Udio AI Terms Of Service Exposed: Do You Legally Own AI Music?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лип 2024
- 🟡Ready to become your own record label? Get started now!:
www.topmusicattorney.com/beco...
On this segment of the Top Music Attorney Podcast, Entertainment Attorney Miss Krystle and show/music producer That Orko dive deep into Udio's Terms of Service and discussing the nuances of releasing AI music. They explore the copyright implications, DMCA takedowns, and the practicalities of filing copyrights for AI-generated compositions. Tune in for a comprehensive discussion on the impact of AI on music creation, its effects on job roles, and the evolution of music ownership in the digital age. Don't miss this exploration of whether AI is just another tool or a potential threat to artists' rights, as well as insights on the best time to explore direct-to-consumer avenues. For a thought-provoking conversation on the future of AI in music, stay tuned to the Top Music Attorney Podcast.
0:00 Introduction
00:18 Udio Generative AI Music
00:37 Releasing AI Music
01:30 Owning The Copyright of AI Music
03:44 Udio's Terms of Service
04:34 Overview of Services (Input & Output Content)
05:12 Rights To Use Your Input/Output Content
07:12 Violations & Requirements
07:48 Ownership and Content
09:05 Udio Trademark Search
12:08 Your Content
19:04 DMCA Takedowns
20:40 Filing Your Copyright With AI
22:18 Generated Output
23:27 Limitations of Liability
24:44 AI in Music
27:43 AI Music Effects In The Music Industry
29:02 Who Owns The Copyright of AI Generated Music
30:07 Choice of Law
31:11 Access To Udio
31:40 Training AI With Human Music
33:10 AI's Effect On Jobs
34:16 Opting Out of Udio
35:39 Evolution of Music
37:27 Ownership of AI Generated Music
38:00 Artists Already Emulate Other Artists' Styles, Don't They?
38:42 Is AI Just Another Tool? (Autotune, Chord Generators)
39:17 Is AI The Same As Sampling? Exploiting Artists?
40:08 Best Time To Try Direct To Consumer
40:38 Final Thoughts
Legal Disclaimer: The information, ideas, and suggestions in this video are not intended to be legal advice. Before following any suggestions contained in this video, you should consult your personal attorney. The speaker shall not be liable or responsible for any loss or damage allegedly arising as a consequence of your use or application of any information or suggestion in this video. Pursuant to the fair use doctrine under the 1978 Copyright Act, a copyrighted work owned by another may be used for criticism, commentary, news reporting, and educational purposes. The use of the livestream contained in this video falls within the fair use doctrine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
🟡Ready to become your own record label? Get started now!:
www.topmusicattorney.com/beco...
📺 Get Your Music Into Tv/Film/Games: www.topmusicattorney.com/sync
💻 #1 Resource For Artists And Producers: www.topmusicattorney.com
⚖ Hire An Attorney: www.delgadoentertainmentlaw.com
📰 Get My Newsletter: www.topmusicattorney.com/news...
📄 8 Essential Music Contracts Bundle: www.topmusicattorney.com/cont...
🎧 Listen To The TMA Podcast On All Streaming: www.topmusicattorney.com/podcast
🟢 Free Stuff: www.topmusicattorney.com/free...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOP MUSIC ATTORNEY SOCIALS
Facebook: / topmusicattorney
Instagram: / topmusicattorney
Tik Tok: www.tiktok.com/@topmusicattor...
Linkedin: / top-music-attorney-164...
Website: topmusicattorney.com/
MISS KRYSTLE SOCIALS
Facebook: / misskrystlelive
Instagram: / misskrystlelive
Tik Tok: / misskrystlelive
Linkedin: / misskrystle
Twitter: / misskrystlelive
Website: www.misskrystle.com/
Spotify: open.spotify.com/artist/1g6jA...
THAT ORKO (SHOW PRODUCER AND MUSIC PRODUCER) SOCIALS
Instagram: / thatorko
VIDEO SHOT AND EDITED BY:
Dukes Up Records
www.DukesUpRecords.com
THEME / SHOW MUSIC BY:
That Orko
#UdioTermsOfService #UdioAi #musicbusinesspodcast - Розваги
🟡Ready to become your own record label? Get started now!:
www.topmusicattorney.com/becomeyourownrecordlabel
💻 #1 Resource For Artists And Producers: www.topmusicattorney.com
⚖ Hire An Attorney: www.delgadoentertainmentlaw.com
📰 Get My Newsletter: www.topmusicattorney.com/newsletter/
📄 8 Essential Music Contracts Bundle: www.topmusicattorney.com/contractsbundle
🎧 Listen To The TMA Podcast On All Streaming: www.topmusicattorney.com/podcast
🟢 Free Stuff: www.topmusicattorney.com/free-stuff
📺 Get Your Music Into Tv/Film/Games: www.topmusicattorney.com/sync
Maybe next you can do a video on Suno.
Amazing content. You're a real one. Can you do a video on google's Ai Test Kitchen's Terms of Service?
Thank you for that.. I've already seen Videos on UA-cam that show, how to make music with Udio, and release it via Distrokid .. So, according to what I've heard now, this is illegal, already through the TOS of Udio since its restricted to non commercial purposes only. I think if people release the AI stuff on spotify etc. it'l make those platforms even worse, than they already are, because they'll be flooded with that...
Miss Krystle, legally, these companies should have to disclose the music they use to train the machine. If they don't own the rights of the training music. How can they say that the generated music is theirs? Do you think this will stand in court? I would actually be in favor of regulation to make these companies disclose this info. And royalties should be paid to original artists that the ai was trained on.
THANK YOU'... BTW now we need to Music video this
@ 2:16 it said "it will refuse to register works SOLELY generated by AI" so add your own to it
Yeah, I'm sad to see she completely missed this part of the ruling. As others in the law domain have explained, it's not as binary as laymen keep claiming. Not that I would take what she's saying as any kind of authority on the subject.
@ZyzyxVile she didn’t miss it. Did you watch the whole video?
They say that for textual works too but Amazon is awash in crappy AI generated eBooks.
We can call that the Adobe clause. Adobe paid big "lobbying" to make sure that their products weren't included in this. The line is completely arbitrary and the bureaucrats are just using it to get rid of independent and open source competition.
That is an interesting aspect. How much is needed to make it not SOLELY...?
AI won't kill bands and original music any more than Amazon killed books. At the end of the day streaming couldn't even kill vinyl, cassettes, or CDs. The technology to create realistic sounding compositions without actual instruments has been around for decades, and is widely used in pop music, but drum machines didn't make drummers obsolete, and plenty of pop songs still feature real instruments. The landscape is always changing, but change isn't death. Also, it's not the worst thing to be hanging on to "old ways." Should the day ever come, and I don't think that it will, but if it does, the last living session drummer would also be the best paid session drummer in history. Professional anachronism can be outrageously lucrative. Have no fear; there will always be a niche for your passion.
