Can All Of The New AI Influencers And Virtual Idols Be Copyrighted By Their Developers?

[horoscope]

Hi there. I am currently excited about my recent domain I purchased at auction and I want to get into the whole virtual influencers and ai idols market that is coming from Japan and South Korea where k pop and vitrual influencers are very big business. My question comes from watching many many AI music compositions that are done in the style of the Beatles or the Stones and I wondered whether these bands and their owners have any right to complain that the ai virtual technology is copying their sound. Can they possibly sue and go to court claiming it is too much like them in the sound and lyrics or is that simply impossible? I want to include many of these ai songs and other stuff and don't want to spend the next year or so building my website only to find lawyers telling me to take it down or else.

 

[fisicx]

Of course they can sue. They might not win but they can litigate.

 

[Mark T Jones]

I'm not expert, but id imagine that the way AI works makes claims extremely likely

 

[fisicx]

@horoscope - why buy a domain at auction? There a millions of available domains for almost zero cost.

 

[Mark T Jones]

Apparently there is even a term for it - AI-giarism.

 

[Ozzy]

@horoscope You may want to watch a few YouTube videos from Top Music Attorney as she's been covering a lot of this lately. I've watched some of her content as I find law interesting, and I like music, so the topic piques my interest.


Here is a link to a starter video, but you'll see she has done others on the subject and specific legal cases gone through court too;

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[DontAsk]

More to the point they can simply make a copyright strike against your output. These are all automated, AI based, error prone and err on the side of the claimant. It will be a lot of hassle for you to sort out. A lot of the scanning is automated which is even worse.

There was a recent cases where someone was quoted in an Italian (?) newspaper that was copyrighted. The copyright bots then took down the original source material for infringing copyright.

 

[horoscope]

You all make great points. It is such a grey area. I think in the future there will be many court cases about copyright issues. I wont post here but I have listened to songs in the style of the Beatles and I can see how Paul may feel this is ripping him off but at the same time the songs are original. Isn't imitation the greatest form of flattery.

 

[fisicx]

@horoscope - will your website be a free service? This includes no advertising income. Will you be making it clear this is AI generated media scraped from other sources?

 

[Ozzy]

Isn't imitation the greatest form of flattery.

Only if that imitation doesn't bring that primary brand into disrepute, tarnishes the brand, or redircts revenue away from that brand that is not deemed fair and natural competition.

 

[gpietersz]

Just to be clear your concern is that the people whose style the songs are imitating might sue for breach of copyright? Not sure about that, but it sounds like tricky areas. How closely are they doing it? There might be other (non-copyright) issues if they also look/act like like the person they are imitating. I would definitely ask a specialist lawyer something like this.

I assume you are licensing the songs from the copyright holders? UK law is clear that the person arranging for a computer to generate a work holds the copyright in it. Many other countries are less clear (e.g. they may require a minimum human creative role) but in general the same is true.

 

[horoscope]

Yes that is right. I simply don't know how these copyright court cases ever work. All the paperwork and lawyers and on and on and it still just comes down to "doesn't it sound a little like the stones" and I don't know how you qualify this as it is a matter of opinion. I guess that with voice recognition now the software can measure the voice and show it is exactly like john lennon or whoever based on sound wave measurements just like youtube can when you upload a copyrighted song.

 

[fisicx]

All of which suggests this might not be such a good idea. Especially if you plan to monetise.

 

[horoscope]

I think that it is a new sector for a western audience. I am not sure yet what I can sell through it. But affiliate sales is something I have a good amount of experience with.

 

[gpietersz]

Yes that is right. I simply don't know how these copyright court cases ever work. All the paperwork and lawyers and on and on and it still just comes down to "doesn't it sound a little like the stones" and I don't know how you qualify this as it is a matter of opinion. I guess that with voice recognition now the software can measure the voice and show it is exactly like john lennon or whoever based on sound wave measurements just like youtube can when you upload a copyrighted song.

Will you be operating only in the UK? this just the sort of thing that might vary between jurisdictions.

Worth noting that what Youtube does is not accurately following the law. They do take down things that should be allowed by fair use (US) and fair dealing (UK) and other exemptions. Their system is clearly biased in favour of those with deep pockets (to fund court cases, and or do deals) rather than individuals and small businesses. They have weird American puritanical ideas - some channels I follow cover up the nudity in classical statues to avoid being demonetised, and you need to be very careful around topics like guns or alcohol!

Your use of terms like copyrighted and the phrasing of the title suggests you do not understand how copyright works.

There is a lot of misinformation around copyright and AI. There seem to be a lot of Americans convinced that AI output is not covered by copyright, for example. That is a complete misinterpretation of the case. Given that I would really advise you not to ask strangers on the internet. its well work asking someone who can give you proper legal advice before spending time and money on this.

 

[horoscope]

Thanks for your advice. My website is more about factual information about ai and may offer affiliated links to websites that sell virtual influencers and help people design their personal influencer for fee.
I have a .org as I want to become a go to website for all the things to do with virtual influencers. Like healthline does with health information while offering affiliate links if people want to purchase their own personalised virtual influencer.
This is not original as in Japan and south Korea millions of people pay for their personalised influencer or simply a ai friend they can confide. It has taken off in the far east and looks likely to do the same in the west now.

 

[GLAbusiness]

I'm old enough to remember (1960s) when top hit records were copied with one word in the song changed

 

[Craig3141]

You can only copyright work made by a human. There was a whole court case about it.

 

[gpietersz]

You can only copyright work made by a human. There was a whole court case about it.

I am pretty sure you are thinking of a case in the US.

In the UK the law explicitly says that that copyright in machine output belongs to the person who arranged for the machine to create that output. The default assumption here is that people are setting up UK businesses and UK law is what applies. If they are distributing works covered by copyright in other countries then those country's laws will apply.

 

[Craig3141]

I am pretty sure you are thinking of a case in the US.

In the UK the law explicitly says that that copyright in machine output belongs to the person who arranged for the machine to create that output. The default assumption here is that people are setting up UK businesses and UK law is what applies. If they are distributing works covered by copyright in other countries then those country's laws will apply.

It's possible. Or facts changed. It was the one about the monkey that took a picture and they said only humans could copyright rather than monkeys didn't count as I remember it.

 

[fisicx]

The copyright discussion whilst interesting isn't what they asked:

I want to include many of these ai songs and other stuff and don't want to spend the next year or so building my website only to find lawyers telling me to take it down or else.

The answer to this question is: you cannot stop someone taking legal action. Their success depends on how good their lawyers and your willingness to fight the action.

 

[gpietersz]

It's possible. Or facts changed. It was the one about the monkey that took a picture and they said only humans could copyright rather than monkeys didn't count as I remember it.

The monkey selfie case was brought by PETA against the photographer and the claim was that the monkey held the copyright. The question of whether the photographer owned the copyright did not make it to court, but it looks like probably not in the US, possibly in the UK.

People also got confused by the recent Thaler case in the US, where, again, the question was whether the AI software could hold a copyright.

@fisicx I think the risk of someone taking legal action depend on their chances or winning in court. So is someone's willingness to risk being sued. Sometimes people with a possible case do not sue (e.g. the photographer in the monkey selfie case did not sue Wikimedia), and people sue despite having no real case so answering the original question entirely literally is impossible.

I have a possible good copyright case myself, but the amount I am likely to get and the cost of assembling the evidence (the material in question is not on the public internet any more, but I think its still included in something being sold online) is not worth it.

 

[Clodbuster]

I think I'm right that Taylor Swift has filed a tradwmark on her voice, actions and image for this very reason. I can see why.