#Uncopyrighted Music

[boycannibal]

fuckkk i need to get on that background grind if my game is gonna be any good...... hard to do backgrounds without an idea and hard to solidify an idea not knowing what exactly are the limitations/possibilities of the project...

[freakin-edikan]

White society subjugates the whole of music to melody which is why so many people have bad music opinions. They only care about the absence of meoldies when their favorite French guys are making prettyboy music.

[froody]

somebody is posting Full Metal Jacket on TikTok in clips with uncopyrighted music in the background the same way they do Young Sheldon and it’s cracking me uppppp

[okthatsgreat]

i love the spotify private session feature it makes me feel like one of those early 2000s edgy teenagers in old disney movies locking their younger sibling out the room so that they can listen to their uncopyrighted alternative music. like get out of here dork

[wanderinghedgehog]

this movie I’m watching thought I wouldn’t notice that it was burning through a list of uncopyrighted old music

[colourme-feral]

BL/QL Ask game : The Ugly, the Bad and the Worst

Thanks for the tag, @lurkingshan!

I'll try to stick to shows that have been released this year to keep things simple for me!

The categories are:

Worst soundtrack / weirdest song choice in a BL

Any time there's uncopyrighted Christmas music used in a scene that has nothing to do with Christmas, I scratch my head.

Most cringe-inducing line (cute)/Most cringe-inducing line (actually bad)

With my memory, I'll be lucky if I remember what happened in some shows 😬

Most stupid decision made by a character

Just about any decision that any character in Club Friday: Deepest Love makes, tbh.

Worst plot line

Basically any that involve amnesia, also whatever happened in the finale of Hidden Agenda.

The most problematic show you've watched

Different shows have different problems and what matters is understanding what makes something problematic. That said, Club Friday: Deepest Love made me raise my eyebrows.

A show people love but you find bad

Step by Step, this one goes out to you, your editing, your pacing and the way you were written let me down after ep 7 or 8, which ruined the entire show for me.

A show people find bad but you will defend

Chains of Heart was objectively not a great show, but it so fun to watch even though most of us did not understand what was happening and were mostly caught up in The Glove Discourse. And who was who. It was confusing!! Personally, I enjoyed how beautiful it was. And of course the locations used, unsurprisingly.

A show that is just objectively bad but you enjoyed it/were horny/because of that one character

House of Stars. Every week, I watched it without understanding what was going on, but you know what? I still wanted to see murder and murder there was.

A bad show that you kept watching because you were intrigued/fascinated

Club Friday: Deepest Love. That was an experience that I cannot recommend, yet still had a lot of fun watching because it was so wild. No spoilers, but I cannot believe it is supposed to be a real story.

A bad show that you would still recommend

Chains of Heart was incredibly enjoyable, especially when I turned off my thinking cap and just accepted things as they were.

The character that ruined a show the most/most awful character that you hated

Phu from The Promise, lol

Most awful character that you loved

I can't think of one right now...

A character that wasn't awful but that you just don't like

Ye Chan from Love Tractor. His himbo puppy energy was a little too much for me.

A hero that should have been a villain

If Ye Chan from Love Tractor had been a villain, maybe I'd have enjoyed him more. See my next answer.

A morally bad character you're into/you're not into and wish people would stop being into

I don't, but I think Nawin from Laws of Attraction, who is one of my favourites, should have more fans.

The show that disappointed you the most

THE PROMISE. I dropped you and never looked back. Remember Me sits at the same table.

The worst show of Them All Because of Your Own Reasons

None, because I probably avoided certain shows for those reasons.

Tagging @aprilblossomgirl, @blmpff, @callipigio, @dribs-and-drabbles and @ranchthoughts if you'd like to play!

[transgenderer]

Pegasus and Dragon is a 110-foot (34 m) tall statue of Pegasus defeating a dragon in Gulfstream Park, Hallandale Beach, Florida. It is the third-tallest statue in the United States after the Birth of the New World in Puerto Rico and the Statue of Liberty in New York.

