5 ms·

Looks like there is a huge grea area that they need to figure out in practice. From https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14328491# https://support.google.c

Looks like there is a huge grea area that they need to figure out in practice. From https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14328491# https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/14328491#: Examples of content creators don’t have to disclose: * Someone riding a unicorn through a fantastical world * Green screen used to depict someone floating in space * Color adjustment or lighting filters * Special effects filters, like adding background blur or vintage effects * Production assistance, like using generative AI tools to create or improve a video outline, script, thumbnail, title, or infographic * Caption creation * Video sharpening, upscaling or repair and voice or audio repair * Idea generation Examples of content creators need to disclose: * Synthetically generating music (including music generated using Creator Music) * Voice cloning someone else’s voice to use it for voiceover * Synthetically generating extra footage of a real place, like a video of a surfer in Maui for a promotional travel video * Synthetically generating a realistic video of a match between two real professional tennis players * Making it appear as if someone gave advice that they did not actually give * Digitally altering audio to make it sound as if a popular singer missed a note in their live performance * Showing a realistic depiction of a tornado or other weather events moving toward a real city that didn’t actually happen * Making it appear as if hospital workers turned away sick or wounded patients * Depicting a public figure stealing something they did not steal, or admitting to stealing something when they did not make that admission * Making it look like a real person has been arrested or imprisoned