Exactely! No AI can beat a L!VEsession.
Amazon did kill many physical bookstores though, then implemented their own (but closed them as well).
It's naive to think AI won't come for music in a bigger way. And seeing how fast generative music seems to progress we're not that far away from it becoming music which humans would consider pleasant or even authentic.
@@lenni-hazels Not "Amazon" killed! We, the people did that by our choice. It is our choice either to negate the new stuff or to adopt it. And with the example of Amazon we choose to adopt it. So we, the people are the core root for all this.
A computer ain't bad actually, but some individuals use it for hacking. So it's all up to us who have a choice how we deal with the "New"...
You have lasers in health care, but one can also use it for killing. It's all about our choice how we deal with all this... It's not bad or good - it's up to us what we make out of it.
@@lenni-hazels I think generative music is already there. I can put my own lyrics in, reference a mixture of my favourite genres, and out pops *exactly* the music that I personally want to hear, better than I could have produced it manually, and the hook is often catchier than however I originally had the lyrics in my head. It's not something I want to sell, but it is custom made for me, containing a little part of me in the lyrics, so it is the most pleasant, most authentic music of all - but only for me personally.
@@lenni-hazels AI music is likely to impact some sectors more than others. Creator music will mostly be AI very soon, and this isn't actually a bad thing, imo. Pop music will never be dominated by AI. People love thier pop stars, and want to feel a personal connection with the artist. People want to see thier favorite artists in concert. People want signed vinyl. This isn't about to change. Not ever.
It is also worth noting that there are more independent book stores today than there were 15 years ago. Advances in technology always bring changes, but there are core aspects to how people consume art that cannot be unseated by technology. Thus, the fear of what could happen tends to be far worse than the actual outcomes.
I believe AI music does at least as much to empower artists as it does to hurt them. Content creators, indie film makers, EDM artists, DJ's, hip-hop artists, and anyone who creates sample-based music will benefit immensely. I know I am. As a musician who also works with samples, AI has saved my music oriented UA-cam channel o be much more viable. AI music makes it possible for me to do things I simply couldn't afford to do otherwise, and is saving me a lot of time. None of the underpaid musicians who have been featured on my channel for free will be disappointed that I no longer need them.
I suspect that most of the early adapters to AI music are probably musicians.
Thank you for enduring my verbosity, and thanks for the discussion! I appreciate you!
I write my own lyrics and use either Suno or Udio for inspiration. Kind of like the random melody generators. I then bring it into my DAW and remake the whole thing. Some songs I have hired a session singer, others I use the generated vocal or I use Kits to add a new vocal. As far as I see AI, it's a tool we can use to create with. A paint brush that has a mind of its own that the artist has to learn and struggle with to control. Interesting to see how people's attitudes towards it changes in the near term as this is the future for sure. Great topic and glad I found your channel. Cheers from Australia.
A paintbrush for artificial pop art. Great for non-art artist. In other words,very doubtful Van Gogh would use Ai.
@@stingylizard I wonder what painters used before the invention of the "Paint Brush". A chewed up piece of wood perhaps. Wonder how the then painters felt about this new stick of wood with a trimmed horse tail on it? Van Gogh was missing an ear but I'd say now days, he's missing a finger or 10 to press any buttons :) Had to throw that in lol.
@@drewbuckleymusic Excellent points. He was missing more than his ear,I reckon! Van Gogh using Ai instead of a real brush? We'll never know but I doubt it. I mean,I use drum loops like a temp track,then record real drums and delete the loops. As an artist,the real drums duplicate what I hear and feel inside. It's not negoitiable-
I do the same , HAHAHA that's why i still support A.I. , is the infinite endgame for ideas...
I agree, its an interesting way to even further detatch inspiration from biased origins...
I was blown away that Udio can actually make good songs, voices, progressions, drops, etc.
There is a reason that artists like Common and Will I Am are top investors in the creation of Udio.
Technology in music has always been progressing throughout human history.
This current argument is eerily similar to when artists started suing producers for sampling in 1990.
Somehow we all found a way to progress past that.
We will find a way through this also.
I agree. I think when people start to understand the process involved to shape the result an artist is looking for and also how hard and frustrating and time consuming that process is, they will change their current view.
@@drewbuckleymusic what do you mean? I tried it and it couldn’t be more simple. My grandma could do it. My little sister could do it. Is it frustrating because it’s not doing what you want? People aren’t going to respect it just because the thing doesn’t do what you want… That’s actually why they won’t respect it. You’re just rolling the dice and having it generate some stuff, with little to no input.
Of course they invest in it, their whole careers are based on stealing other people music...
Also consider this in less than 100 years population on Earth doubled...
@@RubenMillsOfficial You are right , but that is only true for a starting point. To make a whole functional and good sounding track from start to finish without chirping/artifacts etc. it is very time consuming. I already tried that for myself and I was really surprised how much time it took to really get something which is consistent in quality, loudness, and stereo imaging.
@@RubenMillsOfficial It’s the people who have no creative bone in their body who are pretending prompting is an “art form.” They’re desperate to be seen as a musician/composer with zero discernible talent.
So for the songs that can be remade by someone else, it's when you put your songs as public is when that happens. There is a remix button for any song shared publicly. They can't see what isn't shared publicly and since there isn't a way to upload reference tracks, there isn't an easy way to directly copy people. If you take a song/beat made in Udio, Use Rip Daw to take it apart and add instruments, use Scenario to replace your singing with an ai voice, and then use Landr to master and distribute it, how can it still not be your own music. Look how many tools and steps this takes to make a song and they say it isn't art.
The upload function is at the bottom of the screen on the customise options. I haven't tried it yet although I have some very old painful electronic noise tracks that I'm tempted to see what it does with.
It doesn’t matter how many steps you’ve made. You still didn’t write anything.