The statue complex is 200 feet (61 m) in length and 115 feet (35 m) in width. Pegasus is made of 330 tons of steel and 132 tons of bronze. The dragon is made of 110 tons of steel and 132 tons of bronze. Pegasus will feature a 5D dome theater in a rock formation underneath it. The dragon is surrounded by musical fountains. At night the statue is home to a fountain show featuring 13 musical pieces, 350 fog nozzles, 116 water nozzles, special LED lighting and the dragon breathing fire 20 feet during the show.[2]

Gulfstream Park is a Thoroughbred horse race track, casino and outdoor entertainment and shopping destination in Hallandale Beach, Florida, United States.

i think there's no good uncopyrighted images of this thing so wikipedia doesnt have a picture on their page which seems like a shame. if i have any followers nearby i humbly request you take a picture and add it to the page

[michiganprelawland]

AI and The Copyright Dilemma

By Lucy Clark, University of Michigan Class of 2023

September 28, 2023

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has exploded in popularity worldwide in the past two years. Artificial intelligence refers to the “simulation of human intelligence processes by machines, especially computer systems[1].” The biggest reason for this surge in interest is the sizable advancements that have been made in the field of AI[2]. Most notably, AI has become far more accurate and able to compute more complex processes than ever before, opening the door for new applications of AI. One of these applications has been the integration of AI and art[3]. In the past year, several platforms have emerged that offer various AI art renderings from human-supplied prompts. These art renderings include animations, full presentations, image creation, music creation, and writing[4]. With AI’s evolving ability to create art and other creative media, questions about copyrighting and AI’s personhood have emerged.

AI still requires some form of human-supplied prompts to create new media. This human-supplied prompt can be past artwork, a written description, or some other amalgamation of past work with the desired result. Since AI relies on this human-supplied content for its creations, the question has been raised of whether the AI or the humans can take credit for the final AI result. Furthermore, since the human prompts can come from multiple people, should the person who complied or decided on the prompts get credit for the final AI result, or should all the individual creators of the prompts? Questions such as this are especially pressing because of the formidable computing ability of AI. With its computing ability, AI can generate far more variations far faster. This ability means that AI can create every song possible as long as it knows all the possible notes that could be used in music. Additionally, if given examples of an artist’s work, AI can create artwork of that artist’s signature style before the artist can make it themselves[5]. When recent platforms such as ChatGPT[6] and Midjourney[7] were first released, there was significant backlash due to the possible issues with copyrighting and plagiarism that they might create. Previous to AI, plagiarism consisted of copying the ideas of another person without giving proper credit, and copyrighting was determined based on the “creation of original work” and provides the creator with the power to control “reproduction…, distribution…, and [control over] derivative works[8].” On Instagram and Twitter, artists posted their discontent with AI’s ability to recreate their style and possibly eliminate their jobs. Similarly, schools worldwide banned the use of AI on school-related assignments.

In August 2023, courts ruled that AI-generated art cannot receive copyrights due to the complexities of credit and ownership. Following this ruling, AI-generated art will now be seen as part of the public domain and can be used by anyone. Public sentiment has calmed after the court’s August decision and as it has become increasingly common to use AI. Many schools have repealed their bans on AI use on assignments while instituting a standard for using AI detectors on written assignments. These detectors prevent students from copying AI results word-for-word but allow students to use AI as a research resource. Artists have also adjusted to the integration of AI. Painter Von Wolfe for example, he uses AI trained in his art style to create new concept pieces with AI, which he then paints and makes any desired alterations[9]. These painted copies are then considered his property, which can be copyrighted while the AI-generated version remains uncopyrightable. As specific circumstances such as these continue to occur, new cases will be brought to court, determining precisely how much AI use will eliminate an art piece from being copyrightable. Furthermore, AI has gone through cycles of surging popularity since its creation, with each cycle beginning when new advancements emerge and waning when progress slows[10] . During these popularity surges, people often assume that Artificial General Intelligence, which can operate on the same level as a human mind, is on the brink of creation[11]. Based on this historical trend, we can likely hypothesize that despite AI’s recent popularity, as its recent advancements become more normalized, interest will likely fade until the next significant AI development. Therefore, although it is essential to plan for a future incorporating AI, doomsday scenarios in which AI can replace many if not all, jobs are nothing to worry about just yet[12].

