Interestingly, the music industry professionals, the publishers, the producers of film and TV, are specifically stating now in their listings for material, that if AI is used in any way shape or form in the creation of the music you're thinking about submitting, they are not interested in listening to it. If you do, and they find out, it's an automatic deal breaker and you get tossed out of the publishing company catalog.
When the Librarian of Congress wrote that AI cannot be copyrighted, she was upholding a long standing practice. Machines that can generate music in some form through random action go back a couple hundred years. This got a big boost when electronic random number generation became possible in the 1950s. She broke no new ground, only applied it to new technology. Congress and the EU have hundreds of bills in the works trying to codify this but none of them are saying that she’s wrong.
Copyright can only apply to work created by humans. Period. If a work cannot be copyrighted, it cannot be owned and money cannot be charged for it which means that money cannot be raised for it (in the movie industry, by Producers). The immediate aftermath was settlement of the WGA (writer’s) strike followed by SAG/AFTRA.
You can use AI to generate ideas (one has never been able to copyright an idea), do research, handle a lot of the drudge work in the creative process etc. but the actual result must come from humans.
I have yet to find AI all that useful. Any research task I’e assigned is more wrong than right. I do get some ides but checking facts and plagiarisms takes a lot of time that I was hoping to use for creating.
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean