5 ms·

I think the biggest difference is that impersonators are using humanly creative acting skills, whereas this tool's model is built mechanically from the original

I think the biggest difference is that impersonators are using humanly creative acting skills, whereas this tool's model is built mechanically from the original artist's recordings.

dehrmann 3y ago
How is what an AI does any different?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kube-system 3y ago
  The degree of human involvement and human creativity involved is a very critical part of copyright law.
  - sandworm101 3y ago
    That degree generally being the fine line between "none" and "some". The simple act of holding the camera, even if you don't really know where you are pointing it, can qualify resulting images for copyright protection. But is the monkey at the zoo grabs your camera and snaps a pic, no copyright for anyone. So for an AI-generated song, a court will probably be able to hang its hat on the smallest of human input in the lyric or musical process.
    - kube-system 3y ago
      You're confusing different concepts: "qualification for copyright eligibility" (what you're referring to) and "qualification for fair use" and "qualification for (un)authorized use of likeness/personality" ... are all different things, with different laws, and different standards.
  - glimshe 3y ago
    What is the difference between human creativity and something that looks just like human creativity?
    - bobthepanda 3y ago
      Human authorship is legally protected and the other is not, whether that’s an AI or a bunch of monkeys on typewriters.
      - dehrmann 3y ago
        Aren't we all just a bunch of glorified monkeys on glorified typewriters?
        sbarre 3y ago
        Not according to the law, and that's what is being discussed?
        ensignavenger 3y ago
        No, to start with, humans are apes, not monkeys ;)
      - glimshe 3y ago
        Sure, but is the pre-AI law still adequate? We can discuss what the law says, but we can also discuss what the law should be.
        kube-system 3y ago
        It will need to be further refined to determine more clearly how it applies when humans are transforming another human's work with AI. But in general, the overarching concept that humans have rights and machines do not still very-much-so is applicable. With any law (not just IP), the end goal should be to protect the rights of humans in the context of how humans are human and do human things, regardless of the tools they use. At one point in time it was unclear whether things like tape recorders were legal. This is just that, with a different technology. Eventually we'll have better case law, and we'll know exactly how we can and can't use this one to protect the rights of other humans.
  - ensignavenger 3y ago
    This isn't about copyright though- it is about the "right to publicity", which is distinct from copyright. edit: I just noticed in the article the RIAA mentions both copyright and the right to publicity. So perhaps the site in question violates copyright in the original recordings. My guess would be if the person was listening to a recording they had a right to and using this tech, it would not be a copyright infringement, but if they are transforming a recording and redistributing it, it would be. But if this site is doing any distribution, it might itself be found infringing.
SkyBelow 3y ago
What if there is an AI built from the best impersonators without the input of the original? What if someone goes through enough effort to even get them to agree for their voice to be used as such?
- kube-system 3y ago
  Then there's certainly no DMCA argument, but the above commenter's citation about publicity rights might still be an open question.
squarefoot 3y ago
Impersonators are recognizable, and assuming an identical one can be found, it would require a lot of time, during which the most money would have been already squeezed from the artist repertoire. In contrast, they're probably aware that it's just a matter of time until AI technology will allow to build an identical copy with new seemingly authentic material in one day or less. They're fearing the day powerful AI can be freely used by everyone in uncontrolled way, so that piracy won't even be necessary anymore, because one could simply ask to their local AI terminal: "hey, wake me up tomorrow at 7.30 with Sinatra singing Back in the USSR, then play Pretty Vacant by the Sex Pistols, but sung by Amy Winehouse, while I'm having breakfast". Digital models of artists will become the new big thing that day.

I think the biggest difference is that impersonators are using humanly creative acting skills, whereas this tool's model is built mechanically from the original artist's recordings.

dehrmann 3y ago

How is what an AI does any different?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kube-system 3y ago
The degree of human involvement and human creativity involved is a very critical part of copyright law.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  That degree generally being the fine line between "none" and "some". The simple act of holding the camera, even if you don't really know where you are pointing it, can qualify resulting images for copyright protection. But is the monkey at the zoo grabs your camera and snaps a pic, no copyright for anyone. So for an AI-generated song, a court will probably be able to hang its hat on the smallest of human input in the lyric or musical process.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    You're confusing different concepts: "qualification for copyright eligibility" (what you're referring to) and "qualification for fair use" and "qualification for (un)authorized use of likeness/personality" ... are all different things, with different laws, and different standards.
- glimshe 3y ago
  What is the difference between human creativity and something that looks just like human creativity?
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    Human authorship is legally protected and the other is not, whether that’s an AI or a bunch of monkeys on typewriters.
    - dehrmann 3y ago
      Aren't we all just a bunch of glorified monkeys on glorified typewriters?
      - sbarre 3y ago
        Not according to the law, and that's what is being discussed?
      - ensignavenger 3y ago
        No, to start with, humans are apes, not monkeys ;)
    - glimshe 3y ago
      Sure, but is the pre-AI law still adequate? We can discuss what the law says, but we can also discuss what the law should be.
      - kube-system 3y ago
        It will need to be further refined to determine more clearly how it applies when humans are transforming another human's work with AI. But in general, the overarching concept that humans have rights and machines do not still very-much-so is applicable. With any law (not just IP), the end goal should be to protect the rights of humans in the context of how humans are human and do human things, regardless of the tools they use. At one point in time it was unclear whether things like tape recorders were legal. This is just that, with a different technology. Eventually we'll have better case law, and we'll know exactly how we can and can't use this one to protect the rights of other humans.
- ensignavenger 3y ago
  This isn't about copyright though- it is about the "right to publicity", which is distinct from copyright. edit: I just noticed in the article the RIAA mentions both copyright and the right to publicity. So perhaps the site in question violates copyright in the original recordings. My guess would be if the person was listening to a recording they had a right to and using this tech, it would not be a copyright infringement, but if they are transforming a recording and redistributing it, it would be. But if this site is doing any distribution, it might itself be found infringing.

SkyBelow 3y ago

What if there is an AI built from the best impersonators without the input of the original? What if someone goes through enough effort to even get them to agree for their voice to be used as such?

kube-system 3y ago
Then there's certainly no DMCA argument, but the above commenter's citation about publicity rights might still be an open question.

squarefoot 3y ago

Impersonators are recognizable, and assuming an identical one can be found, it would require a lot of time, during which the most money would have been already squeezed from the artist repertoire. In contrast, they're probably aware that it's just a matter of time until AI technology will allow to build an identical copy with new seemingly authentic material in one day or less. They're fearing the day powerful AI can be freely used by everyone in uncontrolled way, so that piracy won't even be necessary anymore, because one could simply ask to their local AI terminal: "hey, wake me up tomorrow at 7.30 with Sinatra singing Back in the USSR, then play Pretty Vacant by the Sex Pistols, but sung by Amy Winehouse, while I'm having breakfast". Digital models of artists will become the new big thing that day.