______________________________________________________________

Lucy Clarke is a recent graduate from the University of Michigan with a bachelor’s degree in political science and philosophy. She is on a Pre-Law track and plans at attend law school in 2025.

______________________________________________________________

[1] Hashemi-Pour, C., & Lutkevich, B. (2023, May 4). What is Artificial General Intelligence? - techtarget. Enterprise AI. https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/artificial-general-intelligence-AGI?Offer=abMeterCharCount_var3

[2] Babak Hodjat, S. T. (2015, August 7). The ai resurgence: Why now?. Wired. https://www.wired.com/insights/2015/03/ai-resurgence-now/

[3] Babak Hodjat, S. T. (2015, August 7). The ai resurgence: Why now?. Wired. https://www.wired.com/insights/2015/03/ai-resurgence-now/

[4] /en//humans.txt, & Lin, D. (2023, May 19). Copyright and artificial intelligence. H&A. https://www.hyaip.com/en/news/copyright-and-artificial-intelligence/#:~:text=The%20creation%20of%20content%20through,of%20these%20machine%2Dgenerated%20works.

[5] /en//humans.txt, & Lin, D. (2023, May 19). Copyright and artificial intelligence. H&A. https://www.hyaip.com/en/news/copyright-and-artificial-intelligence/#:~:text=The%20creation%20of%20content%20through,of%20these%20machine%2Dgenerated%20works.

[6] What is CHATGPT and why does it matter? here’s what you need to know. ZDNET. (n.d.). https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-is-chatgpt-and-why-does-it-matter-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/

[7] What is midjourney AI and how does it work?. Android Authority. (2023, August 19). https://www.androidauthority.com/what-is-midjourney-3324590/

[8] /en//humans.txt, & Lin, D. (2023, May 19). Copyright and artificial intelligence. H&A. https://www.hyaip.com/en/news/copyright-and-artificial-intelligence/#:~:text=The%20creation%20of%20content%20through,of%20these%20machine%2Dgenerated%20works.

[9] Von Wolfe (@vonwolfe_) • instagram photos and videos. (n.d.-b). https://www.instagram.com/vonwolfe_/

[10] Babak Hodjat, S. T. (2015, August 7). The ai resurgence: Why now?. Wired. https://www.wired.com/insights/2015/03/ai-resurgence-now/

[11] Hashemi-Pour, C., & Lutkevich, B. (2023, May 4). What is Artificial General Intelligence? - techtarget. Enterprise AI. https://www.techtarget.com/searchenterpriseai/definition/artificial-general-intelligence-AGI?Offer=abMeterCharCount_var3

[12] Babak Hodjat, S. T. (2015, August 7). The ai resurgence: Why now?. Wired. https://www.wired.com/insights/2015/03/ai-resurgence-now/

[the-digicorn]

I mean this completely respectfully because the anti-AI argument is complex and the “winning arguments” depend completely on who you’re trying to convince. I’m an aspiring media composer (music for films tv videos podcasts etc) and AI has been a big topic of conversation in my masters since it’s affecting music too. Everything’s I’m about to say is just my opinion and I’m far from an expert.

In defence of the copyright argument:

The quality of media generated by AI will only continue to improve as long as the money is there to fund it, so a lot of it’s unsettling issues will be accounted for in the near future, and unfortunately all the ethics arguments are unlikely to really get us anywhere unless it becomes the significant majority view, which currently I don’t think it is.

