1

There is a recent popular pop song, which I believe was created using AI.

Specifically, I believe the song was generated with a backing and a vocal, and then the vocal was rerecorded with a live singer.

If this is the case, I believe there should be no copyright available to anyone for this specific song.

On the rights holder's record company website, there are authors specified, however it does not specify the use or the non-use of AI.

Can I force the record company to declare whether this song was created with AI or not - and if it was created with AI, what the process was. Specifically, how do they justify enforcing copyright. Is there anyway for them to declare this under the threat of a civil penalty if they lie?

Improve this question
1
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Law Meta, or in Law Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.
    – feetwet ♦
    Commented Oct 1 at 17:27

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
11

One cannot force the corporation to speak about how the purported work was created.

One could seek from a court a declaration that copyright does not subsist in the work (e.g. Lin's Waha Int'l Corp. v. Tingyi (Cayman Islands) Holding Corp., 17-cv-00773 (AMD) (ST) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2018); Langman Fabrics v. Samsung America, Inc., 997 F. Supp. 479 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); Apotex Inc. v. AstraZeneca Canada Inc. (C.A.), 2003 FCA 235). One could also challenge the validity of a copyright registration with the U.S. Copyright Office.

The purported owner of the copyright may choose to defend their ownership by proving that copyright subsists in the work. In that case, the applicant would presumably learn about how the work was created. Alternatively, the owner may choose to not defend their ownership if they would rather let the declaration of invalidity be issued rather than to reveal how the work was created.

Improve this answer
2
  • 2
    Correct. Just dropping in to add that the FIrst Amendment is the reason you can't force these kinds of disclosures on artists.
    – bdb484
    Commented Oct 1 at 1:22
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Law Meta, or in Law Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.
    – feetwet ♦
    Commented Oct 1 at 17:28
1

If you believe the work is not covered by copyright due to this theory, then yes: you can "infringe" their claimed copyright, and when they sue you, they will have to provide evidence in court that they actually hold the copyright.

Of course, this assumes they don't have a basis to win the case without demonstrating that.

Improve this answer
1

Copyright can start with an AI generated part

Assume that I tell an AI model to generate a specific sound for sampling. Then I take that sound and remix it to create an actual song from the sample. Now I have taken an uncopyrightable item and heavily transformed it.

I can register that song, because it is not just an AI product, but a human author's work based on an uncopyrightable sound. And the copyright would be valid, as there is human authorship in the remixing and making of the actual sample.

Licenses for access to property can exist for non-copyrightable items!

If I generate a song and do nothing to it before publishing, then it is still my property (depending on the AI model's license. Yes, there is no copyright. However, assuming I own it, I can legally sell you a license to access the file and have in the license terms that you can't share them.

Nobody is harmed by having to acquire a license to get access to an uncopyrightable item: if an item isn't available to be enjoyed anywhere but at a specific place, you have to pay the admissions fee to get there, no matter if the item in the place is under copyright or not. You can't see the real Mona Lisa anywhere but in the Louvre, you can't hear my AI-generated song anywhere but at these services where you might either get ads or pay for no-ads.

Note that I say the license is for access, not for the item itself. I don't have a copyright in the AI song, I only have a property interest.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .