4 ms·

I haven't read the actual law, but the description of it sounds like it's limited to things like imitating an artists voice. Certainly it makes sense to not all

by bwanab 3y ago

I haven't read the actual law, but the description of it sounds like it's limited to things like imitating an artists voice. Certainly it makes sense to not allow a recording that claims to be Luke Combs singing, oh, say his new song "Fast Car"[1]. But, does it mean one couldn't create a voice that sounds a lot like Luke Combs as long as it's well labelled as AI-generated? [1]Yes, I know it's a Tracy Chapman song.

russdill 3y ago
There's a lot of room for artistic expression that could be protected under the 1st amendment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnEIeVWLtbU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnEIeVWLtbU
bastawhiz 3y ago
> But, does it mean one couldn't create a voice that sounds a lot like Luke Combs as long as it's well labelled as AI-generated? I don't think so. It amends previous protections preventing folks from using an artist's likeness to include voice. I don't think you could, for instance, create a TV commercial using someone's image and simply label it as AI to get around those protections. The whole point of the law is to protect the likeness of a person. If you can just slap a label on it that would make it pointless.
beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago
I'm sure someone might try to argue that the AI generated song might constitute something like an "AI cover", but I would disagree. The issue is the creative act. Humans are creative and can emulate or even "cover" a song as close as possible and it's still largely protected as long as you don't explicitly mislabel it as the original or attempt to pass it as the original ("original" in this sense being the rights holder and owner). An AI generated song, I would argue, is not really "creative" in the same sense. It's not even really a cover. It's a generated output built on the original IP to a degree that is well beyond human capacity because it's not human at all. It's machine generation and not artistic creation. People like to conflate the two, but they're being wilfully ignorant of the clear differences between the two. Prompting an AI model to output something is not the same thing as making it oneself. The only human element of an AI song is the prompt and not the output. It's more likely that an AI song should and will be treated in the same way as clearing a sample in hip-hop, for example, even though it's also different in important ways.
- atrus 3y ago
  > The only human element of an AI song is the prompt and not the output. I'd argue against that. A lot of "serious" AI art isn't just throw a prompt and you're done. There's additional editing on top of that (of course content aware fill isn't AI because...reasons). And even then, have you seen prompts for really good stuff? Those are def not one shot things, and are a creative process in itself. It's annoying honestly, since I'm rarely ever able to get images that are as good as I've seen.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - zigzaggy 3y ago
    Reminds me of the debate at my university when I tried to declare my computer as my "instrument." "That's not REAL music." I changed schools, eventually changed majors.. but now the place that rejected my computer now has a "music technology" degree. editing to say that music that wasn't real went on to be a massive genre - hard to put "creativity / art" in a box.
  - beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago
    I was talking about an AI song where you say "give me a Wu-Tang Clan song in the style of Elvis Presley using steel drums". You brought up AI visual art, and used the word "editing" to describe what happens after the image is generated from the prompt. I think that's a very important distinction --- between creating an image or work of art by your own hand (yes even in something like Illustrator or digital art tools because people like to erroneously conflate those with AI image generation) and editing the output of an AI model. I would argue the same happens in a DAW with an AI song. > And even then, have you seen prompts for really good stuff? Those are def not one shot things, and are a creative process in itself. It's annoying honestly, since I'm rarely ever able to get images that are as good as I've seen. I have, hence why the prompts are the human and actually artistic part of AI art. You need to be creative to actually create a prompt that uses AI model well and skillfully. They honestly read like bizarre modernist or formalist poetry.
- 3y ago

by bwanab 3y ago

russdill 3y ago

There's a lot of room for artistic expression that could be protected under the 1st amendment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnEIeVWLtbU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnEIeVWLtbU

bastawhiz 3y ago

> But, does it mean one couldn't create a voice that sounds a lot like Luke Combs as long as it's well labelled as AI-generated? I don't think so. It amends previous protections preventing folks from using an artist's likeness to include voice. I don't think you could, for instance, create a TV commercial using someone's image and simply label it as AI to get around those protections. The whole point of the law is to protect the likeness of a person. If you can just slap a label on it that would make it pointless.

beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago

I'm sure someone might try to argue that the AI generated song might constitute something like an "AI cover", but I would disagree. The issue is the creative act. Humans are creative and can emulate or even "cover" a song as close as possible and it's still largely protected as long as you don't explicitly mislabel it as the original or attempt to pass it as the original ("original" in this sense being the rights holder and owner). An AI generated song, I would argue, is not really "creative" in the same sense. It's not even really a cover. It's a generated output built on the original IP to a degree that is well beyond human capacity because it's not human at all. It's machine generation and not artistic creation. People like to conflate the two, but they're being wilfully ignorant of the clear differences between the two. Prompting an AI model to output something is not the same thing as making it oneself. The only human element of an AI song is the prompt and not the output. It's more likely that an AI song should and will be treated in the same way as clearing a sample in hip-hop, for example, even though it's also different in important ways.

atrus 3y ago
> The only human element of an AI song is the prompt and not the output. I'd argue against that. A lot of "serious" AI art isn't just throw a prompt and you're done. There's additional editing on top of that (of course content aware fill isn't AI because...reasons). And even then, have you seen prompts for really good stuff? Those are def not one shot things, and are a creative process in itself. It's annoying honestly, since I'm rarely ever able to get images that are as good as I've seen.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- zigzaggy 3y ago
  Reminds me of the debate at my university when I tried to declare my computer as my "instrument." "That's not REAL music." I changed schools, eventually changed majors.. but now the place that rejected my computer now has a "music technology" degree. editing to say that music that wasn't real went on to be a massive genre - hard to put "creativity / art" in a box.
- beezlebroxxxxxx 3y ago
  I was talking about an AI song where you say "give me a Wu-Tang Clan song in the style of Elvis Presley using steel drums". You brought up AI visual art, and used the word "editing" to describe what happens after the image is generated from the prompt. I think that's a very important distinction --- between creating an image or work of art by your own hand (yes even in something like Illustrator or digital art tools because people like to erroneously conflate those with AI image generation) and editing the output of an AI model. I would argue the same happens in a DAW with an AI song. > And even then, have you seen prompts for really good stuff? Those are def not one shot things, and are a creative process in itself. It's annoying honestly, since I'm rarely ever able to get images that are as good as I've seen. I have, hence why the prompts are the human and actually artistic part of AI art. You need to be creative to actually create a prompt that uses AI model well and skillfully. They honestly read like bizarre modernist or formalist poetry.
3y ago