Copyright is the one thing that I believe can create a profit problem for the massive companies that would benefit from AI otherwise.

Currently there’s debate over whether media produced by AI is even copyrightable, and this is important. Copyright is a large part of how creators make money from their work and generates income through royalties.

When AI is trained unethically and regurgitates untraceable parts of so many peoples work, it has infringed on their copyright. Currently most AI companies try to avoid all the problems that follow from there by stating in their terms and conditions that none of the generated work is copyrightable. Depending on your country’s laws, copyright can only be owned by a human person who created a work. That selfie that was taken by a monkey on a photographers camera caused a right fuss because the photographer tried to claim copyright, but because the money pressed the button it was deemed uncopyrightable. AI is more complicated cos there are a few different points that AI bros argue qualify someone for copyright, but this is where the legal battle needs to happen!

We need work produced by AI, especially unethically trained AI, to be deemed uncopyrightable!

If a work cannot be copyrighted, there is nothing to stop another person or company taking it and making money from it themselves. Disney wants complete control over the media it produces, it already buys out as much of its creators’ copyright share as it legally can and this is the norm for media monopolies. If a work cannot be copyrighted, Disney cannot control it and cannot own it, and therefore cannot profit from it exclusively in the way it can when it exploits creatives. If AI work cannot be copyrighted, this massively disincentivises companies from using it.

Don’t get me wrong this would still be appealing to indie creators who don’t want to spend on hiring real people for the things they can’t do themselves, but if there’s no major shareholder money going into it that may theoretically reduce access to it for the people who would still want it.

The flip side of all that is a case where AI is trained “ethically” on data that is willingly given by its copyright holder. Work created in this way would have a long list of traceable sources that it’s regurgitating and even if a specific piece can’t tell you where it’s data is from at least the whole model’s training data could be tracked and not stolen. This would mean that yes Disney could train an AI model on all the media it owns which would suck and get boring fast (it’s already getting boring because of the way streaming has affected movie profits and what they can safely make costs back on) but would fall under the “ethical” training model that I suspect is a likely step for AI in the near future.

The solve for that is once again copyright! Don’t allow the result to be copyrightable!

Media Empires (derogatory) don’t care about ethics, they know the tech will keep advancing, they don’t particularly want money going to anyone but themselves. The only thing that can convince a Media Monopoly that it shouldn’t do something is the profit margin. If you want AI to wither away into obscurity, pay attention to how copyright law will account for it, because it will either feed companies a new age of content farming, or it could hit them in the one place they can bleed.

Sorry for the ramble I hope that makes sense and pls do correct me if I’m wrong about anything!

on the other end the copyright argument against ai art is just so bad. I hate how that's the most common one people use, like I'm sorry but an interpretation of copyright law that classifies images made with generative ai as "plagiarism" or "theft" would be a worst-case scenario for everyone except the walt disney corporation

[medicinemane]

Hot take, but I don't think it should be possible to copyright musical sheets/tabs/anything that instructs on how to play something

Now to be clear what I actually mean here, I'm fine with copyrighting the material itself, to say no one else gets to profit off or distribute what we'll call the written portion of it. That you maintain ownership over the instructions themselves

However, any sound produced by following those instructions should be 100% uncopyrightable by anyone other than the person making those sounds

A person should always retain full ownership of any music they create, and it should not in any way be considered infringement of anyone else, even if they followed instructions in order to figure out how to make that music

Hopefully I'm misremembering and misunderstanding the situation and this is just true but... my understanding is it isn't

We can all agree that's bullshit right, and that I'm 100% correct on this?

You make a noise, that noise should be yours, you know?

[lojadomuniz]

Alan Walker Spectre JL MUSIC SOUNDS NO COPYRIGHT

[elfwreck]

"i'm curious what the state of copyright law is regarding..."

It's a mess.

It really doesn't matter how you end that sentence.

