Major record labels are attempting to protect their copyrighted material by trying to prevent AI companies from utilizing it to train bots and produce new music.
When an accomplished San Antonio musician friend praised an AI-generated song six weeks ago, I knew he was on to something. He is extremely observant but very critical so he caught me by surprise. Not only did he not call it rubbish (which I totally expected), he actually liked it.
Should it be any surprise that music companies want to ensure that their content remains protected from any potential misuse? To this end, Universal Music Group has requested streaming services such as Spotify to stop developers from accessing material for creating AI bots designed to produce new songs.
With a third of the recorded music industry under its belt, the label has also been issuing massive takedowns on AI uploads getting posted online.
The music industry is taking proactive steps in preventing AIs from using their songs without a license. This is done for the purpose of safeguarding the copyright that is usually held by humans behind the creativity. The real concern lies in how governments will strike a balance between the rights of AI and those of actual human creators.
This is messy already.
So, what’s the problem?
Imagine being a painter and editing Leonardo Da Vinci’s ‘Mona Lisa.’
Upon completion, your artwork bears little resemblance to the original masterpiece because you’ve changed it by using a mix of concepts and influences from other top artists as well as a bit of your own spice. At that point, who should own the rights to the new painting?
Keep in mind, you still used Da Vinci’s work as a platform from which to start, and a skilled artist would be able to spot that as well as bits and pieces of influence from other famous artists.
Is it still a da Vinci painting at that point? Is it your painting? And how about the concepts of those other top artists you borrowed whose centuries-old work also influenced the final product?
Maybe that’s not the best analogy but it should work for now.
The UK government is aiming to reduce the amount of protection copyright laws present, which could be useful to tech companies but detrimental to businesses in the music, literature, film, and photography industries. As a result, this action has been met with a great deal of controversy and skepticism from many stakeholders in the creative industry.
Mubert stands out among other royalty-free music generators with its AI-driven feature. By simply entering a prompt, this platform can quickly generate a wide variety of tunes from its collection perfectly tailored to meet your needs.
AI has taken music-making to an entirely new level – it can now play various styles and genres. It can also copy parts of multiple songs that match your preferences and make an original tune. You may also generate music that resembles a particular artist, and the tracks you create are conveniently downloadable.
Mubert has declared its mission to be helping creators around the globe. However, their decision not to pay royalties to human creators for the use of their music is perplexing and does not fit with this mission.
Mubert emphasizes the importance of human talent in music production, ensuring that all their audio material is created by real musicians and producers. They recognize that real people create invaluable music, making it even more special.
Copyright law safeguards music, which means that using a particular song requires obtaining a license. This ensures that the creators and rightsholders are compensated for their imaginative work. Depending on the use, an appropriate license is required. Spotify pays a fee to record labels and artists, just like bars and cafes have to pay for playing music in their establishments. Additionally, music artists need to acquire a license when sampling someone else’s song for their track.
Unfortunately for the music industry, the UK government has been muddying the waters with proposals to change the copyright rules to benefit tech companies. A few months ago, it floated the idea of making an exception for the first type of infringement: using music catalogs as training data. This would also apply to other artistic works like videos and photographs.
At the end of it all, the fundamental question is whether human creativity deserves more safeguarding and protection than machine-generated creativity.
Listening to music has an effect on us that’s much greater than monetary value. It brings a sense of comfort, offers physical and mental health advantages, and can even be used to initiate social, political, or economic transformation. Creators deserve to be rewarded for their effort – either those who compose music or those who provide the material that AI uses. This is only fair and should be taken into account.
Copyright law is an essential safeguard protecting creators and ensuring that they are compensated for their work. Not only does this provide creators with much-needed financial remuneration, but it also encourages creativity, which can benefit the world in many different ways.
