I taught an AI to compose with my songs

The Planets were sued in 2002 for plagiarising John Cage’s 4’43” 273 seconds of silence in their song ‘A One Minute Silence’ In a society where even silence is recorded, artists’ rights to compensation should be considered.

Artificial intelligence is the latest IP challenge. Musical artists see their songs used in databases to create new ones by algorithms.

If this AI learns to compose from my song, am I entitled to compensation? Any creator can ask. We consulted with IP and competitive experts.”Machines are on the rise, but they are not coming to conquer us, but to act as creators,” said

Andrés Guadamuz, University of Sussex Senior Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law, in WIPO magazine. Artificial intelligence-created works could affect copyright. Creative works that are original are protected by copyright, since most definitions of originality require a human author.”

An author would not be entitled to compensation under Spanish law because copyright applies only to human-created works. Article 1 of Royal Decree Law 1/1996 of April 12 states that “the natural person who creates a literary, artistic or scientific work shall be considered an author.”

Nerea Sanjuán, a lawyer in Uría Menéndez’s Commercial Law Department, explains that such protection is not possible under Spanish law and would require a legislative change to include entities other than humans under the concept of author for economic reasons.

Sergio Carrasco, a Fase Consulting lawyer, says “it is a complex issue that is being worked on from many fronts.” He believes, “AI-specific originality and authorship are difficult to discuss.”See how AI works, how it reformulates or transforms the work, how it learns and creates new elements, and how it sees patterns in the work to determine if it is derivative. We must examine each case and exceptions.”

Law and technology specialist David Maeztu says “not now. Authors and people own. It doesn’t appear to change soon.” He mentions another discussion. If I use a computer to listen to music, I can make phonograms. Directly associated with those recordings, I would have rights. AI creators may be protected as phonogram producers but not authors.”

“Intellectual property also protects two people from reaching the same result by two different means,” says Maeztu. Due to pattern analysis, AI can take the Beatles’ entire discography and create a similar song. If another group is inspired by the Beatles, the result will likely be similar. But the lyrics and melody will differ.”

We asked the SGAE for its position, which referred us to WIPO’s information.

The Ministry of Culture and Sport’s General Subdirectorate of Intellectual Property states that “the relationship between Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property is a new issue with important legal implications.” They say “it is currently a matter of debate within the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and the conclusions reached will be highly appreciated to guide the development of regulations for application in the Member States.”

According to government sources:

“Articles 5 to 9 of the TRLPI in Spain regulate authorship and its effects on exploitation rights. Art. 10 requires all intellectual property works to be original, and art. 11 classifies musical arrangements and transformations as derivative works, regulating the right of transformation in article 21 of the TRLPI.”

“Art. 10.1.i) of the TRLPI recognises computer programs as independent work, and articles 95–104 define the object of protection and its legal regime. Thus, intellectual property laws may protect AI software developers. AI creates different factual situations, and the TRLPI applies to each.”

Possible legal options
Both international treaties and EU legislation consider a natural person the author, but the UK case is interesting. In Britain’s “Copyright, Design and Patents Acts 1988” (“CDPA”), “in the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work generated by computer, the author shall be deemed to be the person who makes the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work.” The author is assumed to program the algorithm in AI-generated works.

Maeztu raises an intriguing question if AI were granted rights. Take autotune. Applying parameters post-production is like adding AI. It depends on how we grant autotune rights.” Two musicians used an algorithm to generate all possible melodies, demonstrating the difficulty of song copyright. “We’re talking about brute force, rather than AI.”

As with robot taxes, academics will study it first. International intellectual property agreements will exist in this case, but I don’t know when or if they’ll be written down “Expert continues.

I taught an AI to compose with my songs

By triji

Related Post

Coppola is known for making big films that bombed

Steam sends developers monthly reminders

We saw ‘Joker: Folie à Deux’.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You Missed

Coppola is known for making big films that bombed

Steam sends developers monthly reminders

We saw ‘Joker: Folie à Deux’.

Bruce Springsteen in Madrid and Barcelona