@@user-vy9ll3jl3v you input your own lyrics into both udio and suno. What it generates is pretty cookie cutter. If you put in the lyrics or have it make a beat, then you write to the beat, enter the written lyrics, regenerate until you get a cadence or style that you like, and you build the entire song, then export it, rip it apart, add instruments, vocals and harmonies then Al master it, how is that any different than what a ghost writer does? Or the Written By person? Or people who literally make reference tracks where the known artist is basically doing a cover of an unknown artists song they paid for? People are trying to be purists as though there is some rush to buy most peoples art and music. The world is changing. Adapt or be obsolete. The new wave is saving thousands of dollars and doing most of the work yourself and taking it to a pro AT THE END for extra. Not paying someone else's rent in order to please an AI purist
@kingseanthefirst If someone doesn’t agree with you, it doesn’t make them AI purists. Your assumptions are unfounded. I just said that in your first comment all of those steps had nothing to do with art (an art of playing a constructor - maybe) and creation of a song. If you write your own lyrics and add additional melodies - yeah, fine, but you still haven’t wrote any music if you didn’t write it. Surprise-surprise.
The main difference with ghost writing is that ghost writer won’t sell you the melody he already sold someone else, while AI can do it occasionally. Also I don’t know why you believe that ghost writing is a common thing. It’s not. Though I guess it depends on what type of music you’re listening.
Comparing making a composition based on a reference track with cover songs is a huge stretch and profanation.
@@user-vy9ll3jl3vSure you did if you used your own lyrics. You have to say you used their AI service somewhere in any title or description like, c'reated with" or "music from" their site name.
To argue that a human using AI software to create a song is still considered the creator under copyright law, you could focus on several key points:
1. Human Direction and Control: Emphasize that the human is directing the AI, making key creative decisions, and using the AI as a tool rather than the AI autonomously creating work. The human sets parameters, inputs initial data, and adjusts or modifies the output, which underlines human authorship.
2. AI as an Instrument or Tool: Argue that AI is analogous to a musical instrument or a computer program used in the creation of digital art or music. Just as a guitar doesn’t create music without a guitarist or Photoshop doesn’t create art without an artist, AI does not create music independently but functions under human control.
3. Integration of Human Creativity: Highlight how the human integrates their own creative expressions, styles, and decisions throughout the creation process. This can include writing lyrics, composing melodies, or even modifying and selecting AI-generated options that best express the intended artistic vision.
4. Legal Precedents and Interpretations: Refer to existing legal frameworks where tools and technologies are used to create copyrighted works. You could argue for a similar interpretation of AI in the context of digital and multimedia creations, where the technology assists in the creative process but does not replace the human creator.
5. Purpose of Copyright Law: Discuss the intent behind copyright law, which is to promote creativity and protect the rights of creators. Emphasizing that involving AI in the creative process can enhance human creativity and does not diminish the originality of the human artist could support the case for human authorship.
6. Authorship Attribution: Make a clear distinction between the AI generating raw material under human guidance and the human making final judgments about what to include, how to structure, and how to present the final work. This final decision-making process can be critical in establishing human authorship.
By focusing on these aspects, you can make a strong argument that the use of AI in song creation is an extension of human creativity and should be considered under existing copyright laws protecting human authors.
Case Closed,Pin this comment.
This is an excellent comment--one which indicates a much more comprehensive understanding of what the laws actually say, than what's "explained" in this contradictory clusterf*ck of a video..
And in a comment I wrote above, adding to your #6, the corpus curator knows what he trained the AI model with. Hence, in an AI music world we can discover all the authors to grant attribution. So it's not like we don't know who to pay royalties to, if that is the problem. Let's engage in a polemic about how we would like to engineer a metric for practically computing royalty fractions. Such discourse would likely resolve with a system that is more fair than the present situation, where absolutely everybody borrows and rarely acknowledges it in pursuit of so-called "original content".
@@Ohio-Sigma-Cat-Boss She won't. Of course.
This comment is GPT generated. I clearly recognize the style
while its not so advanced autotune uses ai for pitch correction which is used extensively on popular singers voices.
curious how this effects the copywrite / protectability of song released with the use of autotune? i doubt they would have declared the use of AI when copywriting it.
a really interesting discussion. Would love to see a comparison/contrast to Suno's TOS, I wonder in what ways their approach differs or is the same.
Udio is still Beta and free to use. This may change to be something similar to that of Suno, where free use gives copyright to Suno and the subscriber/paid use gives copyright to the subscriber. Let's see!
Suno terms say the same. Not for commercial use. There terms are most stricter than Udio. They're basically using us the consumer/artists to create prompts to generate music so that they can build a database machine that they could eventually sell for billions of dollars or just a tool in their process.
In todays world "you will own nothing and be happy about it"
I love that you're covering this! Thank you!
Let's goooo 🔥
Excellent research, info, analysis & discussion - really useful, thank you!
You are super thorough yet super easy to listen to and understand. Easy to look at as well.
The thing about music is that every key, chords and scales are the only tools to create music so there's no choice but to do something that have been done before, only the rhythm and the arrangements changes. So automation can also make original arrangements and rhythms. And we can also use the original automation to sample and manipulate and make it your own.
Omg you gonna use that comment fo lyrics right.. Wooo
@@AMPProf Heh.
Tbh A.I music makes me womder if the past decade I've dedicated to music is worthless in the long run. But I can honestly say I do and will always own 100% of my works or 100% of my publishing. I hate what A.I. will become so much. Anyway, great breakdown. Thank you 🙏
AI will become your amazing assistant that can generate from known material but cannot be truly creative. You can look forward to becoming much more productive and efficient with AI tools.
No.. Simply Break down the Ai processes given, jack i. Your mind and Flyy..
Also you can hook brainwave to ai soo... MAYBE robots will dance befor they eat us
@@jschudel777 not really, there's not much AI can do for me as an artist.
I was in the AMA with the founders yesterday and they are working on adding midi files, stems and download in WAV format.
FINALLY ,, yee haww now I needva brain wave input.. Resitance ant musical
Thank you for your research and all the valuable information.
Works great as ride share playlists, people seem to enjoy it, and I'm fine with acknowledging that it is AI generated, and that I have written lyrics for some pieces _ This is so new and interesting, we'll have to see how rights law developes as use cases proliferate
Thank you for this information and insight!
Appreciate you being here!
@@TopMusicAttorneyLook at these artists. Are they aware if . This company could move to a country without copyright laws.😂
@@TopMusicAttorneyImagine 2030. We don't need Music producer anymore. I just ask my phone . I want the music to be about me becoming a billionaire In pop style.
In 2 seconds AI creates Music just for myself. According to my favorite style. Song by a singer I like. And the song is about me becoming a billionaire
@@TopMusicAttorney Thankyou for this info! Difficult to get straight answers on these subjects.🙏
Question: What does opting out actually do? And what are the pros and cons of opting out? Thank you!
We've been so duped its unreal.
Gone are the days where it meant anything to do anything. Now lets just sit back and let the world run..
When the consumer has lost their discernment and its all about the finished 'product' then its over
.. yes today there are discerning customers.. but will there be tomorrow.. and the entities that are rolling all this out ... Are they even one bit concerned?
