Sony Says It Has Already Taken Down More Than 75,000 AI Deepfake Songs (gizmodo.com) 22
Sony has removed more than 75,000 AI-generated deepfake songs mimicking artists including Harry Styles and Beyonce from online platforms, the company revealed in a submission to the UK government, adding this likely represents just a fraction of fake songs circulating online.
The proliferation of these unauthorized AI replicas has caused "direct commercial harm to legitimate recording artists, including UK artists," Sony stated. The company's intervention comes as Britain considers new copyright legislation that would permit AI companies to train models using artist material, a proposal that would require rights holders to opt out rather than requiring permission.
The proliferation of these unauthorized AI replicas has caused "direct commercial harm to legitimate recording artists, including UK artists," Sony stated. The company's intervention comes as Britain considers new copyright legislation that would permit AI companies to train models using artist material, a proposal that would require rights holders to opt out rather than requiring permission.
Too good (Score:2)
Get out your popcorn and lawnchairs. It's gonna be a corporate battle!
Re: (Score:2)
The studio probably owns the recordings while the actual singers may be in control of their own vocalizations (which should be covered under image/name/likeness but maybe not).
Under What Authority? (Score:3, Insightful)
If they claim it's an infringing derivative work, that claim is merely a claim until litigated in court and, again, DMCA is out of scope.
If, however, Sony is claiming that copyright in a work survives getting pulverized through an LLM, then the entire "AI industry" is in deep, deep trouble.
Honestly not sure what/who to be rooting for here....
Re: (Score:3)
If this was purely between Sony and say Spotify/Apple/Google and other services then no legal authority needed, could be just "Sony is a big client of our platforms and if they have requests we think are legit we honor them"
It's likely not in the best interests of a music streaming platform to have these songs on their system, both for the customers (Now i gotta dig through a dozen fakes to find the real song?) or their real clients the publishers like Sony who could just say "Fine, we'll pull all our artis
Re: (Score:3)
Under what authority did Sony pull the LLM slop? While the slop may sound similar to Sony's works, they are not Sony's works, Sony holds no copyright over them
You forgot about trademark law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"Sony is claiming that copyright in a work survives getting pulverized through an LLM, then the entire "AI industry" is in deep, deep trouble."
Yeah because the shitty lossy compression that is the AI weights is still the format shifted training data. That's why I say we should exempt AI training from ALL copyright and intellectual property rights AND exempt the output as well. Further we should make the company that trains the AI completely immune from liability for anything done with it.
In exchange they ha
Holy ever loving Hells. (Score:2)
The company's intervention comes as Britain considers new copyright legislation that would permit AI companies to train models using artist material, a proposal that would require rights holders to opt out rather than requiring permission.
Seriously? And what about indie artists and hobbyists that sometimes make a penny per song? How do you opt-out? Is it some legal fee menagerie or a series of ever evolving hoops that you could never clear without a legal team constantly watching for the next update in terms? In all honesty, it feels very much like a carte blanche "go ahead and do whatever you want" for the AI companies.
Re: (Score:1)
I think that is fine so long as the output can't be copyrighted and the AI companies have to release the models so anyone can use them... the point of copyright isn't to enable people to make money, the point of copyright is to provide an incentive to produce content... if copyright starts resulting in LESS or inferior art the answer is to get rid of it.
Mimicking? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
With those numbers it's almost guaranteed there is a real artist with a voice similar to Beyonce operating in the same genre who got taken down.
But she can''t afford to sue Sony so the Corporations win again.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference between infringement and a cover song comes down to details and if you went through the process to clear it.
You can claim fair use but it could go to court and there is precedent, famously the Queen/Bowie v. Vanilla Ice [gwu.edu] where he famously said "We add the little tss at the end, that makes it different" .
Also the case of The Verve versus the Rolling Stones for Bittersweet symphony [bbc.com], and these cases were just over samples, much less entire lyrics or melodies
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, I suppose if it's known that there isn't an actual human who happens to sound like a similar artist but it's an artificial generation it probably does not carry the same protections a person would and the artists likeness protections kick in.
word to the wise (Score:2)
Download a copy before Sony nukes it.
what if (Score:2)
What if instead, they release the data required to make the deepfake, and also the code required to make the deepfake?
Someone at $Media Company$ is looking back ... (Score:2)
[SHRUG] I really could not care less.
Hmm... (Score:2)
I guess Greta Van Fleet would be in trouble if they released their first album now. Red Rider's song "Lunitic Fringe" would be as well. People think it's Pink Floyd. Steelers Wheel song, "stuck in the middle" sounds like a Beatles song to many. The Hollies song, "long cool women in a black dress" sounds like CCR. Speaking of CCR, John Fogerty would have lost the lawsuit against him for sounding like CCR I suppose too
Most music is derivative of music before it. Chuck Berry ripped off Rosetta Tharpe's so
and no one could tell the difference (Score:2)
Blurred Lines (Score:2)
Blurred Lines sounds similar to Got to Give it Up, in some specific ways, but it's a completely separate and new song. The vibe isn't the same. The singing is different, but they lost the case. I'll never pay for music again, unless it's over Patreon or for a concert. Fuck these companies.
In the history of never... (Score:1)
Has Sony ever been on the right side of an issue relating to openness and rights.
This shouldn't be limited to music or voices. Nothing should be protected IP when it comes to feeding AI and nothing that comes out of AI should qualify for IP protections... at least so long as the full and complete weights from uncensored training and functional framework along with training data are provided by the party who trains the AI in a free and open fashion. Such a model should be considered something of a common car