Forum Replies Created
Yes, I received this too, first with amusement, then with concern. So, I discussed about the situation with a receiver of datasets, an AI (GPT4).
Before I copy/paste the discussion with GPT4, my view on this.
AIs, and music generating AI will be part of our lives, there is no way around that. We will have to adapt, and actually on a personal level I find this quite interesting.
but on the other hand, we composers, all collectively, will be the seed of these musical generating abilities. So if these abilities are to be monetised, we need to get a share of the cake, and we will. It has to be.
As for POND5, i think this move was abusive and pathetic… And in the end, they are contributing to they own demise. The first wave, taken by surprise, were the the visual artists. Let’s make sure we are not the second wave.
But all this is just an opinion… Let’s see what the AI has to say.
Hi GPT4, how are you doing today?
Hello! As an AI language model, I don’t have emotions or personal experiences, but I’m here to help you with any questions or information you need. What can I assist you with today?
It will be a question about law regarding music use. I am a musician that composes music and sell licenses to use on Internet platforms. On one of them, POND5, I have a large fraction of my non-exclusive music catalog. I received recently a payment for dataset learning, which is believed to be for training AI that will be able to compose music. The issue is that what this AI will produced will be directly related to the creations of composers in a systematic willfull way. What do you think about the legality of this?
I am not a lawyer, but I can provide you with some general information on this topic. The legality of using copyrighted music for training AI models is a complex and evolving area of law. AI-generated music that is derived from copyrighted works may raise copyright infringement concerns, depending on the jurisdiction and specific circumstances.
In the United States, for example, the fair use doctrine allows for the use of copyrighted material under certain circumstances, such as for educational, research, or transformative purposes. However, whether the use of copyrighted music for training AI models would fall under fair use is still unclear, and courts may analyze factors such as the purpose of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of the work used, and the potential market impact.
In the European Union, the Copyright Directive (Directive 2019/790) provides an exception for text and data mining for research purposes, but it’s not certain if this would extend to using copyrighted music for training AI models.
As the legal landscape around AI and copyright continues to evolve, it’s essential to consult with an attorney who specializes in intellectual property law to better understand the potential legal implications of your specific situation.
Keep in mind that this is only general information, and you should consult a legal professional for advice tailored to your specific circumstances.
I would like to discuss with you about this issue. can you imagine yourself in a realistic movie as a lawyer 1/ defending my case against POND 5 for selling my tracks to this kind of use with an opt-out option that I was aware of only after the sale and 2/ that would propose a resolution in line with the law, where AI companies would have to pay a subscription to the composer when his catalogue is used for training an AI, and this for the time the AI exists as well as any copy and generation (other AIs trained with dataset containing what this AI generated)
As an AI language model, I can certainly help you draft hypothetical arguments and resolutions from a lawyer’s perspective. Keep in mind that this is a fictional scenario and should not be taken as actual legal advice.
Defending your case against POND5:
As your hypothetical lawyer, I would argue that POND5 had a duty to inform you about the potential uses of your music, including the use of your tracks for training AI models. By only providing you with an opt-out option after the sale, POND5 may have breached their duty to act transparently and fairly.
Moreover, I would argue that the sale of your music for AI training purposes without your explicit consent could potentially harm your reputation as a composer and diminish the value of your work. This could be especially relevant if the AI-generated music were to compete with your own compositions or be used in a manner you would not have agreed to.
Proposing a resolution:
One possible resolution could be the establishment of a licensing system for AI companies that wish to use copyrighted music for training their models. Under this system, AI companies would be required to pay a subscription fee to composers whose music is used in training datasets. This fee would be applicable for the duration of the AI’s existence, as well as for any subsequent copies or generations of AIs that utilize the original dataset containing the composer’s music.
This licensing system could be structured in a way that ensures fair compensation for composers, taking into account factors such as the amount of music used, the prominence of the composer’s work in the training dataset, and the commercial success of the AI-generated music.
By establishing this system, composers would have more control over the use of their music in AI training and would be fairly compensated for their contributions to the development of AI-generated music.
Please note that this is a hypothetical scenario, and the actual legal arguments and resolutions may vary depending on the specific facts and circumstances involved. Consult with a qualified attorney for personalized advice.
Thank you for these insightful thoughts. With your current knowledge of copyright law, is the resolution proposed above something that can be legally attainable with as class action? against who? Under what form?
I am not a lawyer, but I can provide some general information on the subject. The hypothetical resolution I provided earlier could potentially be pursued through a class action lawsuit, depending on the jurisdiction and specific circumstances. A class action lawsuit allows a group of individuals with similar claims to join together and bring a single action against a common defendant or defendants.
