Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“The legislation “would allow independent music artists to band together and collectively negotiate with large streaming platforms and AI developers”. What do you imagine that would look like? Who might take the lead, and how might that be organized?”
It should be the PRO’s who take the lead. Composers and Publishers are members of PRO’s. PRO’s collect money from users of music (Lisencors) Lisensor defition: grant a license to (someone or something) to permit the use of something or to allow an activity to take place.
The PRO’s collect from all TV networks, radio stations, concert venues, bars, restaurants, theme parks, companies who play music in stores, on planes, etc. etc…also YOUTUBE, CHAT GPT/ OPEN AI, ADOBE, FACEBOOK, TIK TOK. The PRO’s have all composers, songwriters, and publishers herded up into one place to be a very powerful and loud voice in the effort. PRO’s can establish unions. PRO’s can lobby for legislation to make “Generative AI Music” illegal or deem it as copyright infringement. The AFM, SAG, and AFTRA can also help in the effort.
It’s not as hard as one may think. It’s pretty obvious what has been going on so far: Google/ YOUTUBE, CHAT GPT/ OPEN AI, META/ FACEBOOK, Microsoft, TIK TOK, Nvidia have been scraping the internet for photos, music, vocal performances, human voices, illustrations, videos, etc…to ingest the content into their AI learning models. Not a single original creator ever really granted permission to these companies.
We are witnessing the largest theft of intellectual property by the largest companies in the world happen before our eyes. These companies know what they are doing and they seemingly realize too, that it is wrong and that is why there was a “closed door” private meeting 2 weeks ago with the CEO’s of all of these companies and senators where they all agreed that these activities need to be regulated.
Thanks Art,
I have sent this letter to my congress representatives. Everyone should click on the link and send this letter.
https://www.votervoice.net/ASCAPNYC/Campaigns/107626/Respond?TrackingID=AdvocacyEmail2
The issue will always boil down to who owns the copyright? I remember when “ACID” came out in 1998 as a loop based music production tool. I did make tracks with this software and I even made some where I literally did not play one single note with my own hands. Rather I just “pasted/ assembled” various parts from various instruments together and tweaked and edited and mixed until there was a “composition”. I have those titles registered as my own “composition” at my PRO. Was I the true “Author”? That remains unclear, but I did make the final assembly and arrangement with 4 bar sections of “parts” pre played by musicians in a studio.
These few tracks still get air play to this day and still generate performance royalties.
So if we all start creating tracks with AI tools and can register the sound recordings as our own copyrights and the PRO’s pay us, everything should be fine. Someone has to curate, mix, and decide what is going to be “prime time” and what will sound like crap. So maybe instead of people “composing” we may just be “assembling and mixing”.
Shutterstock may very well have a goal where they own and are credited as “writer” and “Publisher” of all the AI generated content. Maybe their vision is that they can gradually stop paying contributors. Who knows? There still will be a competition for creativity and usefulness of a sound recording, no matter how it is being created and rendered. It’s kind of like a ‘Painter” opening cans of paint and dumping them on a canvas to create “Art” in 10 seconds. Some people have bought those paintings for $20,000 or $50,000…possibly even more.
People think creating a generic corporate track with a C G Am F chord progression, at 120 to 128 BPM is so simple, yet why is that only a few go one and rack up 20,000 units sold while the vast majority just drift a way with 0 or two sales? It’s because the final mix, the selection of sounds, chord voicings and melodic elements stand out to the listening public and captivate them more so than the others.
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.
You are missing the point on no transparency with what Shutterstock is earning from this lump sum, lease arrangement. There once was a time where shutterstock could be checked by a music producer. You could literally license your own track to see if that resulted in a unit sold and a royalty paid on your financials page. Ditto for subscription. We can and do see what titles subscribers downloaded. We do not see what (I assume google, microsoft, meta, and the likes) are paying to Shutterstock as a lump sum contracted fee to “borrow” the entire music library and all data along with each track to teach their emerging AI learning models how to create production music. Shouldn’t these fees collected be published to all contributors on a regular basis? Shouldn’t we know how much p5 witholds under the disguise of E and O insurance? Increasingly, this company can report whatever they please and hide whatever they please in terms of their revenue collected and royalties paid out. All objectivity in the process is eroding more and more each passing year.
“Why would companies invest in learning our RF music, when the entire human history of public domain music is available to them?’
Ask shutterstock , why are they licensing our datasets (our sound recordings, titles, keywords, and descriptions) to AI companies? why are AI companies paying for access to all this data? The answer is quite obvios. Additionally who cares about PD music? The media production community is not screaming for PD music on a daily basis. Sure it gets used from time to time, but the vast majority of demand is for more modern sounding, original production music that support visual media.
