Originally Posted by JoanneCooper
I really cannot see how ai assisted songs cannot be copyrighted.
Short answer: US copyright can only be given to works produced by humans.

The judge in the case ruled that copyright has never been granted to work that was “absent any guiding human hand,” and that “human authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.”

There are a number of points the judge did not choose to explore.

It might help to consider what copyright is. It creates a time-limited "right" to control who can create a copy of something. After some time, the copyright expires and the work falls into the public domain.

That copyright exists for the same reason that patents do - to encourage people to create works by allowing them a time-limited monopoly on that work.

Obviously, copyright or lack of copyright doesn't matter to an AI.

But let's take this a step further, and imagine that the court did rule that the AI had authored an original work. Since the copyright would belong to the creator of the work, what then?

The AI has no other legal rights, and can't enter into legal contracts. That rules out this being a "work for hire".

This means that the AI cannot transfer the copyright.

So if an AI work could be copyrighted, the work would remain uncopyable until it fell into the public domain.

-- David Cuny
My virtual singer development blog

Vocal control, you say. Never heard of it. Is that some kind of ProTools thing?