In this scenario, the potential plaintiffs would be composers whose music has been used in training AI models without proper consent or compensation. The defendants could be the AI companies using the music for training purposes and the platforms that facilitated the sales, such as POND5.
To initiate a class action lawsuit, you would typically need to meet certain requirements, which may include:
1/ Numerosity: There should be a sufficient number of affected individuals to make individual lawsuits impractical.
2/ Commonality: The plaintiffs must share common legal or factual issues.
3/ Typicality: The representative plaintiff’s claims must be typical of the claims of the entire class.
4/ Adequacy of representation: The representative plaintiff and their attorney must be able to adequately represent the interests of the entire class.
The specific requirements for a class action lawsuit can vary depending on the jurisdiction, and the process can be complex and lengthy. The outcome of a class action lawsuit is also uncertain, as courts may or may not be willing to accept the proposed resolution.
If a class action lawsuit were successful, the court could order the defendants to pay damages to the plaintiffs, or it could order the implementation of the proposed licensing system, or both. However, the specific outcome would depend on the facts of the case, the applicable law, and the court’s discretion.
Please note that this is only general information, and you should consult a legal professional for advice tailored to your specific circumstances.
Concerning Numerosity, what are we talking about? (regarding our situation as composers)
Numerosity, as a requirement for a class action lawsuit, refers to the need for a sufficient number of affected individuals to make individual lawsuits impractical. The exact number of plaintiffs needed to satisfy the numerosity requirement can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the specific circumstances of the case.
In the context of your hypothetical situation involving composers, numerosity would be satisfied if there are a large number of composers who have experienced similar harm due to their music being used for AI training without proper consent or compensation. There is no fixed number of plaintiffs that automatically satisfies numerosity, but courts generally consider factors such as:
The size of the potential class: A larger number of affected individuals makes it more likely that numerosity will be satisfied.
The geographical distribution of class members: If the affected composers are spread across a wide geographical area, it may be more difficult for them to pursue individual lawsuits, thus satisfying the numerosity requirement.
The practical difficulties of individual lawsuits: If pursuing individual lawsuits would be burdensome, time-consuming, or expensive for the affected composers, this could support the numerosity requirement.
In your hypothetical situation, if there are a significant number of composers who have had their music used for AI training without consent or compensation, and if they face similar legal or factual issues, it is possible that the numerosity requirement could be met.
However, it is essential to consult with a qualified attorney who can evaluate the specific facts of the case and provide advice tailored to the applicable jurisdiction and circumstances.
Do you think if a 100 independent composers would step up, that would be enough?
It is difficult to provide a definitive answer without knowing the specific jurisdiction and circumstances of the case. However, in general, having 100 independent composers as potential plaintiffs could potentially satisfy the numerosity requirement for a class action lawsuit.
The primary goal of the numerosity requirement is to demonstrate that it would be impractical or inefficient to have each individual pursue a separate lawsuit. If 100 independent composers have experienced similar harm due to their music being used for AI training without proper consent or compensation, and if they face similar legal or factual issues, this could potentially be a large enough group to justify a class action lawsuit.
Please keep in mind that meeting the numerosity requirement is just one of several factors that need to be satisfied for a class action lawsuit. The other factors include commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Additionally, the specific requirements and thresholds for a class action lawsuit can vary depending on the jurisdiction.
To determine whether your situation is appropriate for a class action lawsuit, it is essential to consult with a qualified attorney who can evaluate the specific facts of the case and provide advice tailored to the applicable jurisdiction and circumstances.
Thank you GPT4 for these thoughts.
Still on the same subject. I received another report. Same story, millions of streams bringing a few dollars. But then I looked at the other tracks, with lower counts (in the thousands).
One line really truck me: 160000 Streams bringing me 0.2 cents, not 0.2 dollars, 0.2 cents…
That counts for around 1-2 millionth of a cent per stream… That also means that if the entire population of the US hears the song, I barely can buy myself a coffee. And if the entire population of the world hears the song, I can barely invite a buddy out for dinner…
Now, this is not just getting taking advantage of, this in my opinion is abuse and theft. The devaluation of music has come to an extreme now. This has to stop. I am considering taking action:
1/ First contact the library (the library is also being taken advantage of by subcontractors, because the library get about 1.5 times the sum I get). All is automatized, so they might not even be aware of this abuse.
2/ Reaching out to my PRO and see if they can support / assist me, maybe investigate (the one I am with is quite strict with this kind of thing, they already won cases against Youtube for example, so I have hope for some assistance on their part).
