The conundrum of sound likes

[bobcat]

On the movie quotes programs, you choose from a list of various actor's quotes from various movies. I'd wager the program creator or publisher got someone's permission and maybe even paid for the use of the actor's voices, if it's required.

There's several of these programs out there. They aren't free; you buy them at a tech shop or download them online with a credit card.

I assume the quotes themselves are public domain. You see them all over the place...memes and movie reviews, for example.

Yeah, much of the industry has teams of lawyers that don't like to take chances, so they probably do get permission, and apparently famous quotes from movies are copyrighted when they are a significant quote in the movie, but not protected if they are just said in passing dialogue (Not sure who gets to decide that).

As for the memes that probably didn't get permission, it's unlikely that the industry would go after them anyway if the person using it doesn't have deep pockets. It's not worth the time and effort to police it, unless it really causes undue harm.

 

[bobcat]

I'm sure with the evolution of AI in the use of recordings will demand new laws be put in place to protect human artists' rights. I wouldn't be surprised if those laws also keep evolving to encompass new situations that arise.

I think you're absolutely right. It's going to create a whole new landscape and it's unclear how blurred the lines may get. I remember when Napster made recording music over the internet easy to do, and it required the courts to sort it out. Napster was just a tool for sharing files, and in itself was not violating anything, but it was how others were using it that mattered, which became a nightmare for the company.

 

[Paco Dennis]

A video of the speech given by a South American president at a recent international conference was not only translated to English, his mouth was manipulated by AI to appear as though he was actually speaking English.

When we watched that, my wife and I looked at each other like "Uh-oh." Because, what a beautiful way to spread misinformation.

I know. What we see and hear from the media, will become impossible to trust!

 

[OneEyedDiva]

A video of the speech given by a South American president at a recent international conference was not only translated to English, his mouth was manipulated by AI to appear as though he was actually speaking English.

When we watched that, my wife and I looked at each other like "Uh-oh." Because, what a beautiful way to spread misinformation.

Recently there was an AI recording of our president telling people not to vote for something or other. Obviously it sounded legit since his voice was perfectly mimicked. This is scary stuff, especially when masses of people can be led in the wrong direction! At the same time, there was another concerning AI event, but I can't remember what it was.

 

[OldEngineer]

Isn't there some 'thing' in copyright law that allows you to publish a short part of a copyrighted song without permission in your video or movie? I see a lot of 'youtubers' mute their recording after a few seconds of a song that can be heard in the background. I've even heard some of them comment on it and I know that YouTube is very strict about it. Just asking more than anything - I don't have any valuable knowledge...

I've also 'heard' that if you get caught with the Happy Birthday Song on your video/movie, that The Warner Music Group will send you a bill for somewhere in the range of $5K to $30K. (They make over $2 million per year tracking down violators.) You can use it for your personal use of course like you can with anything copyrighted or patented. I'll bet that AI can write a happy birthday song that sounds similar but doesn't technically violate the copyright. It's a slippery slope all around.

 

[PeppermintPatty]

Probably past my pay grade, but I would assume each one is a created work, and each one has permission to use the copyrighted material of the previous work. If that's true, then no harm, no foul. If not, then the previous copyright owner could sue.

Sure the copyright owner could sue but it might cost more than it’s worth

 

[Murrmurr]

Isn't there some 'thing' in copyright law that allows you to publish a short part of a copyrighted song without permission in your video or movie? I see a lot of 'youtubers' mute their recording after a few seconds of a song that can be heard in the background. I've even heard some of them comment on it and I know that YouTube is very strict about it. Just asking more than anything - I don't have any valuable knowledge...

I've also 'heard' that if you get caught with the Happy Birthday Song on your video/movie, that The Warner Music Group will send you a bill for somewhere in the range of $5K to $30K. (They make over $2 million per year tracking down violators.) You can use it for your personal use of course like you can with anything copyrighted or patented. I'll bet that AI can write a happy birthday song that sounds similar but doesn't technically violate the copyright. It's a slippery slope all around.

I think you're wrong about the birthday song.

But you're right...Youtubers can only use parts of a published song if the owner of the song - individual, estate, corporation or other business entity - reports the youtuber or the music is flagged (by the owner) for auto-reporting. And some songs can't be published even in part.

This usually happens only if the youtuber stands to gain financially from the video but some songs are barred from use whether there's financial gain or not. Almost every Beatle song falls under that category.

