|
Law in Contemporary Society
|
|
The Open Source Pop Star: How Grimes Shows the Way Forward for Artists in the Age of AI-- By KieranSingh2001 - 22 Feb 2024IntroductionWe expected Artificial Intelligence (AI) to replace menial labor and leave time for creative work, and yet it is replacing creative work instead of menial labor. We also expect music artists to be able to take down leaks when they happen, yet they still spread. Both phenomena are a result of denial: we ignore AI's impact on art because we don't consider it "real art," and music artists ignore leaks, possibly because they -- wrongly -- think it's feasible to take it down from the internet.Music Leaks (Real and AI)When music leaks,Music is not a secret. What is a "leak"? Music is not a commodity: how can "getting to market early" matter? Much of the music I listen to every day is centuries old. Most of the rest is folk music that has never left the public domain. How can property conceptions possibly capture in any useful way the human relationship to music? All of this stuff you are quoting is just morally repugnant and intellectually indefensible neoliberal bullshit, right?public sentiment splinters. The first camp, normally die-hard fans of the artists whose music leaked, desperately tries to hide the leaks, either by spamming search results, using social pressure to prevent other fans from listening to the leaks or talking to the posters of the leaks themselves. The second camp of people listens to the music, decides the artist made it, and gives their opinion on said leak. The third and final camp are those convinced that the songs are made using AI, overlaying the artist's voice onto the song. The debate then devolves into people who like the song arguing that it is real and those who do not arguing that it is AI. Legal SafeguardsReal LeaksA blogger was criminally charged for leaking unreleased Guns-N-Roses songs in 2015. He was sentenced to a year of probation and 2 months of house arrest. Yet, according to The Week, the criminal proceedings only amplified the existence of the leak -- and it caused more people to download the song themselves. [1] Even when these proceedings cross the line from civil to criminal, they do not fullt delete the music. Other artists have threatened legal action, though it's unconfirmed whether they'll follow through [2]AIAccording to Louis Tompros at Harvard Law, it is hard to legally justify taking down a song that uses an AI version of a singer's voice. Universal Media Group was only able to take an AI-facilitated Drake down from TikTok? due to its use of a copyrighted producer tag [4]. Moreover, arguing that the act of training the AI was a copyright violation, or arguing that the output itself is copyrighted, may be legally tenuous [4]. What Tompros proposes, rather, is using the legal right of publicity, the idea that imitating a singer and presenting a piece of media as though it was a singer's work, is illegal, at least according to California and Ninth Circuit precedent [4]. Still, this takes far longer than using the DMCA, and the songs will spread through internet in the meantime. On Youtube, but not Tiktok [5], an artist or label can request a takedown of any song that mimics an artist with AI [6]. Yet, without broader regulation, one site's policies will not do much to stem the spread of AI-covered music.What happens when they're indistinguishable?Debates over the authenticity of the music are fascinating, but the artists' predicament is more so. If a certain song is real, and from an upcoming album, and the artist or label decides to pursue a DMCA takedown of the song, it could prove the authenticity to the internet, "spoiling" the album and disincentivizing people from listening to it when it comes out. In other words, leaks may be more costly if people know that they have already heard the artists' coming release, which could happen with DMCA action. the uncertainty of AI might be an asset to artists, as the general public will not have their expectations set by the leak.Profiting From Artistic MisfortuneLicensing Your Voice -- GrimesAI?Grimes, the controversial singer, came up with a way to deal with the phenomenon of AI covers without going through complicated copyright battles, or simply rolling over and allowing unauthorized use of her voice across the internet. She allows producers to use her voice, along with a specific AI trained on it, to make music, provided she gets to keep 50% of the royalties. The producers of the song can have it published on mainstream streaming platforms, and take the other 50% of the royalties, and Grimes lets the producers keep the rights to the "underlying composition" [8]. Both the singer and the producer are incentivized to use this method through profit maximization. Philosophically, though, this method is a tacit acceptance that one has lost control of their