3 ms·
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
by 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 agoIt 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 agoIf 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 agoI 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 agoIANAL. 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 agoThat 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.