Using AI For Your Production Music? Ask first!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 тра 2024
- Free TV/Film Sync Licensing Course:
www.syncmymusic.com/freecourse
Get Professional Feedback On Your Music:
www.profeedback.me
Music Library Directory (300+ Companies):
www.syncmymusic.com/musicdire...
My Music Library Recommendation Service:
www.syncedge.me
Video Tutorials On Creating Licensable Music For TV:
www.syncacademy.me
SMM Podcast:
www.syncmymusic.com/podcast
Sync My Music Main Site:
www.syncmymusic.com
Stay strong everyone ♥ It's hard right now, but i'm sure in few months when we will have more clarity about what will happen, we will shine!
Those "prompt to master" model songs, by random peoples will never beat us in term of consistant quality songs, consistency in term of quality will gain value in this era.
The prompt to master model will hit a ceiling for sure and will turn into more flexible tools, hopefully much more flexible tools, and from this, artists will rise above all the randoms peoples generating 100 songs a day, that is for sure. I'm sure everything will turns out fine. If we look at the past, every technology evolution in music didn't put out of work all musicians, we just became more powerful and quicker.
Music synthesis has been around for decades. Look at Band in a box, keyboards arpeggiators, VST, modular synthesis, midi controllers, drum machines, loop kits, sample libraries... The AI that you are complaining about is merely a tool than can help create like them. If people are dumb enough to hand out "as-is songs" from a one sentence prompt, then yes the song isn't copyright. But the composers that do use it as a tool, are actually safe to claim their copyright.
Copyright vs AI has been discussed in courts, and you can see where the law is headed. There has been 3 hearings. Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Part I, II, III and "The No FAKES Act" hearings. (yup i watched all 10+ hours, it's super interesting). You can hear the stance of the programmers, Copyright companies, Spotify, Motion Picture of America, David Navarro, Ashley Irwin and many other prominent people in the industry. Hybrid creators (AI+human prompting) will exist, and the copyright industry are recognizing it as an art form. Just like photography, AI is a tool that people manipulate and curate to create a new art form. The discussion remains how much input is required to make it fully copyright. The courts don't want to slow down the pace of AI development or use. The sad reality, millions of song lyrics have been input into AI, will those lyricists be compensated? And yet it is super easy to ask ChatGPT to help write our lyrics because of this... Wikipedia, google translate, GitHub... they have all used how much copyright material? Ethics is being debated, and this tool isn't going away.
Yes the AI content should be cleared with the original artists. AI ethical tools do exist though. Check out kits.ai for AI synthesized singers that are ethically trained. As for software like udio/suno, how do you compensate the creators when the AI software has used billions of songs to study from. Universal income might become a check for $0.01 from udio and suno. They aren't going away.
Jesse I would be interested to hear Trevor & Mike's take on this as library owners. As I see it there are a few different levels to this. 1. Type a prompt and get a full track - this is a hard "no" IMHO 2.Type a prompt and get a part like a guitar solo - also a hard "no" IMHO as this is barely better than a Splice sample. 3. Upload a performance which then has an AI 'cloak' put over it, I have used this to turn a lacklustre brass section VST into something more realistic sounding by bouncing my part into Audimee and generating a trumpet and sax from it which I then layered with the original and it really helped improve the production values. I think this is a good use of Ai personally. 4. Same as point 3 but with voice. I spent 3 years taking singing lessons , I can sing on pitch and do various vocal techniques but I am the first to admit I wasn't blessed with a 'pro' sounding voice no matter how hard I try it still sounds sub-par for sync and no amount of trainging is gonna change it much. It sounds WAY better when put through one of the pro voice models at Audimee. I would like to think libraries would let us use this if it's all licensed and above board as working with outside singers can be painful and really I'm a songwriter who ended up making instrumentals when it became clear my voice wouldn't cut it. I know you will say 'ask your library' but I suspect they will say no because they don't understand it at this point and I would rather wait it out to see if the industry starts coming around to the idea. In a way it's just the next level of autotune. Taking a performance and making it sound better than it really is. But I would be interested to know what library owners think right now.
I'm gonna get them on my channel soon to talk about all this!
@@SyncMyMusic Great, pls put those points to them if you can
Jesse, I took your courses a couple of months back, both Sync Academy and Sync Edge. I could only afford one month at that time, but that was enough for Sync Edge to lead me into a library that needed a blues/Western album just like the one I had at the time. I submitted the album, got accepted and signed the contract thanks to you. Another few months passed, and now I'm here working overtime because the album did well and the library wants a Part 2 in short notice.
Does that look like a dying business to you? Because it doesn't look like that to me. And yes, I cannot thank you enough.
Damn that’s amazing man and congrats to you! Def sounds like you’ve found a great niche to serve the industry - keep it up!
I consider myself an artist. Doesn't matter if I'm good or bad and it doesn't matter if I make it for pay or not, I'm still an artist and never, in any universe, would I use AI to create my music.