Copyright law was designed to deal with ENTIRE COPIES of FIXED-FORM ORIGINALS (e.g. paper, phonograph, film) that were VERY EXPENSIVE TO PRODUCE and distribute.

It was not designed to deal with

Copies that are easy/free to make

Copies that are easy/free to share, perform, or distribute

Not-actually-copies like translations, spinoffs, or "inspired by" works

Much less the tangled mess of that happens via fandom

Much much less whatever happens via machine manipulation

Non-copies that have the same function/results as the originals (e.g. computer code)

Copies where the original rights-holder cannot be identified because it's been literally four generations since this book was printed and the first three publishing houses that printed it have dissolved

Works that are copyrighted in one place but not another (because, as noted, the laws were built on the idea that making & sharing copies was hard. If the works were copyrighted in England but not the US, you couldn't just make cheap copies in the US and send them to England.)

Different lengths & owners of copyright for different parts of a work - e.g. a movie script, music, and actual screenplay

are there examples of publishing information derived from a copyrighted file and getting sued over that?

Information cannot be copyrighted. Data is not copyrightable. If you extract the data from a copyrighted work and put it in a new form, that's fine.

(See also: Why recipe blogs have that horrible 1200-word My Aunt Used To Make This Salsa For Us Every Summer article before the actual recipe. Because recipes are almost entirely uncopyrightable.)

Copyright is based on creativity, not labor. If you recreate a phone book by researching property ownership and contact information records, the results are not copyrightable.

For grabbing a set of code-based info derived from a digital file and sharing that, and other people running it through a decoder...

Err. Well. No, we haven't had that lawsuit.

The obvious, simple answer is "if you distribute a set of numbers - obvs not copyrightable; it's just data - and access to a decoder that turns those numbers into a book or movie or photo or whatever, then you are infringing the rights of the owners of the whatever."

But. Simple does not mean true, in the legal world. If my friend and I both take photos of a sunset while standing in the same place, the pictures could be substantially identical but separately copyrighted. The fact that the end result is identical to a copyrighted work, doesn't necessarily mean it's infringing.

This has not yet faced a courtroom, as far as I know:

And while it's interesting to consider all the possibilities, please keep in mind that copyright is very much a case of "history is written by the victors" - it DOES NOT MATTER what the law says about copyright when you are facing a C&D, DMCA takedown, or actual lawsuit: What matters is whose lawyers have the resources to stick to the lawsuit.

(I mean. The actual legal arguments do matter, somewhat. But for edge cases? For new technology? Actual rulings are erratic AF; it's a roll of the dice that you only get to make after three years of exchanging documents via expensive lawyers.)

Copyright is complicated; don't believe anyone's hot take about "what is REALLY legal/illegal." Including mine.

i'm curious what the state of copyright law is regarding like, algorithmic manipulations of data

like if you take some copyrighted material, encode it in some reversible way, and make sure you only distribute the encoded versions (and also whatever decoding algorithm is required) then you have copied the work as far as copyright is concerned. and also if you do some somewhat lossy compression on a file so that it can't be reversed but you can still clearly hear the music/see the movie/etc, that's still copyright infringement. but if you look at a copyrighted image, calculate the average of the RGB values of the pixels, and post those three numbers publicly on twitter, nobody can really argue that's copyright infringement (well, they can argue whatever they want. i would hope they would not succeed in court).

so i wonder if there's any caselaw on the space between those extremes. it'd be absurd to hope there's some definitive 'this is how much information has to be lost for it to not be copying as far as copyright is concerned' number but are there examples of publishing information derived from a copyrighted file and getting sued over that?

[jlmusicsounds]

Rival Throne ft Neoni JL NO COPYRIGHT MUSIC SOUNDS

[macroglossus]

weird asmr things i’ve seen tonight as euphemisms/threats. powerwashes your solar panels. chops up your pool noodle with a very sharp knife. applies a glitter grout to your bathroom tiles with a practiced hand