 

[Murrmurr]

As for the memes that probably didn't get permission, it's unlikely that the industry would go after them anyway if the person using it doesn't have deep pockets.

Or because the quote falls under the category of public domain....belonging to the public.

People can freely publish famous quotes and bits of speeches by past presidents or famous authors or scientists, for example, but often they're required to use a footnote or other type of attribution in their publication. One of the jobs of an editor or publisher is to point those out.

When one of us posts something like that here on SF, an attribution isn't a legal requirement.

 

[Murrmurr]

Sure the copyright owner could sue but it might cost more than it’s worth

The copyright owner doesn't file a lawsuit, though (unless using their stuff defames or slanders them). They usually just ask a court to order the person to remove or delete their quote, or whatever, and that doesn't cost a bunch. It's just a form that costs about the same as an order of restraint. If the judge decides in favor, the offender receives a court order to immediately remove or delete whatever the thing is from wherever they used it.

And there's no trial or hearing unless the other person decides to spend a bunch of money fighting a court order.

 

[bobcat]

Isn't there some 'thing' in copyright law that allows you to publish a short part of a copyrighted song without permission in your video or movie? I see a lot of 'youtubers' mute their recording after a few seconds of a song that can be heard in the background. I've even heard some of them comment on it and I know that YouTube is very strict about it. Just asking more than anything - I don't have any valuable knowledge...

I've also 'heard' that if you get caught with the Happy Birthday Song on your video/movie, that The Warner Music Group will send you a bill for somewhere in the range of $5K to $30K. (They make over $2 million per year tracking down violators.) You can use it for your personal use of course like you can with anything copyrighted or patented. I'll bet that AI can write a happy birthday song that sounds similar but doesn't technically violate the copyright. It's a slippery slope all around.

I think you can use small portions or clips without permission, but I don't know what those parameters are. Even so, it's probably unlikely they would come after you, depending on your use of it, and whether it's for monetary gain.

As for the birthday song, man that's cold if they do that. Some birthday present eh. But I would guess if it's just for personal use, they don't care. Just as long as you don't use it for marketing anyway.

 

[ohioboy]

However, commercial parodies fall under Fair Use.

 

[ohioboy]

Sure the copyright owner could sue but it might cost more than it’s worth

It would take an infringement suit, yes, of course a plaintiff could pray for costs and fees. A cease and desist letter is usually the starting point, and may even be required by law (??) before a right to sue or a Cause of action is proper.?

 

[Murrmurr]

However, commercial parodies fall under Fair Use.

Good point.

 

[PeppermintPatty]

It would take an infringement suit, yes, of course a plaintiff could pray for costs and fees. A cease and desist letter is usually the starting point, and may even be required by law (??) before a right to sue or a Cause of action is proper.?

The copyright owner doesn't file a lawsuit, though (unless using their stuff defames or slanders them). They usually just ask a court to order the person to remove or delete their quote, or whatever, and that doesn't cost a bunch. It's just a form that costs about the same as an order of restraint. If the judge decides in favor, the offender receives a court order to immediately remove or delete whatever the thing is from wherever they used it.

And there's no trial or hearing unless the other person decides to spend a bunch of money fighting a court order.

I don’t really know much about copyrights.
I have a karaoke app that gives me access to a whole library of background music. Every once in a while one of my songs will get tagged and scooped up due to copyright laws. I’m protected by the fact that I didn’t copy any of the songs but I do know some songs sound exactly like the musician who originally did it.

I can download stuff off YouTube and use it without permission as long as I’m not selling it or making money from it in any way.

Many musicians get upset with others using karaoke. They look at it as cheating. I can see both sides of the coin.

 

[ohioboy]

Another reason why you can tape a TV show for personal use, or record radio music, etc., that is or course protected.

 

[Murrmurr]

... A cease and desist letter is usually the starting point, and may even be required by law (??) before a right to sue or a Cause of action is proper.?

It is the starting point, and a judge can end it right there by issuing a court-order requiring the defendant to remove or delete the violating item. Then it would cost the defendant if they decide to fight a court order.

 

[Murrmurr]

I don’t really know much about copyrights.
I have a karaoke app that gives me access to a whole library of background music. Every once in a while one of my songs will get tagged and scooped up due to copyright laws. I’m protected by the fact that I didn’t copy any of the songs but I do know some songs sound exactly like the musician who originally did it.

I can download stuff off YouTube and use it without permission as long as I’m not selling it or making money from it in any way.

Many musicians get upset with others using karaoke. They look at it as cheating. I can see both sides of the coin.