“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?”
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?
The reality is complaining here just allows one to vent steam and allows for our colleagues to read the complaints and they probably will agree with most of what we all have to say. No sense in ruffling each others feathers as that will not get results.
However, if you do want results (prohibit AI learning models from using our production music to invent their own AI generated music) then write to your senator, and all board members of the PRO’s to raise awareness quickly. AI companies are using our copyrighted music to essentially reproduce new music. this is simply a fact.
Real results is AI companies NOT being allowed to use copyrighted music to teach AI models how to create AI generated music.If you chose to not protest and raise your voice, you are part of the problem.
That is a very positive development Art. That’s great that UMG is all over this. I just encourage everyone to write to their senators and PRO’s to raise awareness that music copyrights are under assault by AI leasrning models who are “learning how to create derivatives” of everyone’s music compositions and sound recordings. A “Cease and desist” order against Shutterstock and their AI partners would put an end to this real fast.
And I also agree, I will not stop putting effort into this business until the checks stop coming. As long as checks are getting deposited, I will put in my time.
Spotify and Apple sure do have a lot of “music data” to “share” with AI Learning models. I wonder if they are participants in the party? Their catalogs are substantially larger than Shutterstocks and really, offer more quality.
From a google search about the size of Spotify’s catalog:
“Spotify finished 2022 with more than 100 million tracks in its catalog, according to the company’s annual report filed Thursday (Feb. 2). That’s 18 million more than the 82 million tracks streaming service had the year prior — which averages to about 49,000 new songs per day.Feb 3, 2023”
LOL! With 49,000 tracks being added every day, Do we really now need ai programs adding even more music? It’s just so ridiculous! The last thing this world needs is “more music” and certainly not average AI generated music.
What we do need AI to do is help people who need music, find it quickly through verbal descriptions of what an editor or director would want in their film.
My mind is open, I just would like to know if p5 had the legal right to license our music to teach ai models how to write music, title music, describe music, and keyword music under the existing agreement?
TV Music royalties paid by PRO’s are not going to disappear any time soon. Micro stock sync royalties for youtube explainers, and or personal tik shorts, cooking videos, etc… will probably fade away to AI generated (4 chord & 4 and 8 bar progressions) low to no budget music.
So Michael did p5 remain within the rights we all granted them? I and Eduardo would like to know. Chat GPT seems to think they did not.
Art, I did watch this video and I do agree that no one really can predict what may happen and I am not worried about the sky falling. The Lynn drum machine did not replace drummers in 1978 or whenever that was.
What I am concerned about is a company using our intellectual property in a manner that they never were authorized to do by contributors. They licensed our music to teach AI MODOELS how to write music with our music for a lump sum we do not have access to. We all were paid an arbitrary fee based on a calculation only known to p5, then they informed us how we can “opt out” of this new revenue stream.
Can we focus on that? Or shall we take that back to the p5 thread?
In the pond 5 contributor agreement, I do not see us granting our rights to teach AI learning models how to write music (with our music) and teach AI models how to title, describe, and write keywords for sound recordings we own. I have read this section 3 times and I just do not see how, legally, they can license the entire music music catalog to AI companies so they can teach their ” AI learning models” how to write music! Folks, they most likely are licensing these rights to Microsoft, Google, Meta, etc… for a one time lump sum fee (Which we do not have access to what this fee is?) How much did they really collect? If we were to enter a class action lawsuit and win, I’d think a judge would potentially award all the lump sum fees paid by AI companies to the contributors and perhaps order a cease operation order to those “Teaching AI Models how to write production music” with our music.
Copy and Paste from the agreement:
2. Rights You Grant Us
a. You hereby grant us the world-wide, right and license, to directly and/or indirectly copy, market, promote, perform, display, distribute, sell and/or grant licenses to the Content. The licenses granted by us (each a “Pond5 License Agreement”) may, as we determine to be appropriate, include some or all of the rights, restrictions and/or other terms of the Pond5 Content License Agreement available on the Website, as modified by us from time to time in our sole discretion, and/or any variations thereof, including versions that provide broader rights to any Content, fewer restrictions and/or greater legal protection (an “Extended License”) or that provide narrower rights to any Content, greater restrictions and/or lesser legal protection.
b. Except as provided below under Exclusivity Program for Video, your license to us and the licenses granted by us under Pond5 License Agreements will be non-exclusive licenses.