MGMT just released an album. You should listen to it.
This was very informative thank you ^^.
Since I have been testing out Udio for a bit.
I was wondering though, what does the (Opt-Out to not be bound by the arbitration provisions mean?) Mentioned at 34:20min into the video.
I read the license agreement on their website, but are still not sure on it.
Should you Opt-out in their license? Is that more beneficial for the user or should you not do it?
I am a bit confused on that topic and some insight to simplify it would be very much appriciated =).
Thanks for covering this topic
Until now I was not aware of the existence of these services. I learned them from you and I intend to use them. Thank you :)
You're welcome! What are you currently working on at the moment? Please feel free to email me directly at krystle@topmusicattorney.com.
Thank you for this because I’m researching what the copyright laws are for a mini essay I’ve got to write. Particularly, I wonder if AI-generated music will replace stock music, film music and background musics for social media as DMCA claims are brutal. The copyright free musics on youtube such as NCS are so overused that it becomes cringey to watch UA-camrs that use those tracks; so I wonder if everyone will opt for AI-music instead. I’ve tried that out when live-streaming on twitch and its been successful.
major companies are already adopting it into their productions, my day job is in advertising, it's been incorporated for a bit. Imagery, video soon, and music has already been integrated. I have no doubt the sync artists will feel the impact soon if they don't adapt a bit.
@@tomtom-dz7jf Thank you for your input! Sync artists are definitely in trouble. I wonder if they’ll start claiming the tiniest of melodies or samples that sound similar to AI generated music because you can’t copyright AI if it was trained on their data. You’re gonna need to give them royalties if your music accidentally infringed when using it in a film / game / ad
Where they could go with this.. They are following how Midjourney trains their AI, by permitting people to vote for songs that are published.. In that the AI model can be adjusted to create renderings that are more favorable to the general public without much of a prompt, the way midjourney can. And when you interact with it, just by interacting with it there, it can learn your preferences and apply them on every song you make, such as how long you prefer to make songs, what genres, it can develop AI embeddings which are combination of tokens that you tend to use together which can imply the closest style and combinations of artists that represent that combined genre or selected genre.. And it can weight you preferences with the public, possibly even choose based on the freedom given to UDIO to select the style versus the original seed you rendered. Others can also ttake your seed if you publish it, the first 30 seconds and remix it so they can replicate the same style.. I have 6 such seeds that cover a multitude of british punk styles from elvis costello to the clash .. And I’m going to make more. cause I don’t give a care about who it affects, I think consumers have lost ccontrol of their countries, and the corporations need a ass kicking.
FINALLY AN ATTORNEY ON THIS!
THANK YOU!
Mubert was soo odd about their monetization process, but they informed me why which makes sense but forgot the main aspects of it. I think it's how they source their generation and how the music industry still has a stronghold or something.
Your explanation was awesome and pragmatic! Loved it so much! Thank you!
The DMCA issue is pretty obviously for input content. A perfect example is Jessie from the Synch My Music podcast to past copyrighted lyrics into Udio and then download the MP3s because Udio takes them down in support of the DMCA takedown process.
It's a giant sample creator. Once you stem the output it becomes sample city and "catch me if you can!" sampling from the old days.
Very helpful, thanks.
Great topic to cover. Thank you! Super interesting.
Thank you so much cause legalese just goes over my head. I play music. I have fun and glad I do not rely on my music for any monetization : just do it for fun and I have been doing this for 55 years.
Thank you for all this. Its both inciteful and informative. ✨✨🎶🎶🎸🎸🎧🎧
You can add lyrics there
Lol I was actually going to do a video going through the terms of service on this lolol. I appreciate you tho! Thank you because you did this 10000x better than me
can't thank you enough,, for this , ,through,, breakdown,,- as i type,, we're past the point u mentioned .. i have uploaded, audio & vocals to both udio & suno - and the results are pretty bonkers,- so we're there-,, the time u took to go thru all the points,,- ,, so Very appreciated,,- i'm a fan-,,
Hi Krystle, this is great information. What if a I use udio for just the music and I write the lyrics, would the split be 50/50?
There's a button that says publish doesn't automatically publish which is good and as u were saying input j got the thought of what if we input a web link or UA-cam link in the prompt for guidance wonder if would work I know others mentioned soon will br able to upload reference links mp3 etc and other music big names and people have invested ton of money so things will come to light soon. Best place for all updates is X in my opinion for these tools to stay up to date. Thanks for this video def key to all in AI music world ❤
This is excellent and thorough. Much appreciated. Curious...at the end of the video you talk about how musicians already use AI in software such as chord generators. So, Logic Pro 11 just came out with some new features. Specifically, a new AI session bassist and session keyboard player can follow your recorded parts. So with what you said about disclosing the parts of a song made by AI to keep the US copyright office from nullifying or dissolving your copyright protection, would that software need to be disclosed when filing?
Thank you so much for watching be sure to let us know your thoughts on AI generation in music and what other topics you think we should cover on the channel.
🙌
Thank you for doing this video
Thanks for the video 17:44 If we do not upload any content but only use the ones provided by the platform, do we have all the necessary rights for commercial purposes?
Just adding some background: Udio Australia is a booking, scheduling, invoicing service for (amongst others), tennis coaching, dance schools, gym & fitness, schools, education. That looks like something completely different from the AI version of Udio and don't directly see a (ownership) link.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
[00:13] 🤔 Copyright ownership of AI-made music: Big questions about AI learning from human-made stuff and if it grants copyright protection.
[01:37] 🚫 Copyright office says AI-generated works (music, videos) lack copyright protection due to missing human authorship.
[02:06] 🤖 US copyright law requires original human work for copyright ownership, and AI is currently excluded.
[04:25] 📝 Udio users provide "input content" (prompts, lyrics, audio files) to the platform.
[04:54] 🎧 Udio generates "output content" (sound recordings, music, lyrics, text).
[05:21] 🤝 Udio's terms grant them rights to use both input and output content to improve their services.
[06:03] ⚠️ Udio users can download and use other users' output for personal, non-commercial purposes only (with their consent).
[07:56] 🚫 You don't own the AI-generated content on Udio even if your prompts and ideas led to its creation.
[08:36] ⚠️ Udio claims ownership of the platform's look and feel, graphics, logos, and any technology used for output.
[09:06] 🔍 Udio is a registered trademark in Delaware, potentially making it harder to find out who owns the company.
[09:50] ⚠️ Another company also owns the trademark "Udio" in the same class (42), potentially causing legal issues.