voice. Yet, it's likely impossible to un-make AI, and certainly impossible to delete AI covers of songs from everyone's computers. Thus, this method may be the best way forward, allowing artists to profit off of most uses of their voice.Releasing Leaked MusicIn terms of authentic music, the solutions are unclear. If it's for a planned album, the artist can wait and hope the leaks don't harm the release and hype of the album. If it's scrapped music, and the artist has the rights to it, they should release it, riding the hype of the leak and allowing themselves to make royalties off of the music. It seems as though artists don't have possession over all of their unreleased music, however. Charli XCX, a pop star, tweeted in 2022 asking for a link to high-quality MP3s of a leaked album from years previous [9]. This could signal that artists don't own some of their leaked music, nor do they have access to it. If they do own the music, however, releasing it to platforms like Spotify will help them regain autonomy over their music.ConclusionArtists must operate in a world where their music, both real and AI-generated, will be leaked, with no certain way to take it down from the internet. With that in mind, they should stop trying to resist the leaks, and instead embrace them as a way to expand the reach of their music and their career, as well as their wallets.There are some very interesting ideas here, though they are somewhat hard to find amidst the confetti. "I will let you play my violin if you give me half your royalties." That's the proposition this person is offering, correct? Whatever it means to "own" the instrument, we can say for sure (1) that this is not an economically viable wheeze unless there are (a) no other violins, or (b) no royalties; and therefore (2) that this will not have the anticipated effect for the person who dreamed it up. Your reference to :"open source" in the title is ironically utterly incorrect. This person, like Elon Musk, seems not to have any understanding of how the legal and creative dynamics of free software and free culture work. This person wants to use CC-BY-NC licensing, the way so many professional photographers do, so that the products of their creation can spread widely, while keeping control over commercial exploitation. An existing legal framework exists, has proven out in large-scale artistic value creation, and is being ignored by someone whose narcissism is superior to their learning. So I think there are two independent routes to improvement, either or both of which seem promising to me. We could go back to the beginning and ask what all this "ownership of music" rubbish is about anyway, as I did in various writings from 1999-2003, including Anarchism Triumphant and the dotCommunist Manifesto, Or we could apply a little historical and legal analysis to the Creative Commons institutions, from CC Sampling to CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC, to understand the interactions you are presently observing in a less People-magazine sort of way. And we can. for Heaven's sake, get this "AI" nonsense out of the picture: it obviously doesn't matter how the samples are stitched together, right?Words:999 CitesWhy aren't these URLs just links in the text? You're making things ugly and hard for the reader when they ought to be able to click straight through to your sources from the text anchor. Look at the TextFormattingRules if you need to know how, or just use the link tool in the editor toolbar.1. https://theweek.com/articles/503661/kevin-cogill-punishing-guns-n-roses-leaker 2. https://www.stlamerican.com/arts_and_entertainment/hot_sheet/st-louisan-sza-takes-legal-action-against-suspects-who-leaked-her-music/article_9f8f9af2-b804-11ee-8140-3b28bf73f520.html 3. https://www.complex.com/music/a/complex/the-dangers-of-leaking-music-5-cautionary-tales 4. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/ai-created-a-song-mimicking-the-work-of-drake-and-the-weeknd-what-does-that-mean-for-copyright-law/ 5. https://support.tiktok.com/en/using-tiktok/creating-videos/ai-generated-content 6. https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/14/23959658/google-youtube-generative-ai-labels-music-copyright 7. https://www.404media.co/harry-styles-one-direction-ai-leaked-songs/ 8. https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2023/06/12/grimes-helps-artists-distribute-songs-using-her-ai-voice--if-they-pay-royalties-heres-how-it-works/?sh=6600499349ae 9. https://twitter.com/charli_xcx/status/1507519982225174531?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1507519982225174531%7Ctwgr%5E7b08482ed98cb5076c9895ccfca1e6566faeecfd%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgagadaily.com%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fcharli_xcx%2Fstatus%2F1507519982225174531 You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
|
|
