AI is here and here to stay whether we choose to adopt it or not.
Like Joanne, I am all over this because I am primarily a musician as in playing an instrument and writing the musical parts. Lyrics are something where extra assistance is welcomed. Same with SynthV because I am not a naturally good singer. Using these tools together gets me to a stage where I can develop a song further.
The SongBrain app that I wrote enables me to do this and it isn't just a case of me being lazy, there's a couple of thousand lines of code in there!
Commercially successful (as in making loads of money) songs have nothing to do with the song usually. It's about the amount of promotion budget, image of the artist etc. and of course, we are in it for the art not to make money (sure).
The litigious arguments are moot in some way because AI is not going away and it has caught a large established industry off guard. Things will sort themselves eventually (after a lot of money has been spent).
Sharp businesses will find a country where AI output can be copyrighted and base their services there perhaps. After all, how much of the world's shipping carry a "flag of covenience" usually Liberia or somewhere.
This is a great thread and an imortant one and opens up may questions about where assistance begins and ends.
Hopefully, the alphabet is out of copyright now or I'm in bother.
My comment was simply that the legal/liability ramifications of AI generated intellectual property are being scrutinized and it MAY become something actionable. If it were me, I wouldn't use it for commercially released music until it all plays out. Who knows what will happen, they may force AI programs to put a digital watermark on AI generated content. I can absolutely see the PROs (BMI, ASCAP, etc.) adding something the song registration process where you have to disclose if you used AI in the creation of the song (the do this very thing currently for songs using song samples).
Point being, the technology was released before the legality of it was determined. That's enough for me, as a creator, to take a more cautious approach to using it.
I think where clear cut understandings of AI e.g., chatgpt, Bard etc are defined, that's one thing but where is that unclear line between algorithmic generation and AI? Many apps / vsts claim to be AI when in fact they are clever algorithms. The term AI is quite nebulous but I think most us would agree that machine learning and neural networks are broadly defined as AI. Therefore when asked to declare whether AI had been used the chances of being overdeclared and underclared are pretty equal I'd say. I think the onus would be for whatever assistive technology is there e.g., BIAB, RapidComposer etc etc has to clearly state whether it is AI or not.
What a minefield!
Supposing one wrote the whole piece by hand and then used one "AI" plugin in the final mastering chain. A nightmare awaits.
Supposing one wrote the whole piece by hand and then used one "AI" plugin in the final mastering chain. A nightmare awaits.
You obviously haven't been paying attention and haven't got the slightest understanding about what the courts have ruled.
Last edited by Byron Dickens; 01/26/2402:23 PM.
Byron Dickens
BIAB. CbB. Mixbus 32C 8 HP Envy. Intel core i7. 16GB RAM W10. Focusrite Scarlett 18i 20. Various instruments played with varying degrees of proficiency.
Supposing one wrote the whole piece by hand and then used one "AI" plugin in the final mastering chain. A nightmare awaits.
You obviously haven't been paying attention and haven't got the slightest understanding about what the courts have ruled.
I did however pay attention to the title of this thread which was: "has anyone on this forum used chatgpt to help them write lyrics" as opposed to sub discussions as to what may or may not have already been decided by courts.
I am speaking in general terms and speculating how this may go in the future if the whole world goes super twitchy about AI, is it ok to do that in your thread?
Supposing one wrote the whole piece by hand and then used one "AI" plugin in the final mastering chain. A nightmare awaits.
I think you're mixing apples and oranges.
The question that was before the court was whether an "original work" created a non-human process could be given a copyright. Whether or not the underlying algorithm was AI didn't have any part of the legal question.
The court made a ruling strictly on a matter of law - copyright is only conferred to works created by a human.
The question that you're raising is whether the use of an AI plugin confers any rights to to the manufacturer. The answer still has nothing to do with whether the plugin is AI or not - it's got to do with the product license.
For example, I could create a plugin that boosts the volume of audio by 100%, and the license would demand that using that plugin obliges the end user to share 50% of the net profits of any audio run through the plugin.
And... it would be perfectly legal. That's why it's a good thing to read the EULA.
After following this thread here is my take. Putting aside the copyright side of things.
(1) I use chatgpt or something similar to create lyrics from a prompt.
(2) I write lyrics myself with whatever comes to mind without chatgpt.
In either case how would anyone know which was which. Chatgpt would probably give me something slightly better as I am rubbish at lyrics. Will they use AI to analyse the output, would AI be correct in working out which was which?