c. You, or if different, the owner of the copyright in the Content, will retain ownership of the Content and the copyright thereto, and no copyright ownership or title will be transferred to us, except if you enroll in the Music Publishing Service described below, as provided in the Music Publishing Terms.
d. We also will have the right to edit, resize, resample, convert, color correct, watermark, crop or otherwise composite any Content or edit or supplement any Content Information to correct what we determine in our sole discretion to be an error, misleading statement or omission in Content Information or for purposes of facilitating the marketing, distributing, sale and licensing of Content; provided that any screening, review, correction and/or editing of any Content or Content Information performed by us is done as a courtesy only, and we will have no liability whatsoever therefor or for any failure to perform the same.
e. Your license to us also includes the right to, and authorize others to, use any Content in any kind of works now known or hereafter devised and use, copy, transmit, broadcast, telecast, stream, and publicly display, perform worldwide the Content, and derivative works thereof, Content Information, and your, and if different, Content creator’s, name and biographical information for purposes of promoting, advertising, marketing and distributing the Content, you, the Website, us and/or our business (collectively, “Promotional Uses”). Promotional Uses will not entitle you to any compensation nor create any additional relationship or responsibilities between you and us.
f. You hereby forever waive any “moral rights” related to the Content, including the right to be identified as the author of the Content or to object to the modification of any Content, and if you are not the creator, you have obtained such a waiver from the creator.I created a track using this site to see how the technology works and these are pre-composed tracks where you can “arrange” 4 to 8 bar sequences of the same chord progression…
https://soundraw.io/edit_music?length=180&tempo=low,normal,high&mood=Hopeful
I do not think that AI technology is ready for real higher end scoring, but for 8 bar passages for 15s and 30s and even 60s…it can work. I still think that the video editors will appreciate human composed music. And my “Test” usage of this where I attempted to score a 3 minute video had these issues:
1. It still took 1 hour!
2. It sounds too repetitive so it will not sell.
This site is essentially a “Royalty Free” AI site consisting of already composed ideas and loops.
AI music and computer generated music has been around for 25 years. I used to paste loops and bass lines and horn riffs together using ACID in 1999. Some of that music was cool, but one still had to know how to arrange it, mix it, etc….you still needed “musical skills” to make an impact with the track.
The market will decide, but I do not feel obsoleted by these merging technologies just yet. These technologies do not save time for video editors, they still have to search and hunt, and attempt to “paste together” a music arrangement. I think the video editors will still opt in and buy into real human compositions that are emotive.
You asked: “Has anyone had an issue with having SESAC as the publisher for their music? ”
How is it possible that SESAC could be “Publisher” of your works?
SESAC is a Performing Rights Organization that collects royalties and distributes them to writers and publishers for Broadcast TV performances, streaming services, live concert performances, radio air play, etc…
SESAC is NOT a publisher.
There is a lot of BS going on with SESAC and that is probably due to the fact that Wall Strret (BLACKSTONE) has their hands in the slush fund. They have one goal in my opinion – Keep more money for Blackstone, and distribute less to writers and publishers.
Leading Music Rights Organization SESAC to be Acquired by Blackstone
There has been a weird obsession that wall street now has as of late with music royalties. They want “in” on the 5 Billion that SESAC, BMI, and ASCAP collect. The CEO of Goldman Sachs, David Solomon is a “DJ” and GS has been “advising” BMI as to how to convert to “For Profit”
Essentially they are in BMI executive offices whispering into managements ears: “pssssst – Just pay the writers less of what you collect.”
It seems odd that (for example) “Stock Music Library 1” sends you $1000 in royalties through Pay Pal then “Stock Music Library 1” issues you a 1099 Misc income form. Then Pay Pal, the firm that simply handled the bank transfer, also issues you a 1099-K for $1000. You collected only $1000 in my example, but in the eyes of the IRS you earned $2000, $1000 from the library, then $1000 from Pay Pal which is not what happened! Indeed, I’d be very concerned.
You probably now have to create a $1000 schedule C expense (in my example) to offset the “double income” you did not earn. Yes, hopefully an accountant can find a solution, but do know that the IRS does not care, they see reported 1099 income from “Stock Music Library” and PAY PAL. This is absurd!
Pay Pal should not be in the business of issuing 1099 K’s unless you are literally selling goods and services directly to customers entirely through their platform where all customers pay you solely through Pay Pal’s service.
Most Stock Music Libraries are using Pay Pal solely as a bank wire substitute service. You should try to set up auto deposit directly to your bank whenever possible and just avoid the Pay Pal middle man whenever possible.