Well said. I sure won't be doing anything with AI-generated tracks.
I remember when the electric guitar, the synth, then midi and virtual instruments were supposed to kill music. It didn't. And neither will AI. They are all tools. Creative people will find a way to use the tool, and they will have new options. The others will still be playing wooden drums and clackers, for fear of using anything more modern.
BTW, I have a very hard time getting AI to do wooden drums and clackers, there's still work for percussionists. 😁
I love this video! Great advice!!
It might end up being good for your businesses in the long run though. Imagine if AI Engines had to pay the custom music charge to include production music and an even more expensive PRS, BMI, ASCAP ect. mainstream licence to use mainstream music in our tracks.
But then Disney and WWE have been getting away with bringing an artist in for years and custom building production music up into their own for years without paying the custom licence only paying for standard and never got caught.
I think the colab project should make a straight up website an AI Website can pay for a custom production music licence straight up on which would cover all of the libraries on the colab to bring us high quality creativity and also put and end to the debate as well as it's the same as these studios not paying the custom rate for a customed up by themselves version often with splicing other tracks they licensed under normal rates as a part of the custom track as well.
if they pay for a seperate new tier custom production music for AIs licence you can make a living out of our creations somehow as well as selling it to the training which is a great thing as the more that come out the more income the libraries can get and maybe they would also want to create an AI genre so libraries can licence out the higher quality productions. I can see it being a good thing if everything is done Kosha that is with a custom music licence between the new co op of libraries you are making to fight Ais breaking rules.
And there's also AI detection tools like TraceGPT. I'd imagine there's something similar for music or being developed right now.
I sure hope so! Let me know if you hear of one!
@@SyncMyMusic Will do. I think there's something called Pex. But it's all still developing. Thx again for the vid :)
We're in the ai era. We can't control it
Honestly, I can make AI work for me by generating a full trailer track then I'll take it from there by heavily editing it to make it sound mine and more human. This defo a big plus instead of starting from a blank project from scratch. Time will be severely minimized in writing a track. I see in the future composers won't record midi from scratch but they will be midi manipulators. Of course, I will never pitch AI generated music as it is. At least, the publishers I am dealing with participate in fighting generated AI music.
Just ask your Library partner first before doing that! Best to be super safe than sorry 👍
0:37 there they are! The ‘untalented button pushers’!
5:49 Absolutely! Totally agree!!👍
You can also just apply for a copyright from China’s (CNIPA).
Governments don't grant Copyright. They only certify the ones you create yourself.
What if you use AI to create a reference track and add some human elements to it? Similar to AI image generators yes?
As my title suggests, ask your Library. IMO a Library will want nothing to do with text prompted AI music - it's too risky since it's not copyrighted.
@@SyncMyMusic I was asking a general question :) wasn't related to the video at hand :)
@@RAM_845 what’s the question? If you can do it and release it commercially?
@@SyncMyMusic I mean, as a hobbyist producer, when I struggle with creation, can I use AI to boost my creativity? I already watched the video very interesting points too regarding copyright though.
It's a bit hard for me as a man with ADHD to create a unique track that doesn't sound the same like the mainstream tracks.
@@RAM_845 you can do whatever you want. I’m only taking about concerns when trying to get your tracks accepted by a production music library.
what about creating our own ai model, running locally, trained on our own music only? lol
Ask, ask, ask!
I wouldn't "ask" for this. If you created the program AND only trained it on your music, I would consider that to be 100% your music. In this example, your tech is simply a fancy synthesizer.
@@charleswettish8701 Make your own choices. Still recommend you let a Library know what you're doing to protect your relationship with them.
I agree with 100% transparency in business.
And I'm certainly not going to be writing an AI program, anyway. :) I think it would be a rare case if someone did that for themselves. I have to assume creating an AI requires a team.
But, to further the totally hypothetical scenario, I think it would be very hard to prove that someone did this and then it's a totally different thing if you actually created the AI that did your work, not the same princple, whatever it is, it's not theft. You could still claim 100% ownership.
Again, hypothetical. I make my own music and always will.@@SyncMyMusic
What if you AI generate a song and re-record the track yourself and make some changes.. Us AI as a collaborated BUT re create what AI came up with but make it better with the human element..
Do what the title suggests, ask them 😎
I think the current Ai Music is a piece of music stolen without permission
Not that easy as the output is pretty unique. 🤔 It creates stuff that has not been there before.
@@samthesomniator If they print similar music, they delete it
@@K-qg5qe yes. If a model does overfitting (what can happen in beta versions of AI models) it is removed. What else? 🤨
@@samthesomniator Ed Newton once pointed out an output very similar to copyrighted music
I also listened to similar music by Bruno Mars, Miku and The Beatles on x
It's not good, it's terrible
@@K-qg5qe what do you mean with similar? Similar style? Same songs. Voice sounding similar?