^^^ my point exactly 3. I use chat gpt to generate some lyrics and change them a bit (or a lot) How would they know the difference? It is just text in a notepad. It is not a picture.
LyricLab A.I assisted chords and lyric app. Export lyrics and import directly into Band-in-a-Box 2024. https://lyriclab.net Play-along with songs you know and love, download SGU files https://playiit.com/
Supposing one wrote the whole piece by hand and then used one "AI" plugin in the final mastering chain. A nightmare awaits.
I think you're mixing apples and oranges.
The question that was before the court was whether an "original work" created a non-human process could be given a copyright. Whether or not the underlying algorithm was AI didn't have any part of the legal question.
The court made a ruling strictly on a matter of law - copyright is only conferred to works created by a human.
I was meaning more along the lines of a previous statement which said that PROs may insist on knowing if AI was used in any part of the song. "Created" is also nebulous unless it means in entirety, in which case, that's another can of worms.
Does the fact that a human "created" the prompt, count? Or, are we saying that the "machine" decides one day to write a song unsolicited and send it to me?
I was meaning more along the lines of a previous statement which said that PROs may insist on knowing if AI was used in any part of the song.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
Rodger Brown's comment was speculation.
From a legal point of view, songs created by AI can't be copyrighted. That puts them in the public domain, free to use.
However, only the lyrics of the song would be public domain. So if you wrote a song using those lyrics, all the other elements of the song would not be in the public domain.
For example, look and songs that Janice and Bud release. Even though the lyrics are in the public domain, they've created versions that are often made unique by re-working the lyrics, arrangement, and harmonies. So they own that particular version of the song, including the mechanical and sync rights.
Plus, any changes to public domain lyrics are copyright the person who made the changes.
So even if someone knows that the lyrics were generated by AI, unless they know for sure that all the lyrics were the product of AI, using the lyrics would be a risky proposition. More on that later...
Originally Posted by Mike. R.
"Created" is also nebulous unless it means in entirety, in which case, that's another can of worms.
Does the fact that a human "created" the prompt, count? Or, are we saying that the "machine" decides one day to write a song unsolicited and send it to me?
IANAL, but I suggest that even though a human created the prompt, the courts are likely to find that the AI would have created the lyrics. That's because:
1. The ideas at the prompt aren't likely to be original; and even if they were, 2. The AI can generate hundreds of different songs from the prompt, demonstrating what makes each song original is the work by the AI, not the prompt.
In any event, it would be safest to treat AI lyrics the same as public domain lyrics.
Originally Posted by JoanneCooper
3. I use chat gpt to generate some lyrics and change them a bit (or a lot) How would they know the difference? It is just text in a notepad. It is not a picture
However, OpenAI, the company that owns ChatGPT, keep a log of your conversation history, including "your email address, device, IP address and location, as well as any public or private information you use in your ChatGPT prompts."
So if there were a lawsuit claiming that song lyrics that an author claimed to own the copyright to were actually public domain, they could be compelled to produce the AI lyrics - even if they lyrics were generate via a third party tool such as your own.
Again, IANAL, but if you wanted to use AI lyrics for inspiration, but wanted to hold the final copyright, it would make sense to keep the original version of the AI lyrics, and make sure the final version was sufficiently different.
Lennon, while critical of Harrison, was well aware of how easy it was to accidentally mimic another song: “In the early years, I’d often carry around someone else’s song in my head, and only when I’d put it down on tape — because I can’t write music — would I consciously change it to my own melody because I knew that otherwise somebody would sue me,” John said in 1980. “George could have changed a few bars in that song and nobody could have ever touched him, but he just let it go and paid the price. Maybe he thought God would just sort of let him off.”
Interesting thread. I've no opinion on the legality of ChatGPT or other ai. So, I have no comment on that aspect but regarding the thread question, here's my comment.
I wanted to see how ChatPGT compared to a fairly complex song lyric of an existing song and I queried ChatPGT to write lyrics for a song that I described the story from an original tune.
I decided to request lyrics from ChatGPT to the story in a song by singer/songwriter Guthrie Thomas of an original song of his titled, "Melissa" and compare the quality of lyrics between the two. Here are the results: My lyric request to ChatGPT: User: write song lyrics about a waitress named Melissa that travels by her older, worn out car planning to visit family for Christmas. The weather is icy and with snow fall. There's a bad auto accident on Melissa's trip home with an 18 wheeler driven by a drunk driver and Melissa is killed. There are thousands of people mourning Melissa at her funeral.
