wp-plugin-hostgator
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114ol-scrapes
domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init
action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home4/scienrds/scienceandnerds/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6114Source:https:\/\/techcrunch.com\/2023\/04\/26\/grimes-ai-generated-drake-music-legal-issues\/<\/a><\/br> Last week, a song<\/a> using AI deepfakes of Drake and the Weeknd\u2019s voices went viral, but neither major artist was involved in its creation. Meanwhile, Grimes has taken to Twitter to offer 50% royalties<\/a> on any AI-generated song that uses her voice, then declared that she is interested in \u201ckilling copyright<\/a>,\u201d which would probably undermine her ability to collect royalties in the first place. We might be living in the weirdest timeline<\/a>, but unless Grimes is working on any secret inter-dimensional transit projects (you never know), the music industry has to reckon with what to do next.<\/p>\n Musicians like Holly Herndon and YACHT have embraced<\/a> AI as a tool to push the limits of their creativity. YACHT trained an AI on 14 years of their music, then synthesized the results into the album \u201cChain Tripping<\/a>;\u201d Herndon created Holly+<\/a>, a website that freely allows anyone to create deepfake music using her own voice.<\/p>\n While Herndon may openly invite people to experiment with AI art using her likeness, most artists don\u2019t even know that people can model their voice before it\u2019s too late. Therein lies the problem.<\/p>\n In Spotify\u2019s recent quarterly earnings call, CEO Daniel Ek spoke about the company\u2019s approach to AI-generated music. Despite Spotify taking down \u201cHeart on my Sleeve,\u201d the AI song that uses deepfakes of Drake and the Weeknd, Ek seems cautiously optimistic about the fast-developing technology.<\/p>\n \u201c[AI] should lead to more music,\u201d Ek said on the call. \u201cMore music, obviously, we think is great culturally.\u201d<\/p>\n For a big business like Spotify, that might be true: If more people use their streaming service to listen to more music, then they get more money. But for many artists and music fans, AI poses a threat.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen artists are already struggling, it seems like a dangerous step,\u201d entertainment lawyer Henderson Cole told TechCrunch.<\/p>\n Between abysmal streaming payouts<\/a> and the long-term impact of COVID-19 on the live music industry, musicians have been having a rough go of it, to say the least. Now, like visual artists<\/a>, these performers have become guinea pigs for technology that appropriates their work without consent.<\/p>\n \u201cMusic has a special social role in the development of technology,\u201d Erickson told TechCrunch. \u201cIt can be attached to any kind of emerging technology as a way of providing a use case or selling general interest and attracting investment.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n We saw this happen with the crypto industry<\/a>, which at one point seemed poised to change the status quo of music royalties<\/a> and ticketing<\/a>, but has yet to reach anything close to mass adoption.<\/p>\n Sometimes these new technologies do take hold, though. As a historical example, Erickson points to sampling, or the practice of iterating on snippets of other artists\u2019 work in new recordings. So long as a musician gets permission from the artist and their label, sampling is fair game.<\/p>\n \u201cIt was centered in community rather than the technology itself,\u201d Erickson said about sampling. Of course, in cases where music was sampled without the artists\u2019 consent, some high-profile<\/a> lawsuits<\/a> ensued. Now, it\u2019s only a matter of time before we see rights holders get over AI-generated music.<\/p>\n Under certain circumstances, copyrighted material can be used without explicit permission if it is considered \u201cfair use<\/a>.\u201d Fair use analysis<\/a> considers whether a work was created for profit, the amount of copyrighted material it uses, how transformative it is and if it might economically impact the original.<\/p>\n Though a fair use argument could be constructed in favor of AI music, Cole thinks it\u2019s doubtful that it would hold much weight in practice.<\/p>\n \u201cIn a world where Ed Sheeran<\/a> and Robin Thicke<\/a> are getting sued just for sounding similar to a hit song, someone using AI to copy an artists\u2019 voice or musical sound seems unlikely to be allowed,\u201d Cole said.<\/p>\n It takes a long time for the legal system to catch up with new technology, but for now, major labels like Universal Music Group (UMG) have spoken out in opposition to the use of generative AI.<\/p>\n
\nFrom DrakeGPT to Infinite Grimes, AI-generated music strikes a chord<\/br>
\n2023-04-26 21:56:03<\/br><\/p>\n