Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You’ve got to wonder: 1) how that will impact composers who have music in all three libraries, and 2) if AJ will start accepting new composers?
The situation now is almost the reverse of what it was in the past. In the early 2000s, I was told to switch from ASCAP to BMI because BMI paid better for TV performances. In 2011, I was in a position with co-writer to see that BMI wasn’t necessarily paying more than ASCAP per performance, but that ASCAP’s survey system was often missing as much as 60% of the performances, compared to BMI. I switched from ASCAP to BMI and royalties for the same tracks (TV theme music) more than doubled. Three years later, in 2014, BMI changed how it calculates royalties to include, among other things, a show’s ratings, and royalties tanked, despite having the same number of performances for several long-running syndicated TV shows. The result was an absolute disaster. Royalties dropped 75% and quite literally forced me to choose another path. Recently, I noticed another drop and contacted BMI. They did, in fact, discover an error, but also said that broadcasters are no longer paying the same amounts that they used to. Whether that’s a different variation on BMI’s previous explanation regarding its change in methodology, I don’t know. I’d be tempted to switch back to ASCAP, but knowing how many performances slipped through the cracks makes me hesitant.
A track of mine was used in a national radio ad (I think for Miller Lite) in 2017/18. It ran around 800 times and paid about $300.
FWIW, Crucial has announced that it will “disallow the use of AI as a compositional tool for any music submitted to our catalog. Anything that is partially, substantially, or wholly composed by means of AI will be rejected”. Other libraries have made similar decisions.
Hi Boinkeee2000. Art advised me that the PM function has been deleted. I sent you an email.
Hi boinkeee2000. I’ll send you a PM.
So far, the U.S. Copyright Office has already shot down registration of AI works.
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/ai-generator-art-text-us-copyright-policy-1234661683/
But…
https://www.theregister.com/2023/03/16/ai_art_copyright_usco/
“So I conclude, with or without AI….there still will be a competition to see who can create the best sound recordings that people will want to buy.
I agree. So what are you worried about?
This is the exact question that I was asking, as expressed yesterday in Music Business Worldwide.
Thoughts on Ghostwriter, Drake, AI… and why the music industry shouldn’t panic
“The problem of course is that MILLIONS of individual splices of music are already being used to hone AI music modeling.
Unless it’s blindingly obvious or self-disclosed for marketing purposes – as in the case of the Ghostwriter track – how do you prove, as a creator, that your work has been used as source material for AI?”
To refine this, how would you prove, as a creator, the your work was THE source material for any given AI work, unless your work was completely unique and the AI work was substantially similar?
“You are missing the point on no transparency with what Shutterstock is earning from this lump sum, lease arrangement.”
Somehow we’ve morphed from an intellectual property argument to a contract argument. On both issues, you need to be able to state a “legally cognizable” claim. So far, the defense would have good shot at prevailing.
“Additionally who cares about PD music? The media production community is not screaming for PD music on a daily basis.”
You’re kind of missing the point. Think of the entire history of music as an encyclopedia that contains all of the musical knowledge necessary to generate new AI music. What I’m saying is that AI platforms don’t need to ingest vast amounts “McMusic” when they have access to the totality of musical history, most of which is PD.
“AI learning models can learn how to create similar music from our music.”
So can any reasonably competent composition student by simply listening to it.“The proof is right there in front of our face. It’s happening before our eyes. shutterstock (owner of p5) is selling our sound recordings and keyword/ title data to AI companies for a figure we do not, nor ever will get access to so AI learning models can learn how to create similar music from our music. Why else do AI companies want the entire shutterstock catalog?”
What is that proof of, copyright infringement? No. How are you going to prove that a specific piece of AI music infringes on a specific piece of your (registered) music, when AI is creating music based on an amalgamation of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of composers’ music? And remember that a significant portion of that music is already heavily influenced, if not based-on, others’ music. Who gets to sue when an AI platform spits out a corporate track, the composer who ripped off U2 or The Edge? How about a jazz track that starts with an instantly recognizable Tom-Tom beat, the composer who copied it or the estates of Benny Goodman and Gene Krupa (Sing Sing Sing)?
“AI companies are using our copyrighted music to essentially reproduce new music.”
I just don’t quite get that. Why would companies invest in learning our RF music, when the entire human history of public domain music is available to them?
How would you prove that an AI generated piece of music was based on your music and not a thousand other composers’ works and/or rooted in the basic music theory to which we all have access?
And, because tastes, styles, and the sonic palette evolve so rapidly it seems like a never ending process.
“Wannabees and fakers (sorry, not meant to offend if it does) can work a day job, and pretend to be a composer….even thru the hard times.”
As Art said, that’s a pretty broad stroke. How you earn a living doesn’t necessarily define whether or not you are a composer, e.g. Charles Ives.
“AI leasrning models who are “learning how to create derivatives” of everyone’s music compositions and sound recordings.”
The irony is that 99.9% of library music (at least RF library music) is already derivative. AI is most likely gathering information in broad style/genre strokes. It would be real stretch to claim that AI copied any individual composer’s work.
The case of “Ghostwriter” creating an AI version of Drake’s voice ventures into the realm of an individual’s “right to publicity,” which falls under trademark law. https://www.inta.org/topics/right-of-publicity/. UMG and Drake’s lawyers should go after “Ghostwriter” and potentially Spotify full-force.
“I’m on the tail end of writing anyway, cause even without AI, it’s a grind and pays less every year….”
And therein is the ultimate question: If its not your passion, if it’s just a means to a financial end, why do it anyway? What would you write if you didn’t have to worry about how much it paid? Would it be different than what you done to pay the bills?
“So Michael did p5 remain within the rights we all granted them?”
Probably not the original agreement. Unfortunately, they have a pattern of updating their contract with a narrow opt-out window. Generally, they set it up so that if you don’t opt-out within the time frame or if you upload new music it’s considered your assent to the new contract terms.
“The Lynn drum machine did not replace drummers in 1978 or whenever that was.”
It’s funny that you should mention that Music1234. I know a drummer who, instead of cursing the Linn Drum, embraced it from the very beginning. He went on to embrace all emerging technology and became a very successful multi-platinum songwriter, producer, and studio owner, to this day! Not only did the Linn Drum not destroy his career it opened a whole new world. And, 40 plus years later, he’s also still a great drummer.
The sky isn’t falling. It’s changing, and there are opportunities to be had if you keep an open mind.