Originally Posted by JoanneCooper
Only highlights the ongoing philosophical debate about where the line is drawn.
I think it's clear where the line is drawn. Herb gave an example, performing work for hire for clients:
Originally Posted by Guitarhacker
I was, for a period of time, one of the writers for the biggest of the custom song companies. It was income that was much better than streaming income, and faster than my BMI income. They would send me jobs for writing a custom song for a client. The client would include the details.... their story, and I had a couple of days to write, record, and submit the song. It was fun. I had to write quickly and meet that deadline.
Without the details supplied by the client, there would be no song. And as work for hire, the client owned the song after it had been created. The inputs and outputs of the process are the same as with AI. But look at the words that Herb used:

  • I was, for a period of time, one of the writers
  • They would send me jobs for writing a custom song for a client.
  • I had a couple of days to write
  • I had to write quickly


It's clear that it was Herb that created the song, isn't it?

Even though the client is legally right to say it is "their" song, they aren't legally right to say they "created" it. The creation of the song was done by Herb. As an entity who is able enter into legal contracts, Herb was able to assign away the rights to the song he created to someone else. This is an important point I'll get back to.

AI acts in exactly the same way, in terms of inputs and outputs. The client creates the request as a written prompt, but the request itself is not a song. The prompt the client supplied has to be transformed into a song.

That transformation - the "creation" of the song - is done by AI. Without AI, there would be no song.

The line of song creation is clear - on the side of the line prior to Herb, there client has a request with details, but no song. It's on the other side of the line, where Herb is - that the song is created.

Back to that bit about Herb's ability to sign away the rights to something he created. That's important for a number of reasons.

First, it's legal acknowledgement that the creation of the song was performed by Herb. As the creator, Herb has legal rights to the song, which he allowed to be reassigned by entering into a work for hire contract. If Herb hadn't been created the song, he wouldn't be able to reassign those rights.

But there's another element required for assignment of rights - Herb is a legal entity. If he wasn't, he couldn't reassign rights to the song.

Unlike Herb, AI is not a legal entity that can enter into contracts. As a result, AI can't assign the rights of its creation. That's one of the reasons that using AI in song creation is legally problematic. It's not central to saying who "created" the song, but it is central to saying who can say it's "their" song.

Back to your earlier analogy of AI being akin to using BiaB to create a song. There is a similarity, in that my input into the process is minimal. I enter chords and other information into BiaB, and that input is transformed into audio tracks. The bulk of the work is performed by BiaB.

But unlike using AI, the level of input that that I had over the process is much greater. It's more akin to providing a band with a chord chart. So I can say that I wrote the progression, although people can't legally own a chord progression. If I then supplied the notes, I can say that I wrote the melody, and so on.

An important legal difference between AI and BiaB is that I'm on strong legal ground when I say that I own the backing tracks that BiaB created. That's because the original creators of those tracks are legal entities that assigned their rights over to PG Music, which then assigned them over to me. I may not be the "creator", but I am the legal owner.

The same can't be said for AI, because again, AI is not a legal entity. The source material on which AI was trained was likely not legally transferred to the AI, which is an issue currently in the courts, likely to be resolved through licensing.

And unlike BiaB, it's possible that AI could generate copyright infringing output by cleaving a bit too closely to the source material. In contrast, all the source material in BiaB is safe to use.

As mentioned before, AI isn't a legal entity, so the rights to the final song can't be transferred to the client. Again, this is in contrast with BiaB, where there's a clear legal transfer of ownership. Even if there's no legal claim on the source material, and no legal claim that it's infringing, there is strong legal doubt of ownership.

So even if AI's input into the process was the same as BiaB, there are plenty of legal reasons not to use AI in song generation.

All that aside, I think the line is very clear where the creation of the song happens.

-- David Cuny
My virtual singer development blog

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