Aardwolf 3y ago
> Synthetically generating music (including music generated using Creator Music) What about music made with a synthesizer?
- Jensson 3y ago
  If you manually did enough work have the copyright it is fine. But since AI can't legally have copyright to their music Google probably wants to know for that reason.
  - Gormo 3y ago
    It goes without saying that a piece of software can't be a copyright holder. But the person who uses that software certainly can own the copyright to the resulting work.
    - Jensson 3y ago
      If someone else uses the same AI generator software and makes the same piece of music should Google go after them for it? I don't think that would hold in court. Hopefully this means that AI generated music gets skipped by Googles DRM checks.
  - Aardwolf 3y ago
    I hope there is some kind of middle ground, legally, here? Like say you use a piano that uses AI to generate artificial piano sounds, but you create and play the melody yourself: can you get copyright or not?
    - jprete 3y ago
      IANAL. I think you'd get copyright on the melody and the recording, but not the sound font that the AI created.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > If you manually did enough work have the copyright it is fine. Amount of work is not a basis for copyright. (Kind of work is, though the basis for the “kind” distinction used isn't actually a real objective category, so its ultimately almost entirely arbitary.)
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      That could get tricky. A lot of hardware and software MIDI sequencers these days have probabilistic triggering built in, to introduce variation in drum loops, basslines, and so forth. An argument could be made that even if you programmed the sequence and all the sounds yourself, having any randomization or algorithmic elements would make the resulting work ineligible for copyright.
- GuB-42 3y ago
  Even if it is fully AI-generated, this requirement seems off compared to the other ones. In all of the other cases, it can be deceiving, but what is deceiving in synthetic music? There may be some cases where it is relevant, like when imitating the voice of a famous singer, but other than that, music is not "real", it is work coming from the imagination of its creator. That kind of thing is already dealt with with copyright, and attribution is a common requirement, and one that YouTube already enforces (how it does that is different matter).
  - slowfox 3y ago
    From a Google/Alphabet perspective it could also be valuable to distinguish between „original“ and „ai generated“ music for the purpose of a cleaner database to train their own music generation models?
    - kmeisthax 3y ago
      Alternatively they want to know who to ban when the RIAA inevitably starts suing the shit out of music generators.
- zuminator 3y ago
  In one of the examples, they refer to something called "Dream Track" > Dream Track in Shorts is an experimental song creation tool that allows creators to create a unique 30-second soundtrack with the voices of opted-in artists. It brings together the expertise of Google DeepMind and YouTube’s most innovative researchers with the expertise of our music industry partners, to open up new ways for creators on Shorts to create and engage with artists. > Once a soundtrack is published, anyone can use the AI-generated soundtrack as-is to remix it into their own Shorts. These AI-generated soundtracks will have a text label indicating that they were created with Dream Track. We’re starting with a limited set of creators in the United States and opted-in artists. Based on the feedback from these experiments, we hope to expand this. So my impression is they're talking about labeling music which is derived from a real source (like a singer or a band) and might conceivably be mistaken for coming from that source.
dheera 3y ago
> * Showing a realistic depiction of a tornado or other weather events moving toward a real city that didn’t actually happen > * Making it appear as if hospital workers turned away sick or wounded patients > * Depicting a public figure stealing something they did not steal, or admitting to stealing something when they did not make that admission Considering they own the platform, why not just ban this type of content? It was possible to create this content before "AI".
- dotnet00 3y ago
  There are many cases where such content is perfectly fine. After all, YouTube doesn't claim to be a place devoted to non-fiction only. The first one is an especially common thing in fiction.
  - ipaddr 3y ago
    Does that mean movies clips will need to be labeled?
    - lesostep 3y ago
      Or video game footage? I explicitly remember people confusing Arma footage with real war footage.
- samatman 3y ago
  The third one could easily be satire. Imagine that a politician is accused of stealing from the public purse, and issues a meme-worthy press statement denying it, and someone generates AI content of that politician claiming not to have stolen a car or something using a similar script. Valid satire, fair use of the original content: parody is considered transformative. But it should be labeled as AI generated, or it's going to escape onto social media and cause havoc. It might anyway, obviously. But that isn't a good reason to ban free expression here imho.
  - perihelions 3y ago
nashashmi 3y ago
Those voice overs on tiktok that are computer generated but sound quite real and often are reading some script. Do they have to disclose that those voices are artificially produced?
kazinator 3y ago
> Synthetically generating music Yagoddabekidding. That could cover any piece of music created with MIDI sequencing and synthesizers and such.
- kevindamm 3y ago
  I think there's a clear difference between synthesizing music and synthetically generating music. One term has been around for decades and the other one is being confused with that.
  - kazinator 3y ago
    To someone who is doing one or the there is a clear difference. I don't trust the EU or YouTube to be able to tell the difference from the other end, by the end product alone. If AI writes MIDI input for a synthesizer, rather than producing the actual waveform, where does that land?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
Lerc 3y ago
> * Voice cloning someone else’s voice to use it for voiceover This is interesting because I was considering cloning my own voice as a way to record things without the inevitable hesitations, ums, errs, and stumbling over my words. By this standard I am allowed to do so. But then I thought what does it even mean "someone else's" when multiple people can make a video, if my wife and I make a video together can we not then use my recorded voice because to her my voice is someone else. I suspect all of these rules will have similar edge cases and a wide penumbra where arbitrary rulings will be autocratically applied.
- exodust 3y ago
  > ...to her my voice is someone else. To her, your voice is your voice not someone else's voice. If you share a Youtube account with your wife, "someone else" means someone other than you or your wife. The more interesting and troubling point is your use of "synthetic you" to make the real you sound better!
  - rrr_oh_man 3y ago
    > The more interesting and troubling point is your use of "synthetic you" to make the real you sound better! Why?
    - exodust 3y ago
      Did you replace the real you with "AI you" to ask me "why"? I presume you wouldn't do that? How about replacing your own voice on a video that you make, allowing your viewers to believe it's your natural voice? Are you comfortable with that deception? Everyone has evolving opinions about this subject. For me, I don't want to converse with stand-in replacements for living people.
      - rrr_oh_man 3y ago
        How’s that different from photoshopping images?
  - 3y ago
xarope 3y ago
* Digitally altering audio to make it sound as if a popular singer missed a note in their live performance Does all the autotuning that singers use in live performance counts? /j
- nuz 3y ago
  Interestingly they only say you have to disclose it if it's a singer missing a note. Seems like it's fair game to fix a note that was off key in real life and not disclose that.
  - etskinner 3y ago
    That was only an example, not a rule. Presumably you need to label it if you fix the note too
- dormento 3y ago
  IMHO, not even a /j. Under the current guidelines, doesn't all music performances that make use of some sort of pitch correction assist are technically "digitally altered"?
  - Capricorn2481 3y ago
    What about autotune is AI?
BlueGh0st 3y ago
>Showing a realistic depiction of a tornado or other weather events moving toward a real city that didn’t actually happen A bit funny considering a realistic warning and "live" radar map of an impending, major, natural disaster occurring in your city apparently doesn't violate their ad policy on YouTube. Probably the only time an ad gave me a genuine fright.
- chasd00 3y ago
  There’s a whole genre of videos on YouTube simulating the PSAs of large scale disasters. Nuclear war, meteors, etc. My 12 year old is really into them.
greggsy 3y ago
To me, the guidelines are fairly clear: if it’s assisting production of a work of fiction, it’s ok.
Bombthecat 3y ago
So all those trash generated AI voice product videos and or just reading reddit text can stay?

Aardwolf 3y ago

> Synthetically generating music (including music generated using Creator Music) What about music made with a synthesizer?

Jensson 3y ago
If you manually did enough work have the copyright it is fine. But since AI can't legally have copyright to their music Google probably wants to know for that reason.
- Gormo 3y ago
  It goes without saying that a piece of software can't be a copyright holder. But the person who uses that software certainly can own the copyright to the resulting work.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    If someone else uses the same AI generator software and makes the same piece of music should Google go after them for it? I don't think that would hold in court. Hopefully this means that AI generated music gets skipped by Googles DRM checks.
- Aardwolf 3y ago
  I hope there is some kind of middle ground, legally, here? Like say you use a piano that uses AI to generate artificial piano sounds, but you create and play the melody yourself: can you get copyright or not?
  - jprete 3y ago
    IANAL. I think you'd get copyright on the melody and the recording, but not the sound font that the AI created.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > If you manually did enough work have the copyright it is fine. Amount of work is not a basis for copyright. (Kind of work is, though the basis for the “kind” distinction used isn't actually a real objective category, so its ultimately almost entirely arbitary.)
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    That could get tricky. A lot of hardware and software MIDI sequencers these days have probabilistic triggering built in, to introduce variation in drum loops, basslines, and so forth. An argument could be made that even if you programmed the sequence and all the sounds yourself, having any randomization or algorithmic elements would make the resulting work ineligible for copyright.
GuB-42 3y ago
Even if it is fully AI-generated, this requirement seems off compared to the other ones. In all of the other cases, it can be deceiving, but what is deceiving in synthetic music? There may be some cases where it is relevant, like when imitating the voice of a famous singer, but other than that, music is not "real", it is work coming from the imagination of its creator. That kind of thing is already dealt with with copyright, and attribution is a common requirement, and one that YouTube already enforces (how it does that is different matter).
- slowfox 3y ago
  From a Google/Alphabet perspective it could also be valuable to distinguish between „original“ and „ai generated“ music for the purpose of a cleaner database to train their own music generation models?
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    Alternatively they want to know who to ban when the RIAA inevitably starts suing the shit out of music generators.
zuminator 3y ago
In one of the examples, they refer to something called "Dream Track" > Dream Track in Shorts is an experimental song creation tool that allows creators to create a unique 30-second soundtrack with the voices of opted-in artists. It brings together the expertise of Google DeepMind and YouTube’s most innovative researchers with the expertise of our music industry partners, to open up new ways for creators on Shorts to create and engage with artists. > Once a soundtrack is published, anyone can use the AI-generated soundtrack as-is to remix it into their own Shorts. These AI-generated soundtracks will have a text label indicating that they were created with Dream Track. We’re starting with a limited set of creators in the United States and opted-in artists. Based on the feedback from these experiments, we hope to expand this. So my impression is they're talking about labeling music which is derived from a real source (like a singer or a band) and might conceivably be mistaken for coming from that source.

dheera 3y ago

> * Showing a realistic depiction of a tornado or other weather events moving toward a real city that didn’t actually happen > * Making it appear as if hospital workers turned away sick or wounded patients > * Depicting a public figure stealing something they did not steal, or admitting to stealing something when they did not make that admission Considering they own the platform, why not just ban this type of content? It was possible to create this content before "AI".

