The general rule was it had to be 25 percent different. This is why AI cant directly copy an image. You may remember some horrendous boundary pushing of art in the 2000s like that artist who straight up blew up celebrity and media influencers instagram posts and sold massive photos of it directly without giving the influencer/celebrity a cent. Avril Lavinge’s ex published her song lyric notes and won the case against her. Copyright has always been awful. The Marvin Gaye estate is notorious for bluffing that his IP is stolen, but music can legally sample 6 seconds of any song or sound without permission. Robin Thickes song was completely different and when that family is hard up they go after another obscure artist. Dont be swayed. If its original its original. Not like Selena Photos Y Recueredos and Back on the Chain Gang by the Pretenders, that one was blatant. And all she did was change the lyrics back in the 80s. Copyright changes, but you are protected just like the big guys. Don’t be afraid to create, you’ll be missing out on experience. Copy dont wory about originality just make art. Trust me I couldnt paint more than a stroke for years because of fear of being a copycat and infringing and unoriginal. Just copy copy until you have your own style. I promise it will come. Its impossible for two people to play the moonlight sonata exactly the same. I was friends with an Oxford music professor. He can tell anyone by the way they play a piano. The nuances are always going to show. You’re too original, you’re not a robot. Even 3d printers never print the same piece the same because of environmental factors.
All you need to know is change your art 25 percent from the original. Even if it is color choice, and anything you publish online is automatically protected in American courts. It doesn’t matter if you copy AI. If its 25 percent different its yours. Also I;ll remind you that AI legally cannot duplicate images to infringe on copyright. Thats why all images look slightly off. The nuances are set with parameters partially to keep it legal. If courts find it is copy beyond artistic expression, then in comes the hammers and bats to the ai server stacks. Serious.
GREAT article on copyrights and sampling. I learned a LOT, mostly that people are making all sorts of dumb rationalizations as to why their version of sampling is perfectly fine, when it’s not.
The ai companies used works of people without their permission to create the ai to then dump the prices of the labor to force the creators out of the business. The quality is worse but good enough for a lot of work. You can say “but that is how capitalism works” but you would be wrong, because they stole in step one.
The general rule was it had to be 25 percent different. This is why AI cant directly copy an image. You may remember some horrendous boundary pushing of art in the 2000s like that artist who straight up blew up celebrity and media influencers instagram posts and sold massive photos of it directly without giving the influencer/celebrity a cent. Avril Lavinge’s ex published her song lyric notes and won the case against her. Copyright has always been awful. The Marvin Gaye estate is notorious for bluffing that his IP is stolen, but music can legally sample 6 seconds of any song or sound without permission. Robin Thickes song was completely different and when that family is hard up they go after another obscure artist. Dont be swayed. If its original its original. Not like Selena Photos Y Recueredos and Back on the Chain Gang by the Pretenders, that one was blatant. And all she did was change the lyrics back in the 80s. Copyright changes, but you are protected just like the big guys. Don’t be afraid to create, you’ll be missing out on experience. Copy dont wory about originality just make art. Trust me I couldnt paint more than a stroke for years because of fear of being a copycat and infringing and unoriginal. Just copy copy until you have your own style. I promise it will come. Its impossible for two people to play the moonlight sonata exactly the same. I was friends with an Oxford music professor. He can tell anyone by the way they play a piano. The nuances are always going to show. You’re too original, you’re not a robot. Even 3d printers never print the same piece the same because of environmental factors.
All you need to know is change your art 25 percent from the original. Even if it is color choice, and anything you publish online is automatically protected in American courts. It doesn’t matter if you copy AI. If its 25 percent different its yours. Also I;ll remind you that AI legally cannot duplicate images to infringe on copyright. Thats why all images look slightly off. The nuances are set with parameters partially to keep it legal. If courts find it is copy beyond artistic expression, then in comes the hammers and bats to the ai server stacks. Serious.
Thee is no safe limit to sample legally without clearance. Even a micro-chop or one-shot can get you in trouble.
GREAT article on copyrights and sampling. I learned a LOT, mostly that people are making all sorts of dumb rationalizations as to why their version of sampling is perfectly fine, when it’s not.
It’s pretty clear that suno.com is committing massive copyright fraud.
Missing the point.
The ai companies used works of people without their permission to create the ai to then dump the prices of the labor to force the creators out of the business. The quality is worse but good enough for a lot of work. You can say “but that is how capitalism works” but you would be wrong, because they stole in step one.