What’s the story?
The Verge published a thought-provoking piece about copyright of AI generated music. If an AI algorithm is trained on data from an existing musician and produces a new piece of music based on it, who owns it? Who has the rights? Who deserves the credit?
Can AI own copyright?
As so often, the conundrum arises from the fact that laws have been around for a long time. They therefore don’t take into account changes in technology and society. In this specific case, the main question revolves around whether only humans can hold a copyright.
The article deals specifically with music, but the same question can be asked for a range of different art forms. We have AI generated paintings. We have AI generated books and poetry. If these are based on work from existing artists and authors, at what point does it become different enough to not infringe on copyright? As the article points out, a lot of music is inspired by other music. It’s unavoidable. With certain chord sequences being particularly catchy, it’s hardly surprising that a lot of songs are basically the same. So does it matter whether songs are generated by an AI algorithm or a Pete Waterman algorithm?
The article raises some very interesting points however. As AI becomes ever better at replicating real life, producing lifelike images of people who don’t exist and videos of people saying things they never did, these questions will become increasingly pertinent.
Where to from here?
For now at least, we can enjoy a 24hr stream of AI generated death metal on Youtube, in peace.