It came up with accurate lyrics but nothing as picturesque and with imagery to equal the original. I've attached lyrics from both sources of Guthrie Thomas's song, "Melissa" and ChatPGT's lyrical composition of the same story.
Nice one Charlie. You got a decent response and it may also depend on the song or how much you feed the prompt. I tried something similar (for academic purposes) by asking for some lyrics about a lady who's sure ... etc and put the entire 1st verse in and asked for the result to be influenced by LZ.
What I got back was very close to the lyrics to STH.
Very interesting, and, this copyright thing is very complex. From what I can see as a "man in the street, who obviously doesn't understand these things", is that the AI generated lyrics can't be copyrighted but an original song can be even if it includes the AI lyrics. So what's the problem if someone else wants to use the same lyrics in a different song? You still get the rights to your own song so who cares?
This is just an intermediate issue anyway because, it will only be a matter of time before anyone with no musical skill whatsoever can say something like "Give me a new Stones Album ca 1973" and get a perfect 12 track album of new songs exactly like that. Sure they can't sell it but who'd buy it anyway when they can fire off the same prompts themselves and enjoy "New" material?
Music will be produced and consumed in an entirely new way and imagine being able to bring old musicians "back to life" and enjoy even more from them than their original catalogue.
These are just my views of course, but just because we feel there is a moral sense not to do it, you can bet if there's money to be made or saved then someone will
re: this statement - "That puts them in the public domain, free to use."
I don't believe that to be the case necessarily, because if the lyrics in question were in any way derivative, there possibly could be a claim against it. Again, all of this is speculation at this point, but if (for example) you said "I want something similar to 'Help Me Make It Through The Night'", there's an argument to be made that Kristofferson's song was the "source material".
It's going to be interesting to see how it all plays out.
Also, and someone correct me on this if I'm wrong, I believe when you copyright a song that includes lyrics, there isn't a distinction between the words and music unless you file copyrights on both. In other words, if the music infringes on another work, the entire song (including lyrics) is liable.
In other words, if the music infringes on another work, the entire song (including lyrics) is liable.
Well, people who sue for infringement will claim they then own some share in the infringing song's profits. What part of the song is infringing won't matter, so it could be lyrics, melody, a bassline... whatever.
How much of the profits they feel they are due depends on different factors, but I supect it's more a function of "how much to we think we can get" rather than some actual calculation.
From what I can see as a "man in the street, who obviously doesn't understand these things", is that the AI generated lyrics can't be copyrighted but an original song can be even if it includes the AI lyrics. So what's the problem if someone else wants to use the same lyrics in a different song? You still get the rights to your own song so who cares?
The AI lyrics I’ve read would fit nicely in the Victorian era given the extraordinarily high usage of forced rhymes.
Bud
You could be onto something there Bud.
"Oh dear Queen Victoria, ruler of the throne, In this missive to you, my wit is finely honed. A jest or two, I bring forth with glee, For laughter, my dear, is the best courtesy.
And as for Prince Albert, your steadfast mate, I hear he fancies a waltz, both early and late. With a twirl and a dip, they dance with grace, A royal ballroom, a most amusing space."
By William Gladstone apparently, from the time when he fancied himself as a songwriter, but he gave up and became Prime Minister instead.
Last edited by Mike. R.; 02/01/2408:03 AM. Reason: Forgot to say, I got ChatGPT to write that.
The AI lyrics I’ve read would fit nicely in the Victorian era given the extraordinarily high usage of forced rhymes.
Bud
You could be onto something there Bud.
"Oh dear Queen Victoria, ruler of the throne, In this missive to you, my wit is finely honed. A jest or two, I bring forth with glee, For laughter, my dear, is the best courtesy.
And as for Prince Albert, your steadfast mate, I hear he fancies a waltz, both early and late. With a twirl and a dip, they dance with grace, A royal ballroom, a most amusing space."
By William Gladstone apparently, from the time when he fancied himself as a songwriter, but he gave up and became Prime Minister instead.
Originally Posted by JoanneCooper The OP wasn't discussing ai generated songs but rather ai generated lyrics. Ai is just a tool. Same as BIAB is a tool. Use it, don’t use it but don’t shoot down those who do.
I find it a bit odd that people who use machines to assist with the generation of music are so against using machines to help generate lyrics.
Actually, the Librarian of Congress ruled exactly that, an appeals court upheld it and SCOTUS has declined to take up the case. In the US, that ruling has the effect of law.
As I have posted earlier, withhout that ruling, the WGA writers's strike would not have settled. Scripts, like lyrics, are words. Congress has many bills trying to codify this ruling but there's nothing in any of these bills invalidating the concept.
In the meantime, the WGA settlement has put forward a framework on how to apply these ideas into rules that both producers and writers can use going forward. I will recommend that you read that and do some research instead of twisting what others post into things they never meant.
The only person who has suggested not using AI in the creative process is you. There's no copyright police here except in your imagination. Please stop.
BIAB 2023 Audiophile, 24/60 Core M2 Mac Studio Ultra/8TB/192GB Sonoma, M1 MBAir, 2012 MBP Digital Performer 11, LogicPro Finale27.4, Dorico5, Encore5, SmartScorePro64, Notion6, Overture5
User Video: Next-Level AI Music Editing with ACE Studio and Band-in-a-Box®
The Bob Doyle Media YouTube channel is known for demonstrating how you can creatively incorporate AI into your projects - from your song projects to avatar building to face swapping, and more!
His latest video, Next-Level AI Music Editing with ACE Studio and Band-in-a-Box, he explains in detail how you can use the Melodist feature in Band-in-a-Box with ACE Studio. Follow along as he goes from "nothing" to "something" with his Band-in-a-Box MIDI Melodist track, using ACE Studio to turn it into a vocal track (or tracks, you'll see) by adding lyrics for those notes that will trigger some amazing AI vocals!
Wir waren fleißig und haben über 50 neue Funktionen und eine erstaunliche Sammlung neuer Inhalte hinzugefügt, darunter 222 RealTracks, neue RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, "Songs with Vocals" Artist Performance Sets, abspielbare RealTracks Set 3, abspielbare RealDrums Set 2, zwei neue Sets von "RealDrums Stems", XPro Styles PAK 6, Xtra Styles PAK 17 und mehr!
Add updated printing options, enhanced tracks settings, smoother use of MGU and SGU (BB files) within PowerTracks, and more with the latest PowerTracks Pro Audio 2024 update!
Download and install this to your RealBand 2024 for updated print options, streamlined loading and saving of .SGU & MGU (BB) files, and to add a number of program adjustments that address user-reported bugs and concerns.
Did you know... not only can you download your Band-in-a-Box® Pro, MegaPAK, or PlusPAK purchase - you can also choose to add a flash drive backup copy with the installation files for only $15? It even comes with a Band-in-a-Box® keychain!
For the larger Band-in-a-Box® packages (UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, Audiophile Edition), the hard drive backup copy is available for only $25. This will include a preinstalled and ready to use program, along with your installation files.
Backup copies are offered during the checkout process on our website.
Already purchased your e-delivery version, and now you wish you had a backup copy? It's not too late! If your purchase was for the current version of Band-in-a-Box®, you can still reach out to our team directly to place your backup copy order!
Note: the Band-in-a-Box® keychain is only included with flash drive backup copies, and cannot be purchased separately.
Handy flash drive tip: Always try plugging in a USB device the wrong way first? If your flash drive (or other USB plug) doesn't have a symbol to indicate which way is up, look for the side with a seam on the metal connector (it only has a line across one side) - that's the side that either faces down or to the left, depending on your port placement.
Update your Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows® Today!
Update your Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows for free with build 1111!
With this update, there's more control when saving images from the Print Preview window, we've added defaults to the MultiPicker for sorting and font size, updated printing options, updated RealTracks and other content, and addressed user-reported issues with the StylePicker, MIDI Soloists, key signature changes, and more!
A few excerpts:
"The Tracks view is possibly the single most powerful addition in 2024 and opens up a new way to edit and generate accompaniments. Combined with the new MultiPicker Library Window, it makes BIAB nearly perfect as an 'intelligent' composer/arranger program."
"MIDI SuperTracks partial generation showing six variations – each time the section is generated it can be instantly auditioned, re-generated or backed out to a previous generation – and you can do this with any track type. This is MAJOR! This takes musical experimentation and honing an arrangement to a new level, and faster than ever."
"Band in a Box continues to be an expansive musical tool-set for both novice and experienced musicians to experiment, compose, arrange and mix songs, as well as an extensive educational resource. It is huge, with hundreds of functions, more than any one person is likely to ever use. Yet, so is any DAW that I have used. BIAB can do some things that no DAW does, and this year BIAB has more DAW-like functions than ever."
One of our representatives will be happy to help you over the phone. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday, and 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST Saturday. We are closed Sunday. You can also send us your questions via email.
One of our representatives will be happy to help you on our Live Chat or by email. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST (GMT -8) Saturday; Closed Sunday.
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean