For the assignment “Reaction post to articles about Articles Intelligence,” we were to post a brief summary of the topics covered and arguments made, and our impression of the article and event.
In Article 1: “Music Creators Want Consent in the AI Age, But Developers Find Safe Havens Abroad…,” by Kristin Robinson, music creators fight to limit the rights of AI companies. The Universal Music Group emailed Spotify, Apple Music, and other streaming services in March asking them to stop AI companies from using its labels’ recordings to train their machine-learning software. Almost nobody asks for permission to use artists work as input for vocabulary to machine-learning. To help establish a compromise between copyright owners and AI developers, Spawning’s Technology Company created a website called HaveIBeenTrained.com, which helps creators determine whether their work is found in these common data sets and opt out of being use as fodder for training. Artists and songwriters are just looking for protection against developers that use music created by professional AI algorithms. I, obviously, am in no way a songwriter or music creator, but I believe these effects the public and not only the songwriters. Creators want to show their work just as much as went to listen to it, but it defeats the purpose if it is all a lie and not our favorite artist’s work.
In Article 2: “AI Generated Works Aren’t Protected by Copyrights, Federal Judge Rules…,” by Bill Donahue, a federal judge ruled that U.S. copyright law does not cover creative works created by AI. Judge Beryl Howell upheld a decision by the U.S. Copyright Office to deny a copyright registration to computer scientist Stephen Thaler for an image created solely by an AI model. Thaler’s attorney then appealed. This ruling was important because it came amid growing interest in the future role that could be played in the creation of music and other content by AI tools. What if an AI-powered tool is used in the studio to create parts of a song, but human artists add other elements to the final product? How much human direction on the use of those tools is needed for the output to count as “human authorship?” I believe there are a lot of unanswered questions around AI, meaning what is right or wrong. I think if the legal system was able to come up with actual rulings around creation of music and AI tools, there would be a lot less upset around the whole idea.
In Article 3: “Protecting Songwriters In the Age of AI…,” by Paul Williams, many fight for the rights of songwriters in protests on Capitol Hill. Songwriter members of the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) will perform “We Write the Songs” at the Library of Congress in front of Members of Congress to share the stories behind their writings. They are also there to affirm the rights as AI and other technologies seek to use their creations. After their “We Write the Songs” performance, they met with the Members of Congress to protect creators in the age of AI. They developed 6 principles for AI and need Congress to uphold them. They wanted humans’ creators first, transparency, consent, compensation, credit, and global consistency all around. ASCAP’s goal is to help music creators navigate the future while protecting their rights and livelihoods.
