![\"The](\"https:\/\/wp-assets.futurism.com\/2019\/04\/ai-generated-music-legal-clusterfuck-300x158.png\")
<\/div>AI-Generated Music<\/h2>
If you train a music-generating artificial intelligence exclusively on tracks by Beyoncé, do you owe the pop star a cut of any resulting songs’ profits? And is it even legal to use copyrighted songs to train an AI in the first place?<\/p>
Those are just a couple of the questions The Verge<\/em> poses in a fascinating new story<\/a> about AI-generated music published Wednesday. And while the publication consulted numerous experts from the music, tech, and legal industries for the story, the input of one person in particular — Jonathan Bailey, CTO of audio tech company iZotope — seemed to most concisely sum up the issue.<\/p> “I won’t mince words,” he told The Verge<\/em>. “This is a total legal clusterfuck.”<\/p> Despite the U.S. Copyright Office bringing up the potential problems that could arise from computer songwriters way back in 1965<\/a>, U.S. copyright law has yet to nail down exactly who owns what when a computer is involved in the creative process, according to The Verge<\/em>.<\/p> As it stands, the Beyoncé-trained AI could crank out an entire album of “Lemonade”-esque tracks, and as long as none of them sounded too much like any specific Beyoncé song, the AI-generated music wouldn’t be infringing on her copyrights — and the AI’s creator wouldn’t legally owe the artist a penny, lawyer Meredith Rose told The Verge<\/em>.<\/p> Less clear is the use of copyrighted songs to train an AI. Several of The Verge’s<\/em> sources said there isn’t a straightforward answer as to whether buying a song grants a person the right to then use it to train a machine learning system.<\/p> Of course, programmers have yet to come anywhere near<\/a> creating AIs capable of autonomously churning out hit songs in the key of Bey — or anyone else for that matter — but that doesn’t mean they won’t be able to one day.<\/p> “It’s like the future of self-driving cars,” media-focused venture capitalist Leonard Brody told Fortune<\/em> in October<\/a>. “Level 1 is an artist using a machine to assist them. Level 2 is where the music is crafted by a machine but performed by a human. Level 3 is where the whole thing is machines.”<\/p> We’ve already seen several examples of those first two levels — tech-forward songstress Taryn Southern shared songwriting credits with AI on her “I AM AI” album<\/a>, released in September, and that same month, Iranian composer Ash Koosha released an album<\/a> on which he sang songs composed by AI-powered software.<\/p> If Brody’s prediction is correct, the next step will be AIs creating music by themselves — and if we’re already in the midst of a “legal clusterfuck,” who knows what sort of legislative nightmare that will be?<\/p> READ MORE: <\/strong>WE’VE BEEN WARNED ABOUT AI AND MUSIC FOR OVER 50 YEARS, BUT NO ONE’S PREPARED<\/a> [The Verge<\/em>]<\/p> More on AI songwriters:<\/strong> This Musician Created an AI to Write Songs for Him, and They’re Pretty Strange<\/a><\/em><\/p> The post Expert: AI-Generated Music Is A “Total Legal Clusterf*ck”<\/a> appeared first on Futurism<\/a>.<\/p> See more here: AI-Generated Music If you train a music-generating artificial intelligence exclusively on tracks by Beyonc\u00e9, do you owe the pop star a cut of any resulting songs\u2019 profits? And is it even legal to use copyrighted songs to train an AI in the first place? Those are just a couple of the questions The Verge poses in a fascinating new story \u00a0about AI-generated music published Wednesday Continue reading Imitation Game<\/h2>
Clock’s Ticking<\/h2>
Expert: AI-Generated Music Is A “Total Legal Clusterf*ck”<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"