[10:32] 🇦🇺 The owner of the Udio trademark we're discussing might be based in Australia (Udio Systems LTD Proprietary Limited Company).
[11:28] 🆕 Udio is a new company, having only recently filed for their trademark in March 2024.
[12:21] 💻 Users might be able to upload their own content (beyond prompts) to the Udio platform in the future.
[12:48] 🤝 Udio does not claim ownership of the content users upload onto the platform.
[13:30] ✅ Users can use the AI-generated music they create for personal and commercial purposes (including selling it).
[14:24] ⚠️ Udio may require certain license rights to user content for operating the services without legal violation.
[15:08] 🧠 Udio can use user content to improve and promote their services, including training their AI.
[15:48] 📢 Udio can promote user-generated content, potentially leading to a lack of complete privacy.
[16:03] 🔁 Udio can reproduce, publish, and distribute user content based on the input and for AI improvement.
[16:43] ⚠️ Users must credit Udio publicly if they use the platform to create music.
[17:12] 📢 Udio reserves the right to repost user-generated content and create derivative works.
[17:40] ⚠️ Users are responsible for ensuring they have all necessary rights to the content they use with Udio.
[18:37] 🤝 Users are required to credit Udio for the creation of any music made using the platform.
[19:19] 🛡️ Udio has DMCA takedown procedures in place to protect themselves from copyright claims.
[19:48] 🤔 The originality of AI-generated music and the training data it uses is a point of contention.
[20:15] ⚠️ Udio may integrate user-uploaded content with AI in the future, potentially impacting copyright.
[21:10] 🏛️ Copyright law requires disclosing AI use in copyright filings. Failure to do so can lead to registration revocation.
[21:51] 🔍 There are tools emerging to detect AI-generated content, potentially impacting copyright claims.
[22:19] ⚠️ Udio disclaims guarantees on the uniqueness of AI-generated content.
[22:47] ⚠️ AI-generated music might not be unique, potentially leading to copyright disputes.
[23:16] ⚖️ Udio limits its liability in case of legal disputes, potentially hindering users from recovering damages.
[24:49] 🤖 The rise of AI in music creation raises concerns about the future of human creativity in the industry.
[25:17] 🤔 The rapid integration of AI into various aspects of life necessitates ethical and legal considerations.
[25:45] ⚖️ Copyright ownership of AI-generated music with user input becomes complex and depends on the nature of the input.
[26:57] ⚠️ AI-generated music might not be a sustainable long-term business strategy due to copyright limitations.
[27:23] ❌ Using AI-generated music commercially becomes problematic due to difficulties in copyright enforcement.
[27:53] ⚖️ Existing copyright laws might need to adapt to the evolving landscape of AI-generated music.
[28:20] 📈 The rise of AI in music creation is likely to lead to a surge of AI-generated content and increased market saturation.
[29:03] 🤔 The legal ownership of creative outputs generated by non-human entities like AI remains an open question.
[29:43] ⚖️ Copyright law is currently designed for human authorship, potentially excluding AI-generated content.
[29:57] 🎤 Human performance and creativity are likely to remain valued aspects of the music industry.
[30:12] ⚖️ Udio's terms of service specify New York law to govern potential legal disputes.
[31:06] 🤔 The accessibility of AI music creation tools raises concerns about potential legal gray areas and copyright infringement.
[31:48] ⚠️ Uploading user-generated content to Udio may grant the platform rights to use that content and potentially share it with others.
[32:55] ⚠️ Using AI-generated music stems might be difficult to trace in copyright infringement cases.
[33:09] 🎹 The rise of AI music creation could negatively impact the job market for musicians.
[33:37] 🎶 AI music generation has the potential to disrupt various aspects of music production, including songwriting and scoring.
[34:03] 🌎 The widespread adoption of AI music creation tools is likely to significantly alter the music industry.
[34:18] ️ Udio offers a 30-day window for users to opt out of the platform's arbitration provision in the terms of service.
[37:17] ⚠️ AI-generated music itself is not copyrightable under current law, but user-created music incorporating AI elements might be.
[37:43] ⚠️ Copyright ownership of music that merges AI-generated elements requires disclosing the AI use during copyright registration.
[38:13] 🤔 AI music creation can be seen as an extension of existing artistic practices like emulating successful styles.
[38:41] 🤔 AI music generation tools have the potential to function as creative tools alongside existing music production tools.
[39:22] 🤔 Sampling and covering music raise similar ethical questions about artistic ownership as AI-generated music.
Made with HARPA AI
It started out sounding like another attack on the AI tools, but in the end, I appreciated the more open nature of the discussion into more of real advice for using it.
My eldest brother is a bank lawyer my middle brother works with AI and Embedded Cellular technologies, he has a patent in adhoc secure communications in a battlefield.. And I have a computer science degree 9 credit hours short of a double major in the fine arts. I use both sides of the brain, but the brain myth of that gemini says is a myth that the brain actually uses both sides regardless of your creativity or analytical ability or capacity to write with tuned literacy. I’ll use a LLM if I need people to understand me..
@TopMusicAttorney thank you for the channel topic ✌🏻 let’s walk through something (1) would a Music Sync Library be more or less likely to PAY for AI-generated tracks? I mean it does avoid clearance hassles or similar AI content (if) it has never been Published on the platform (thus allowing others to create derivatives). (2) at some point major labels attnys are likely to use the same spectral analysis to protect the unique spectral fingerprint (say vocals identical to Taylor Swift) (3) those same powerful firms could lobby the PTO to allow humans to submit spectral fingerprints as new form of protection(not a copyright work of art) but something different 🤷♂️?
Those tools, are perfect as reference tracks. Though regarding A.I vocals, you can tweak it so much that it'll sound real.
My publishers are currently tracking and combating all of this. I receive updates every few months about AI and law implementation into my music royalties. I work with four publishers. 😂 I believe the only way to combat this as an artist is through your image. Really ask yourself: do you have a following? Are people waiting for your next track? If there is a demand for you or your band, then you will be fine in your creations because people will want to hear whatever it is you are putting out next. But if you have nothing, no demand, and you are just trying to win over fans starting from scratch, then you are in for a hell of a tough battle.
Whats the risk and benefit of opting out?
You are on your game....this is in my opinion the most relevant legal video in the realm of music living on the interwebs right now ( I'm not even exaggerating). I was enamered with one of your other videos, and then I searched your videos for AI. I was pleasantly surprised that you were already engaged and had created a video on this topic. This video is really ahead of the curve, and people need to understand all of these AI services. Still use it if you'd like, but understand where it stands within the law. Also, personally there is something special that comes to reality when you can add your own energy to the music that you involve yourself in...and not just accepting a mediocre/above average product from another entity.