3/ Contacting a music business lawyer for him/her to evaluate the usefulness of a legal action. If he deems it having a chance to win, offering him 40% of all money that comes out in case of victory against no payment if we lose.
What do you think guys? would I just be acting like Don Quichotte here, and just wasting my time and energy?
My objective is not really to get compensated. There are easier ways to make money than in music (or in legal proceedings involving music), that’s why for me music is now a hobby, but in my guts, as a musician, I feel deeply insulted.
And if I decided to activate point 3/, can you recommend any lawyer that specializes in this type of case, and that would be susceptible to have a look at this?
I wish you all the best of musical inspirations!
Thanks for responding, It made me feel less lonely!
Music1234, registering my tracks in YT-ID, whatever the situation and on-going NE contracts? In the situation I am in, I wouldn’t feel too guilty bypassing basic stock-site requirements, but I would feel quite guilty generating problems to customers buying a genuine license on one of these libraries.
The abuse we are subjected too is not really the fault of the small YT creator, but in the end, it will the one getting most stressed by this…
Still, getting srewed continuoulsy can change morality: I’ll think about it…
On your side, Haven’t you experienced conflicts regarding YT ID and libraries/customers and how did you deal with them?
I listened to the 2 tracks…
She must have had a bad lawyer… It should pretty easy to demonstrate that this type of beat is present in thousands of songs… She will probably appeal.December 22, 2018 at 1:41 pm in reply to: Library music composer writing music for beat selling platforms: the + and the – #31408
Absolutely no offense taken Beatslinger, on the contrary, I am very grateful for your insight.
You are very right, what I presented is not pure Trap, it is a fusion, an experiment: orchestral + trap: I set up a trap beat with bass layered with heavy subs, punchy 808 kick, fast high hats, sharp snares. But the orchestral elements do change the sound, making it less heavy and more airy.
I checked your links, these are not trap either ;-). The first one is more like RnB! The second link uses some elements of trap blended into electropop…
In my opinions, here is a pure examples: starting with Drake
And Lil Wayne that made the Trap movement popular more than a decade ago (Lollipop):
But you are right, I am actually considering removing these, (with a little retweeking, they could work well as background music for RF), and rethink my approach. I could introduce such a new derivation of the style if/once I am implemented in that field. It’s just that I am not a fan of making sound-alikes… but I guess I should consider it. And working on sound-alikes always has made me progress quite a bunch in the past anyway!
Thanks for your input!
For point number 2 (loudness): I come originally from the electronica world . When I started looking into the library bizz, 3 years ago, I submitted a dozen completed electronic tracks I had already completed. these were as loud as I could make them (it fits the style). Got a few sales, but nothing compared to what I get today. Now, I am very careful about loudness. Yes it kills the buzz when you are not doing techno, but more importantly, too loud a track, less space for the customer :
I am very prudent with loudness during the mastering phase. Think about the use for your track. Regardless of the style of music, it is often to be used as background music, so the track should breathe and leave the space to whatever the customer wants to do with it. Mastered too loud, dynamics go down, and the music fills up all the space. I actually prefer spending time on the mix, and when I master, I make sure to leave some dynamics… even with Goa Trance!
Strangely, my best sellers are far from being the best sounding tracks (regardless of the composition itself). I noticed that too much sparkle could also hinder sales (in the RF world I mean). It goes a little bit against my sense of aesthetics, but if you want to sale, the first thing to have in mind is what the customer will want to do with the music he or she purchases.
I actually started a video channel of Physics lessons for high school students preparing their end diplomas. Naturally I used my music tracks, and it was quite enlightening to put myself in the shoes of a user when selecting the track I would use on thsi or that video! I understood now why some of my best tracks wouldn’t sell, and why some of the average ones do really well!
Hope this helps and good luck !
I also do the same on checking no samples are in isolation – but by samples I mean phrases or perhaps a percussion loop etc. An individual piano line even if played on a sampled VST instrument to my understanding is fine in isolation. Is that what you meant too?
Hi Tbone, yes, that’s what I meant. I also meant individual sounds like Kicks, snares, cymbals, ( I often build up my beats ) and hits, rises etc…
I think you are correct in your approach.
A stock track is a stock track, so extra service requires retribution based on what you consider your hourly rate.
600$ could appear a little rough. but if you really need 6 hours to extract the stems, well, it is reasonable. I also take a lot of time when extracting stems, because I need to check in each stem that no samples appear in isolation, and thus, tweak them if required.
