4 ms·

I would like to ask an obvious question to the legally inclined here. How is this any different than remixing a song (lyrics/audio)? It's not "identical", and d

by cellis 2y ago

I would like to ask an obvious question to the legally inclined here. How is this any different than remixing a song (lyrics/audio)? It's not "identical", and doesn't output "verbatim" lyrics or audio. What is the distinction between <LLM> and <Singer/Remixer who outputs remixed lyrics/audio>. By a quick Google search it seems remixes violate copyright.

griftrejection 2y ago
[dead]
default-kramer 2y ago
I'm not legally inclined, but... code and music are different? There must be different standards for when code is too similar, for when music is too similar, for when pictures are too similar, for when books are too similar. Also, remixes almost always do contain verbatim lyrics and/or samples from the original song. LLM output isn't supposed to contain verbatim copies, but I've been told that sometimes it does. (I don't know much about LLMs and I don't think Copilot is useful. I want my 2010-era Intellisense back, when it was extremely fast and predictable.)
everforward 2y ago
Not a lawyer, but that would be a fair use question, which I hear are notoriously complicated. Colloquially, I generally expect a remix to be comprised of the original instrumentals/beat (potentially edited, but virtually nothing actually new added), potentially new lyrics, and to still be recognizable as the original. The "still be recognizable as the original" part is a huge problem for fair use, and why I don't think remixes generally qualify. If it doesn't sound like the original then it's not a remix, but if it does sound like the original it can't be fair use. I think the underlying issue is the resulting work, not the process that went into creating it. I think (but am in no way sure) that copying parts of songs would be fine if you did something to them so they aren't recognizable as the original. As an example, if I take a song by the Beatles and repeatedly compress it until it's entirely compression artifacts, I would bet that I could publish that. I don't think it would matter that I started with a copyrighted work, what matters is that my finished product bears no resemblance to any other copyrighted work. That would mean it's just a normal "is this work too similar to existing works?" standard applied to humans as well. There is still an ancillary question of whether it's okay to train on copyrighted music, but that's really a different question than whether the works it creates infringe.

by cellis 2y ago

griftrejection 2y ago

[dead]

default-kramer 2y ago

I'm not legally inclined, but... code and music are different? There must be different standards for when code is too similar, for when music is too similar, for when pictures are too similar, for when books are too similar. Also, remixes almost always do contain verbatim lyrics and/or samples from the original song. LLM output isn't supposed to contain verbatim copies, but I've been told that sometimes it does. (I don't know much about LLMs and I don't think Copilot is useful. I want my 2010-era Intellisense back, when it was extremely fast and predictable.)

everforward 2y ago

Not a lawyer, but that would be a fair use question, which I hear are notoriously complicated. Colloquially, I generally expect a remix to be comprised of the original instrumentals/beat (potentially edited, but virtually nothing actually new added), potentially new lyrics, and to still be recognizable as the original. The "still be recognizable as the original" part is a huge problem for fair use, and why I don't think remixes generally qualify. If it doesn't sound like the original then it's not a remix, but if it does sound like the original it can't be fair use. I think the underlying issue is the resulting work, not the process that went into creating it. I think (but am in no way sure) that copying parts of songs would be fine if you did something to them so they aren't recognizable as the original. As an example, if I take a song by the Beatles and repeatedly compress it until it's entirely compression artifacts, I would bet that I could publish that. I don't think it would matter that I started with a copyrighted work, what matters is that my finished product bears no resemblance to any other copyrighted work. That would mean it's just a normal "is this work too similar to existing works?" standard applied to humans as well. There is still an ancillary question of whether it's okay to train on copyrighted music, but that's really a different question than whether the works it creates infringe.