Awesome work with this video, and I agree with the court precedent(s) that you brought in your video briefly. I feel like I can comfortably bet that every video I watch of yours....I will absolutely learn something new. Isn't it great to learn something new everyday?
To clarify a couple of things, re input, if you input lyrics you have written you own the copyright to those lyrics protected under standard law. Also if you generate music other users can only use it if you publish it through Udio making it available on their platform. If you keep it set to private no others users have access to your input or output. To clarify they have a Publish button, if you do not publish on Udio your work remains private and not (posted). At least this is what I understand. Have I got this correct?
interesting and very informative, good stuff
Making music using Udio with your own lyrics is like photography and traditional songwriting is like painting where you engineer and execute the whole idea. With Udio you put in your lyrics just like you point your camera with intent and it gives you a series of shots and you picked the best ones to develop.
Interesting stuff. Thank you. 😊
It now allows input of audio files!
Thank you. Just opted out
Thanks. BTW, you can now upload audio files to Udio.
its not 'learning' and 'creating'. its simply complex algorithms created by humans that download released music, split it into stems and recombine them in different ways based on the prompts.
So when and AI is trained, that data is considered derivative as it is trained on copyrighted materials, but when it's output via generation doesn't is start to become "transformative" especially if you adjust or write the lyrics yourself. For instance, if I wrote my own lyrics and the AI is simply performing "my lyrics" would that be enough to be considered mostly my content other than the music and the voice, not only belonging to me but creating something transformative enough that it is in fact my content. Or does the music arrangement hold it back from being completely mine, and is this like split ownership kinda situation? Also, what if I use my lyrics, but then only use the music udio generates as an inspiration to create my own live version of the musical arrangement which sounds similar to the generated but with noticeable changes (mainly to fix the weird AI hiccups and mistakes). Now that I think of it, maybe I should rethink passing my lyrics through it, or maybe make sure it's copyrighted beforehand right? I have two tracks I wrote but used the AI to perform it, they are both being copyrighted, the lyrics, but I can't copyright the music part correct? And udio can't sell my copyrighted input if I understood you correctly.
Thanks.
You got it. Thanks for being here
best thing about udio and suno is, you can create music you like creating, and then use that AI music, to influence and shape your songs instead of using traditional methods which could lead you to the courtroom.
The other issue I see that needs to be hashed out is whether they are tech companies or music producers.
The way the laws and Udio's terms of service are set up, you're basically giving Udio content to use for free later in the capacity that they are a music publisher. It's not copyright eligible to a creator, but they reserve the right to use any and all content as they decide to do so. Really, that's pretty fair since their tech is a big part of what makes the output sound so good.
Their subscription based business model is built around the idea of their output being part of "your" creative tool kit. However, can you actually use the content from their ai in your content bag? For example, when uploading a song for streaming, who is the composer? No composer, then it breaks the tracking model for royalties. Some platforms won't even take them. This is something everyone in the music industry should be protecting because it essentially keeps music easier to access and ensures proper payment for work.
If you pay money to their service in order to create songs they have the sole ability to monetize, why not just have them do it themselves? If I am paying you to create songs for you, that's not a great service to be selling. My opinion, at least.
The terms say you can monetize this music. To effectively monetize these songs you have a part of creating, they have to be able to basically disclaim their role as a composer in the music. Otherwise, you are basically paying to be part of their monetization machine with no real benefit to yourself for helping generate their music.
If they want to be a tech company, acknowledge we own the songs and they get the ai algorithm to sell to people to create their own music. If you want to be a music producer, just make the songs yourself and sell the actual output as a finished product they can stick the royalty on.
I feel like the ai tools only work most effectively if we acknowledge the role of human input into the ultimate output. Also, it just makes it clear and clarified for tracking each person's role in this creative process. That's essentially my point.
I suppose it's up to them which route to take that. I believe they will be successful either way they go. I'd pay them to be part of my creative toolkit right now. But whether or not I'd pay to access a catalog of songs made solely by an ai without any of my own creative prompts or input, that's probably not there yet with the current state of their output.
By breaking into two distinct categories, I think this tech will ultimately be more successful in the long run for all parties involved.
(Question) Wouldn't For copyright registration purposes Udio and Suno Ai be similar to using instruments or software sound generators like Arpeggiators, Synthesizers etc and other music and sound generators the same as Udio which spits out arranged sound patterns to generate the music. And that doesn't stop or take away the ability to copyright music. To me it is no different. So we are directing or programing and arranging it with Udio so Udio is just like using a software incrementation Application to create and AUTHOR Music.
I would think so. Obviously the AI Model was created learning from a history of music so a generation run may consist of for example, the kick from song A, the snare from song Y, the high hat from song N, a synth from song G etc. The composition is completely different and dependant on how you prompt which I believe is the difference from the bright and shiny people who are excited that they clicked a button and have something they can tap their toes to and those who have learned how to bend it to get the results they want and delete the hundreds of runs that are not good. For me rebuilding in my DAW and changing it is part of the creative process. I also have songs created entirely by myself with my own vocals but like any artist, we are influenced by what what we hear and like. I'd say there's no difference.
You don't type prompts into a synth and it spits out a melody, you have to create the sound you want and then play the music yourself, it is your own music, AI generated is not.
To the person replying, AI doesn't piece together kicks and snares it pieces together drum pattern loops that an artist made and that's why it can spit out similar music for multiple people using AI generated music.
All AI will do is create a huge amount of fake artists who all sound the same.
@@OldGamer-Plays that's not true it prices together wave patters just like the pressing of a key or turning of a knob just in a different way. By predicting random patterns and piecing it together. Just like a person composing music out of many parts of sound. Of coarse i am not trying to downplay the Art of musicianship or production. They said the same thing about sampling, yet they found a way to compensate the rights owner. Same should and will happen to rights owners today with NIL Name Image and Likeness. I think it just came out of nowhere and the industry wasn't prepared for it. so rightfully panic set in.. Some synthesizers, arpeggiators and sound generators musicians have used to make music has no input but the turning of nobs and those were not refused copyright. Its simply the threat of completion and the fact that Ai can and will do it better. I get it but this cant be stopped. the cat is out the bag. This happens about every generation. Like, Napster, Digital Downloads , Streaming etc...People can and will need to adjust.
@@YaKUZZiGirlWorldwide That's not true, it takes samples from other peoples work, that's why the resulting output song has similarities for other people, they even mention this in the small print. Typing stuff in to get a result from a limited library of sounds is not the same as making real music yourself, stop trying to convince yourself this AI is good, it's trash just like every video that uses AI narrator on youtube it's annoying trash that makes every channel feel like the same channel. You mention arpeggiators, you still need to create the sound in the synth to run through it, this doesn't compare with AI where all your samples are dragged from other peoples work online, people are making money off of this off of real artists and they're not getting paid for it, I'm sorry but I will never support this.
