo https://youtube.com/shorts/l81JqY2uhEo 2. https://youtu.be/370dSdNRYG4 https://youtu.be/370dSdNRYG4 3. https://youtu.be/XiZtIARF0iM https://youtu.be/XiZtIARF0iM
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  There's a saying in physics that the field "advances one funeral at a time". I don't understand the impulse to bring back artists of the past like this. At best, it's a hollow pantomime, and at worst it can be tremendously offensive too their memory. Moreover, how will the medium move forward if every new artist has to now compete for mindshare with every artist that lived and died since 1950 or so? Not just their legacy works (which is hard enough) but "new material" cranked out by AI.
  - trafficante 3y ago
    I personally agree that AI art is likely a cultural cul-de-sac, but I don’t think our current society has a framework that can exclude it from the art world without inflicting an Emperor Has No Clothes situation on several decades of post-modernist art. So there will be much gnashing of teeth, but ultimately the question posited by AI (“what is Art?”) is too destructive/inconvenient to be answered and the hubbub will eventually go away as AI generation becomes normalized. Doomerism aside, I think the focus should be on stopping wide scale commercialization of AI generation being packaged as art. I greatly enjoy the dead artist pantomimes, but I certainly don’t want Diddy magicking up a new Biggie single through AI necromancy.

polishdude20 3y ago

What's the difference between that and someone else who just happens to sound like Eminem in terms out output? As long as you don't market yourself as Eminem that should be completely legal.

scottiebarnes 3y ago
I suppose so. I'm just imagining these "ghost AI artists" who publish catalogues of music using the audible likeness of more prolific artists. I know that you could have always just hired an Eminem impersonator and have them lay down tracks...but this technology lets you achieve speed and scale. At least the Eminem impersonator was a real person. This is just a model learned off an artists voice.
- 2023throwawayy 3y ago
  > At least the Eminem impersonator was a real person. This is just a model learned off an artists voice. I fail to see how that has any difference on the output.
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    We're all fucking doomed. All these "clever" comparisons between AI and human processes (e.g. "training an AI is just like a human learning"), is not elevating AI to the status of a real person. It's degrading real human creations to homogeneous "content" that is increasingly seen as equivalent to what can be churned out by a GPU farm. 50 years from now we'll still be listening to "AI Eminem" while watching "Avengers Midgame 12, The Revengening" and any concept of cultural or artistic expression beyond what will sell next quarter will be dead and buried.
- rocketbop 3y ago
  > I'm just imagining these "ghost AI artists" who publish catalogues of music using the audible likeness of more prolific artists. Possibly so, but who is the market for such a catalogue? I don’t see how the artist is going to lose out. I’m reminded, though, if the episode of Mad Men where they want to get the Beatles as the soundtrack to an ad, but on finding out that the Beatles won’t do it they try to get some music that sounds similar to the Beatles. Maybe that’s the market.
  - slyall 3y ago
    A New Zealand political party got into trouble for using a "sound alike" of "Lose Yourself" by Eminem in a political advertisement. They licensed the song from a music library but the court determined the song they licensed was too close to the original. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Mile_Style_v_New_Zealand_National_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Mile_Style_v_New_Zealand...
    - rocketbop 3y ago
      Doesn’t sound like a core market for Eminem. I mean, I find it hard to think of use cases where an artist will really lose out in business terms because someone chooses an AI version of their music over the original. In this case I suspect they wouldn’t have really licensed or tried to licence Lose Yourself.
- goolz 3y ago
  These "ghost artists" sound verbatim is the issue I have. A Drake song recently went viral and had tons of hits only to turn out it was made with AI. Fans could not even tell the difference and I most certainly could not either.
echelon 3y ago
Moreover, a zero shot Eminem might have a vector encoding smaller than the data required to store a fingerprint or small image. Can you own a few numbers that represent "you"? What if someone reaches those same numbers via vocal impression or simply manually dialing and tuning some knobs and levers? This brings up the question as to what actually makes us unique.
m463 3y ago
well, cover bands have to abide by copyright.

numpad0 3y ago

IIUC/IANAL: depends on whether anyone feels the data to be "it" or not. Provenance is not too relevant.