And sometimes you have to pay to download something from YouTube, probably because those ones have a copyright or are owned by some entity.

 

[ohioboy]

It is the starting point, and a judge can end it right there by issuing a court-order requiring the defendant to remove or delete the violating item. Then it would cost the defendant if they decide to fight a court order.

You can bet in an infringement suit though, a Jury trial will be requested by either the plaintiff or defendant, not a bench trial.

 

[PeppermintPatty]

And sometimes you have to pay to download something from YouTube, probably because those ones have a copyright or owned by some entity.

Yes I think so. Musicians and artists don’t make much. I have paid for music I’ve used which I have no complaints about . It does get expensive which is why the karaoke idea was so awesome. I don’t have to worry about copyright laws. The owners of the app get paid to worry about that.

 

[Murrmurr]

You can bet in an infringement suit though, a Jury trial will be requested by either the plaintiff or defendant, not a bench trial.

Yes, so I agree with the OP in that AI manipulation of importance is going to be a big can of worms...very likely to lead to new legislation and legal language. It has the potential to go well beyond infringement.

 

[VaughanJB]

Interestingly, until recently the sound of a person's voice was not something that could be copyrighted, but that may be changing. However, what if your voice naturally sounds remarkably like a celebrity singer, and your new song becomes a hit, what then? Also, what if it's an AI that sounds exactly like the celebrity?

I don't think it's a matter of a copyright on the sound of a voice. Instead, it's an impersonation, and as such, you're trading in the reputation of the person being impersonated.

 

[bobcat]

Yes, so I agree with the OP in that AI manipulation of importance is going to be a big can of worms...very likely to lead to new legislation and legal language. It has the potential to go well beyond infringement.

It does seem to get a bit mucky. For instance, if an AI generates a song and or lyrics, is it copyrighted, and if so, who owns it? Is the one who requested the AI to do it the owner of the copyrighted work, because the owner didn't actually create the work. That would be like asking Elton John to write a song for you that you didn't create. Elton John would own the song and sell the rights to you. So, does that mean that an AI owns the song if it created the song. I don't know.

 

[bobcat]

I don't think it's a matter of a copyright on the sound of a voice. Instead, it's an impersonation, and as such, you're trading in the reputation of the person being impersonated.

It is confusing. Although, as I understand it, the actual sound of a person's voice cannot be copyrighted, but any public performance or recording of one's voice is copyrighted. As we all know, a singer has a certain style, intonations, and tonality, and articulations that trademark their particular singing voice, that may be a bit different than when they are just speaking normally. So if an AI is used to imitate a singer, then it would be logical to assume the material used by the AI to replicate the sound of that singer would have come from a performance, and therefore a protected work. If that's the case, then it is a violation. That's my thoughts anyway.

 

[bobcat]

In a related matter, in addition to the Bette Midler lawsuit over using a sound alike singer, Rick Astley also sued the rapper Yung Gravy in a similar manner. Rick's song: "Never Gonna Give You Up" was licensed to Gravy to use for a fee. So Gravy hired a sound alike singer thinking he had the legal right to use the song. However, Astley sued him because he had only licensed them to use the lyrics and song, but not to imitate his voice. Apparently it was settled for an undisclosed amount of money. So apparently, an imitation of another's voice can get you into hot water.

 

[Murrmurr]

It does seem to get a bit mucky. For instance, if an AI generates a song and or lyrics, is it copyrighted, and if so, who owns it? Is the one who requested the AI to do it the owner of the copyrighted work, because the owner didn't actually create the work. That would be like asking Elton John to write a song for you that you didn't create. Elton John would own the song and sell the rights to you. So, does that mean that an AI owns the song if it created the song. I don't know.

Despite its "intelligence", AI is not a living being of any sort. It doesn't have any more rights under the law than my stapler has.

If I asked my AI program to make art, I could copyright it if I wanted to. I could sell it whether I had a copyright for it or not, and if I had it copyrighted I'd have a right to file a complaint if someone copied it for the purpose of selling it. The lines are not blurred on that issue.

My AI program did not create that work of art spontaneously, I prompted it. I fed it some info, and whether I used 2 or 3 words or 20 sentences, it couldn't have created that particular artwork if not for my prompts, parameters, instructions, ideas, or however you label my input.

If I just let my AI art program spit something out with zero prompts, it still has the same rights as my stapler...none. But, as it stands now, I have the right to own what it did...and I wouldn't owe it anything.