You also mention Napster they got shut down for allowing people to download full songs and albums for free, this was also harming the music industry and eventually had to create a store front I believe, to sell music instead of giving it away, the same thing will most likely happen with AI music generators, but it wont change how FAKE artists still all sound the same and you will be paying for this trash.
That's not true, it takes samples from other peoples work, that's why the resulting output song has similarities for other people, they even mention this in the small print. Typing stuff in to get a result from a limited library of sounds is not the same as making real music yourself, stop trying to convince yourself this AI is good, it's trash just like every video that uses AI narrator on youtube it's annoying trash that makes every channel feel like the same channel. You mention arpeggiators, you still need to create the sound in the synth to run through it, this doesn't compare with AI where all your samples are dragged from other peoples work online, people are making money off of this off of real artists and they're not getting paid for it, I'm sorry but I will never support this.
You also mention Napster they got shut down for allowing people to download full songs and albums for free, this was also harming the music industry and eventually had to create a store front I believe, to sell music instead of giving it away, the same thing will most likely happen with AI music generators, but it wont change how FAKE artists still all sound the same and you will be paying for this trash.
" the fact that Ai can and will do it better."
Yes AI not the talentless person typing stuff in thinking they are the creators.
Thanks!
You got it. Thanks for being here
Those that build, train, and deploy their own AI Models optimized for creating music, literature, or art based on one of Tianqi Chen's three machine learning algorithms, Apache TVM, an Automated End-to-End Optimizing Compiler for Deep Learning, XGBoost, a scalable tree boosting system, or Apache MXNet(co-creator), which 80% of the AIs in the world today are comprised of, do not need to worry about the terms of service of any service provider, be it, Udio, ChatGPT, or Dall-E.
I am a lyricist. So I will not be using Udio for any lyrics. I personally feel that AI or even chat gpt can't match the inspired work of an original artist. But I need to have clarity of my rights. So the AI is a framework to showcase or demo my lyrics, and the backing track is the disposable part which a producer could replace with their own unique track.
Tbh I wouldn't be producing my songs without AI backing. My lyrics would be sitting unused in a digital cupboard somewhere rotting away. So at least I'm getting stuff out.
So it seems you can use it for commercial purposes with attribution, but what if the platform you want this on is audio-only like on a radio station or for commercial audio ads? Like you can't give credit on something like that can you?
I wonder if there's a terms of service difference between suno and udio specifically buying the one year 96.00 membership at the beginning of song Creation With My Own lyrics and directing suno as singer and music style in several parts till done.
It lets you write lyrics and it generates top lines and instrumentals as well as generates other things
Very very interesting. Subscribed!
"I like to be a stalker and find out who owns the company"
Nice.
This is *exactly* what you want from any attorney you work with haha.
9/10 context & info change how you feel about a company.
It's an interesting and complex topic. Here are a few key points:
- Under current copyright law, AI-generated content is not eligible for copyright protection as it lacks human authorship.
- However, you can legally use and commercially exploit AI-generated music as per Udio's terms of service.
- But you don't truly own the copyright, which could limit your ability to enforce rights or resell the work long-term.
- Incorporating some human-made elements could help secure partial copyright, but full AI tracks are ineligible.
- The ethical waters are murky - is using AI just an evolution of tools like sampling? Or is it exploiting human creativity without consent?
The technology is developing rapidly, so direct-to-fan models embracing transparent human authorship may become appealing as AI music proliferates. Ultimately, the law will likely need to evolve to address these complexities.
"Under current copyright law, AI-generated content is not eligible for copyright protection as it lacks human authorship". Never been a fan of the current copyright system, it's flawed but I regress. I don't think the copyright issue should matter, since there is a timestamp upon creation, which in my opinion should be grounds enough to verify ownership in any situation. Anything digital really shouldn't need any "copyright" there is no need for it, proof of ownership is so easily provable, it's not even funny. If they keep enforcing that it be registered to offer protection and not identifying the Digital files creation ids or timestamps for proof of ownership than than the system proves it's just about the $ and not actually following or creating laws that actually matter, or in the best interest of any creator. Cause this isn't like creating a song in a garage or basement somewhere and a group of people arguing who wrote it, there is no discussion on when, who, where something like this can be created.
@@tomtom-dz7jf While AI-generated music raises interesting copyright questions, I appreciate the nuanced discussion and insights shared here. As with any new technology, there are opportunities and challenges to navigate. Maintaining a direct connection with fans and being transparent about AI involvement could be a smart approach for artists as this landscape continues to evolve.
@@tomtom-dz7jf funny It still considered ai work if you write the the lyrics your self by that logic and by that it has human authorship it seems
I know this video isn’t about Suno, but my friend makes music and they say you have to pay to commercially sell your music but that makes no legal sense if no one owns the copyright of the song they do they have the right in illegal sense to touch your music or take it downif no one owns the copyright
If as song is created on Udio, and and an artist decides they want to make their own recording how would it work? Does the creator own the music without copyright? Or does the creator only own the generated file?
So the fact that it states “it will refuse to register works SOLELY generated by AI” makes the outputs a starting point for an artist to use as there own but the next statement “any materials which is not the product of human authorship must be disclaimed” doe this removes the previous collaborative option? Or would it still stand since the creator made something new from mixing in AI components? If you bought a beat the source of if a human made that is in question because it’s a “thread” of the “blanket” you “crochet”?
That guy didn't seem to be listening to what you're saying. Your message is good for real musicians.
Off topic: Can you do a video on posting concert footage?
Just a thought, just like other AI generators, they are fed data, in this case, I'm sure they are training this ai with real music. If this is the case, these companies do not have the rights to the music they use. I think the solution would be for these companies to disclose what data they use to train their AI. The question is, do they have the rights to the music they use? They should pay out royalties
Thank you for your superb video.
A simple question: If I create a song with a Udio prompt, am I the owner, can I add my ISRC number to this same song.
Another small detail: I live in France.
Thank you for your reply.
US copylaws must be different, our law states, any creator is automatically the owner, and no registration is needed therefore. we still have patent offices and processes, those provide only services to check you are the only holder. this works great in some spaces, but most is public domain.
Thank you !