shagie 3y ago

I've been amused by the WH40k videos narrated by David Attenborough. There was some discussion about this a few years ago regarding Lyrebird - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14182580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14182580 In particular, celebrities have an additional right - Right of Publicity. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/publicity https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/publicity > In the United States, the right of publicity is largely protected by state common or statutory law. Only about half the states have distinctly recognized a right of publicity. Of these, many do not recognize a right by that name but protect it as part of the Right of Privacy. The Restatement Second of Torts recognizes four types of invasions of privacy: intrusion, appropriation of name or likeness, unreasonable publicity, and false light. https://www.inta.org/topics/right-of-publicity/ https://www.inta.org/topics/right-of-publicity/ > In the United States, no federal statute or case law recognizes the right of publicity, although federal unfair competition law recognizes a related statutory right to protection against false endorsement, association, or affiliation. A majority of states do, however, recognize the right of publicity by statute and/or case law. States diverge on whether the right survives posthumously and, if so, for how long, and also on whether the right of publicity is inheritable or assignable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights (and in particular https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_rights#Japan ) > In October 2007, J-pop duo Pink Lady sued Kobunsha for ¥3.7 million after the publisher's magazine Josei Jishin used photos of the duo on an article on dieting through dancing without their permission. The case was rejected by the Tokyo District Court. In February 2012, the Supreme Court rejected the duo's appeal based on the right of publicity.

sclarisse 3y ago
> I've been amused by the WH40k videos narrated by David Attenborough. Have you seen the Thomas the Tank Engine videos narrated by Ringo Starr and George Carlin? …
- justinclift 3y ago
  Heh Heh Heh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a_gW1KvuFk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2a_gW1KvuFk

dpflan 3y ago

So I believe David Guetta of all people did this at a recent performance. - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dj-david-guetta-used-eminem-210446083.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dj-david-guetta-used-eminem-2... - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pNP1MqmzaZg&pp=ygUWZGF2aWQgZ3VldHRhIGVtaW5lbSBhaQ%3D%3D https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pNP1MqmzaZg&pp=ygUWZGF2aWQgZ3V...

madeofpalk 3y ago

Take it to court and find out!

tiahura 3y ago

Although no longer a copyright violation it would still be misappropriation of likeness, and a violation of his right to publicity.

trafficante 3y ago

I hope smarter minds than myself will somehow figure out a way to square this circle and get heavy restrictions on commercial usage without killing the technology outright. As far as AI rap goes: Notorious BIG is (by far) my favorite rapper of all time, yet he died in his early 20s with barely any unreleased songs in the vault. For me, as an aging superfan, AI deepfakes have me feeling 15 again - like Biggie is still alive somewhere and dropping covers of other classic rap tracks on YouTube. I wanted to link an example of an AI Biggie cover of a Nas classic, but the full thing seems to have vanished off YT after getting some press a few weeks back. A Shorts snippet is all I could find quickly.[1] And if you’re not a fan of old rap, these Michael Jackson[2] and Freddy Mercury[3] “AI cover songs” are absolutely wild. I just don’t see how this sort of stuff holds zero cultural value. Yes, it’s fake and a cover song to boot - but if the music elicits an emotional response that differs from both “original” artists of the deepfake, isn’t that art? 1. https://youtube.com/shorts/l81JqY2uhEo https://youtube.com/shorts/l81JqY2uhEo 2. https://youtu.be/370dSdNRYG4 https://youtu.be/370dSdNRYG4 3. https://youtu.be/XiZtIARF0iM https://youtu.be/XiZtIARF0iM

AlexandrB 3y ago
There's a saying in physics that the field "advances one funeral at a time". I don't understand the impulse to bring back artists of the past like this. At best, it's a hollow pantomime, and at worst it can be tremendously offensive too their memory. Moreover, how will the medium move forward if every new artist has to now compete for mindshare with every artist that lived and died since 1950 or so? Not just their legacy works (which is hard enough) but "new material" cranked out by AI.
- trafficante 3y ago
  I personally agree that AI art is likely a cultural cul-de-sac, but I don’t think our current society has a framework that can exclude it from the art world without inflicting an Emperor Has No Clothes situation on several decades of post-modernist art. So there will be much gnashing of teeth, but ultimately the question posited by AI (“what is Art?”) is too destructive/inconvenient to be answered and the hubbub will eventually go away as AI generation becomes normalized. Doomerism aside, I think the focus should be on stopping wide scale commercialization of AI generation being packaged as art. I greatly enjoy the dead artist pantomimes, but I certainly don’t want Diddy magicking up a new Biggie single through AI necromancy.