dotnet00 3y ago
There are many cases where such content is perfectly fine. After all, YouTube doesn't claim to be a place devoted to non-fiction only. The first one is an especially common thing in fiction.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  Does that mean movies clips will need to be labeled?
  - lesostep 3y ago
    Or video game footage? I explicitly remember people confusing Arma footage with real war footage.
samatman 3y ago
The third one could easily be satire. Imagine that a politician is accused of stealing from the public purse, and issues a meme-worthy press statement denying it, and someone generates AI content of that politician claiming not to have stolen a car or something using a similar script. Valid satire, fair use of the original content: parody is considered transformative. But it should be labeled as AI generated, or it's going to escape onto social media and cause havoc. It might anyway, obviously. But that isn't a good reason to ban free expression here imho.
- perihelions 3y ago

nashashmi 3y ago

Those voice overs on tiktok that are computer generated but sound quite real and often are reading some script. Do they have to disclose that those voices are artificially produced?

kazinator 3y ago

> Synthetically generating music Yagoddabekidding. That could cover any piece of music created with MIDI sequencing and synthesizers and such.

kevindamm 3y ago
I think there's a clear difference between synthesizing music and synthetically generating music. One term has been around for decades and the other one is being confused with that.
- kazinator 3y ago
  To someone who is doing one or the there is a clear difference. I don't trust the EU or YouTube to be able to tell the difference from the other end, by the end product alone. If AI writes MIDI input for a synthesizer, rather than producing the actual waveform, where does that land?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

Lerc 3y ago

> * Voice cloning someone else’s voice to use it for voiceover This is interesting because I was considering cloning my own voice as a way to record things without the inevitable hesitations, ums, errs, and stumbling over my words. By this standard I am allowed to do so. But then I thought what does it even mean "someone else's" when multiple people can make a video, if my wife and I make a video together can we not then use my recorded voice because to her my voice is someone else. I suspect all of these rules will have similar edge cases and a wide penumbra where arbitrary rulings will be autocratically applied.

exodust 3y ago
> ...to her my voice is someone else. To her, your voice is your voice not someone else's voice. If you share a Youtube account with your wife, "someone else" means someone other than you or your wife. The more interesting and troubling point is your use of "synthetic you" to make the real you sound better!
- rrr_oh_man 3y ago
  > The more interesting and troubling point is your use of "synthetic you" to make the real you sound better! Why?
  - exodust 3y ago
    Did you replace the real you with "AI you" to ask me "why"? I presume you wouldn't do that? How about replacing your own voice on a video that you make, allowing your viewers to believe it's your natural voice? Are you comfortable with that deception? Everyone has evolving opinions about this subject. For me, I don't want to converse with stand-in replacements for living people.
    - rrr_oh_man 3y ago
      How’s that different from photoshopping images?
- 3y ago

xarope 3y ago

* Digitally altering audio to make it sound as if a popular singer missed a note in their live performance Does all the autotuning that singers use in live performance counts? /j

nuz 3y ago
Interestingly they only say you have to disclose it if it's a singer missing a note. Seems like it's fair game to fix a note that was off key in real life and not disclose that.
- etskinner 3y ago
  That was only an example, not a rule. Presumably you need to label it if you fix the note too
dormento 3y ago
IMHO, not even a /j. Under the current guidelines, doesn't all music performances that make use of some sort of pitch correction assist are technically "digitally altered"?
- Capricorn2481 3y ago
  What about autotune is AI?

BlueGh0st 3y ago

>Showing a realistic depiction of a tornado or other weather events moving toward a real city that didn’t actually happen A bit funny considering a realistic warning and "live" radar map of an impending, major, natural disaster occurring in your city apparently doesn't violate their ad policy on YouTube. Probably the only time an ad gave me a genuine fright.

chasd00 3y ago
There’s a whole genre of videos on YouTube simulating the PSAs of large scale disasters. Nuclear war, meteors, etc. My 12 year old is really into them.

greggsy 3y ago

To me, the guidelines are fairly clear: if it’s assisting production of a work of fiction, it’s ok.

Bombthecat 3y ago

So all those trash generated AI voice product videos and or just reading reddit text can stay?