@TopMusicAttorney ...this video was shared on SooNO on offtopic to start discussion and got great engagement only to see a moderator go irate and punish the poster for it...even had a post about youtube's new ai rules get deleted! People are realizing that ai generated music is being frowned upon and even though can be claimed as your work it's value becomes zero because an ai generated it... worse yet music distributors will reject it once they know from registered copyright it was ai generated....
So what I'd, we copyright the prompt we imputed that the AI used to create whatever was created?
If*
This will totally keep the music business honest. We artist don’t care if industry gatekeepers and execs lose jobs.
I write my own lyrics, but I do it on a Udio prompted music track. How does that work?
I know this isn't about Udio, but Suno has a kinda funny commercial rights. If your using the Free plan it says, Non-commercial terms, but if you get the Pro or Premier Plan it states, General commercial terms. Does that make since?
The Orko is right. The whole world of creativity has changed with Ai. A lot of things that used to need skilled people can now or very soon be made by asking an Ai service by anyone. The sad fact is that most people are totally ok with replacing their fellow man by a cheaper alternative. It has been done by companies moving jobs to places with lower services, they are for sure going to move from low salary people into even cheaper Ai services as soon as it produces good enough result. The sad fact is it is a downward spiral that is going to replace more and more until it replaces themselves. The genie is out of the pandoras box...
The crux of the matter is: I can compose a good melody faster than messing around with AI. Just finishing the song takes a long time. The route is the goal. What would a walk be if we reached our destination without walking?
Time and money .. Why do wealthy business people rent and buy jets ? To gain access to people whom the average person would never have access to in order to build up their network.
Sadly nobody truly cares about how much work you put into something to get from point A to point B. All they care about is the end result and if it suits them. The walk only matters to the creator.
As of Today you do have Protection if you purchasing the Service. Suno AI V3 is pretty good.. Doing it for a hobby not to make money. Instead of making Mixed Tape you can now make entire CD of your own music with the lyrics you created.
thank you very much for the explanation...
What legislation, I mean around the world, must understand is that current AI is generative, it needs human interaction to create something, that is, it was made by human interaction. However, the next AI that could be Regenerative does not require human interaction and obviously should not receive any copyright...
You might not be able to copywrite the music, but if I substantially write the lyrics, and prompt which you can in Udio, I have essentially published my words via the lyrics, and this I can copywrite at least in Australia.
Opinions
It seems like AI music generating platforms like Udio or Suno will because a sort of next gen stock music platforms but instead of having a bunch of precomposed tracks it'll be generating them. Because, yes, AI generated materials may not be protected by copyright but if you look at this as them being a provider of a service with their tools and their "raw materials" (the training database, assuming they actually own it) I think you can find laws that will protect their rights somehow. And from this position they are entitled to provide such services by giving you license to use your OUTPUTs in any way under ToS.
As a musician I'm a bit opposed to equiting a prompter with a composer (indeed, if you wrote original lyrics, they are yours, no question, but if you just prompted and the AI did the rest, sorry, you are not a conposer). Imagine you are a composer and your manager claims they wrote the music based on the fact that they gave you instructions what music to write. Sounds insane and unfair. Yes, your agreement may even include giving the one who hired you exclusive rights to music but it can't change the fact that it was you who composed it. It is actually pretty important for portfolio.
Another reason why I'm opposed to calling a prompter a musician is that knowledge of how to make music, music theory etc. is no longer an elitist thing. There are so many free educational materials online that all those "make music accessible to everyone via AI generation" simply encourages laziness. After all, unless your prompt specifies certain musical aspects like given melody lines, time signutures, chord progressions etc. realistically you did zero composing.
I'm not that worried about AI however because in any creative work there are a lot of things that are understood and communicated non-verbally, so are very hard to prompt. For instance, sure, at rehearsals conductors may give verbal remarks to players but during performance players rather feel and "emphathize" with the conductor rather put it in words.
Ideally, I hope those AI platforms will turn towards musicians providing assistence in writing rather than doing all the work. Because right now there's too little control over the OUTPUT. I'm more interested in AI suggesting ideas and being able to offer development of my music rather than doing all by itself. There's too little control right now and as I wrote above not everything can be prompted, so I'd rather take snippets of what I like rather than generating the whole track. In that regard I'm also hoping midi/stems/sheet music export comes for such things in the future. Wieldly, there are many audio to midi converters but they all suck
To me it takes way more than just creating the lyrics to be a “composer” at least know the key of the song for starters lmao
Interesting comment at 19:48 that 'AI is just learning from stuff created by humans.' But, isn't that what all of us musicians do? Learn from other humans?
I agree with what you're saying and what the laws say however I believe a modern distinction should be made. The music I generate on these web applications is both worse in some ways and better in others at doing what I do best (Having 18 years of music in my education and other hobbies.). I can produce a beat in 3 hours but im no rapper, im british with a lisp and I cant rap for crap, When I spend 3 hours on udio in one track I feel as if I am still doing a lot of the heavy lifting, making sure it perfectly fits my vision before downloading and sharing with my friends or using for UA-cam videos. My channel is unmonetised and I dont plan to make money from the music directly, more the content that goes around the music is what I expect to make any money from, my personality and humour.
I didn't create the music, sure, I generated it but I still feel like if it takes the same about of effort to generate something you really like and have vision for before starting then you are the original author. I could just as easily remake these songs alone and pass it off as completely my own but I still give attribution to the web apps themselves
What about now that you can add your own melodies?
If you use Udio, you should pay royalties to every musician who ever lived. I hate that thing with the passion of a thousand suns, because it sounds really good to people who only use music as background noise for their commute. To anyone who has spent anytime producing, it has this bizarre plastic sheen. It is impressive but it never stirs a single emotion in me
This is beta version 1.0 . I hear ya . But it will be insanely good by version 3.0 etc. all humanity since the beginning of time has been inspired or straight up copied by what has come before. Elivis and the Beatles ripped off the black artists and their new rock sound. Dub step ripped off drum and bass the list goes on for ever. Hence .. monkey see monkey do. We copy from inspiration.
You are an attorney 🌷 great, I'm also a lawyer, an Advocate High Court.
18:50 BINGO. I think users of the platform would be naïve to assume that there's not already a mechanism in place similar to Content ID that can easily identify works produced entirely from the platform, ESPECIALLY with the contract being the way it is. Why NOT have any army of millions of users unassumingly generate revenue for you? Rather than hit the first offender with Breech of Contract right away, they could let the cases pile up and then rake it all in at once.
You are stupid if you think they will CONTENT ID some stupid song made with Ai about cat's drinking wine. Do you think that Content Ai is FREE for them? Do you think they will come after you because you made 20$ from that song. Do you saw people making milions of $ from Ai? Nope because if you didn't make millions with Splice you will not make millions with Ai.