On the other hand you can balance with the fact that now you are in direct contact with the customer, and if he is satisfied with you, he could contact contact you directly for other projects…May 6, 2016 at 1:43 am in reply to: Contract clause question-limited use of power of attorney #24867
From what I understand, that clause is to guarantee that the final client can licence the product they create with your music in the background. For example, a tutorial DVD, TV series or a documentary. So such paragraph does not surprise me. It looks OK, as long as you have guarantee on your side that your music can not be sub-licenced as is (in isolation). And finally, what you wrote in bold is to protect the library from you blocking a sale by inaction. If you would like to have your word on where your music ends up, maybe you could ask the library to reject clients you do not want your music sold too (Nazis, hard porn, hate videos etc…).
Alfredo, I tend to agree with Michael here. This forum is a little different from any other Forum I have experienced. It is actually thanks to these guys on MLR that I found a direction to get started a little more than 2 years ago (I didn’t know this library business even existed before that) . Now, after two years, thanks to the great advice on this site, I am approaching the 5 digit in terms of licence sales for 2015 (around 4k in terms of net income). I haven’t seen back end yet, although Tunesat reports promises some soon…
I refrained commenting on Ariel’s track, because of my moderate experience, though I kind of agree with some of the comments I read. But in any case, he must not stop. He is definitely on his way there, and considering criticism as guide to further progress is the way to go! When I heard the music, it made me think of my sound 3 years ago…
Ariel, I progressed technically tremendously thanks to a music magazine: Sound on Sound’s articles on mixing, mastering etc…
I am curious Alfredo about how you were able to network so well. Based in Europe, I feel frustrated as I would love to go to these meetings. I have an easy contact with people, and although I still feel I need to progress, I believe some tracks in my catalog can start rivaling music on these great networks. Is there a way or specific events to network with these industry leaders in Europe?
No problem in posting on SC, but do watermark! The few tracks I had there without watermark are now for sale on gloomy Russian sites without my approval…December 9, 2015 at 12:32 pm in reply to: May this kind of cinematic music be offered to production libraries? #23497
In my humble opinion, Victoria, it does!
Very nice track!
The thing is that, in order to enter higher end libraries, you need to have a bunch of tracks of this quality, to show it is just not a one off.December 3, 2015 at 2:02 pm in reply to: which licensing models do you make the most/least amount of income?? #23474
@Mojo, one month is not enough time to get an accurate idea. On some RFs, usually the good ones, it can be quite slow to pick up but it eventually does and can do very well with time. The first 6 months, i must have sold just a few licenses with a ridiculously small number of views. Now, after 2 years, it has slowly grown to become a significant fraction of my monthly revenue… It’s a game of patience.
And concerning the price: Under a certain price , the price doesn’t seem to have a strong impact on sales… I think 70 should be OK, yet close to the upper limit : I tend to hang out between 40 and 70.
It’s so true that this site is amazing for learning to step in this industry. I started 2 years ago, and learned so much here. Time to give back a little! Please note these answers are not absolute and only reflect my humble opinion.
1) Sample Rate & Bit Rate
I wouldn’t worry here. I used to work in 24bits – 44.1kHz, but recently switched to 16bits, as I realized many libraries use the CD format anyway…
Some higher end ones may require 48k as it appears to be the standard for film sync. Just convert it (I use a software more than 15 years old for that: Cool Edit – why? Because I always have been happy with the results and when I need to convert 24b to 16b I have a large choice in configuring the dithering to my taste). You do not need to mention how you do it, as long as the result sounds good. Note however, that converting up 44.1 to 48 will not improve quality, on the contrary, it could even degrade it slightly.
kbps: It is automatically calculated on bit rate and sampling freq. It just tells you the streaming speed for correct playback. (i.e. the size of one second of data).
2) I don’t have stems!
Well, some libraries require them, some don’t, but mostly those will be higher end ones. Note that if your tracks were distributed through i-tunes, you probably will only have access to non-exclusive and RF libraries for your tracks. Many of these do not need stems (I only make stems actually for my exclusive partners).
3) I don’t know what a “bed” is. Average “full’ length.
A Bed is the track without the main melody and with minimal instrumentation. See is like a canvas where the editor can put stuff on (like talkover). The track is modified in a way that it will only provide a light audio ambiance to the video.
For the track length: 1’20 is a little short. usually I try to be > 1’30 and can go up to 4 minutes depending on the styles: happy tracks for advertisement usually 1:30 – 2′. Pop-rock-electro-chart music : 2′-3’20. Classical-Ambient 3’00 and above.
As for copy pasting parts entirely to make it longer, well, it may not be appreciated… If you cannot do otherwise, maybe you can add a little element (a few guitar or piano notes) on the copied part to give it some diversity.
Hope this helps, and good luck!October 17, 2015 at 10:01 am in reply to: Composers who also release material for commercial release #23168