Hi, I want to share what I've learnt about A.I. and copyright in this regards with the hope it would be of any use:
- A.I. art of any type can not be copyrighted.
- The only way to copyright content generated with A.I. as CC0 or any creative commons license would be by making sure that the model used was trained with CC0 or content or any compatible license.
- It is impossible to prove the source of any generated A.I. content, you can never know how any derivated content has been achieved or which model was used and how it was trained.
In my opinion, if the new chord that you generated does not exist and is not copyrighted, it should be fine to use , but I'm afraid I have none to say about what is permited in OGA and I'm also not a lawyer so this is not by any means advice.
To me a chord that does not belong to any copyrighted song is a new chord and it doesn't matter if it came out of your mind of an A.I. and who will be able to know how you did it?
I guess you know the story of the A.I. generated art that won a price in colorado (more info in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9%C3%A2tre_D%27op%C3%A9ra_Spatial), it is relevant I think because the person who won the prize and generated the art tried to copyright the art and this was what happened:
"the Copyright Office Review Board made a final determination and found that Théâtre D'Opéra Spatial was not eligible for copyright protection as the human creative input was de minimis, with the AI-generated elements dominating."
So according to what happened in that case, if the A.I. does not "dominate" the work you are doing it should not be considered A.I. generated, otherwise yes.
actually it would not be safe to share anything no matter if A.I. or not A.I. generated because there is no way you can prove how it was generated.
There are instances of stable diffusion in which you can choose what are so called "checkpoints". According to what I found on internet this is the definition of checkpoints: "Checkpoints and models are fundamental concepts in machine learning that are related but distinct... A checkpoint is a snapshot during the training that captures the state of a model at a specific stage in the training process. In other words, checkpoints are a type of AI models. Think of checkpoints as save points in a video game, allowing you to capture the state of your model at specific intervals during training. When you use a checkpoint, you are able to generate images using the concepts and knowledge it has learnt up to the checkpoint."
There are thousands of those checkpoints you can find on the internet and choose to achieve and accomplish specific requirements and results.
So if I understand right, you can choose models that are trained exclusively on cc0 materials and also make checkpoints specific to any type of realism or art type you want, but the question specific to licensing is: how do you prove you used the right model and checkpoint to license any A.I. generated art as cc0?
The answer to this question is to me clear: you can't, and actually you can not prove either if a so called "non A.I. generated" assets was really made by a human. You can try to figure out and get close to the real source of the assets based on some patterns, but you can not assure anything. You can even make the A.i. draw like an amateur artist and make the A.I. make the same mistakes a human would make and make art with the A.I. indistinguishable from real human art if you train it with the right set of assets (for instance by feeding it with amateur assets).
Hi Tsorthan Grove, I've submitted the mix with the same pitch as the original track "lights". I think this solves the issue you mentioned, if you are not happy with the results or know how to improve it feel free to send me any audio with the track rendered at your desired pitch and I'll be glad to mix it.
Hi, sure feel free to change it the way you want. It is not my intention to degrade the quality but I can't keep the same scale and pitch when mixing so many tracks and they do not all match the pitch and bpm (in this case I think all matched the bpm but not the pitch). Feel free to do the changes you want and I'll be glad to remix it again and share it if you want.
Thank you Tausdei, I love to read that from the author of the tracks! I love the tracks and I had a lot of fun mixing them.
Thank you MedicineStorm, I'm glad to read you like the mix.
I guess I'm kind of inspired these days :)
I've just corrected the license, hopefully is right now.
Thank you Umplix for sharing such great music, I had a lot of fun mixing it!
Hi, I want to share what I've learnt about A.I. and copyright in this regards with the hope it would be of any use:
- A.I. art of any type can not be copyrighted.
- The only way to copyright content generated with A.I. as CC0 or any creative commons license would be by making sure that the model used was trained with CC0 or content or any compatible license.
- It is impossible to prove the source of any generated A.I. content, you can never know how any derivated content has been achieved or which model was used and how it was trained.
In my opinion, if the new chord that you generated does not exist and is not copyrighted, it should be fine to use , but I'm afraid I have none to say about what is permited in OGA and I'm also not a lawyer so this is not by any means advice.
To me a chord that does not belong to any copyrighted song is a new chord and it doesn't matter if it came out of your mind of an A.I. and who will be able to know how you did it?
I guess you know the story of the A.I. generated art that won a price in colorado (more info in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9%C3%A2tre_D%27op%C3%A9ra_Spatial), it is relevant I think because the person who won the prize and generated the art tried to copyright the art and this was what happened:
"the Copyright Office Review Board made a final determination and found that Théâtre D'Opéra Spatial was not eligible for copyright protection as the human creative input was de minimis, with the AI-generated elements dominating."
So according to what happened in that case, if the A.I. does not "dominate" the work you are doing it should not be considered A.I. generated, otherwise yes.
actually it would not be safe to share anything no matter if A.I. or not A.I. generated because there is no way you can prove how it was generated.
There are instances of stable diffusion in which you can choose what are so called "checkpoints". According to what I found on internet this is the definition of checkpoints: "Checkpoints and models are fundamental concepts in machine learning that are related but distinct... A checkpoint is a snapshot during the training that captures the state of a model at a specific stage in the training process. In other words, checkpoints are a type of AI models. Think of checkpoints as save points in a video game, allowing you to capture the state of your model at specific intervals during training. When you use a checkpoint, you are able to generate images using the concepts and knowledge it has learnt up to the checkpoint."
There are thousands of those checkpoints you can find on the internet and choose to achieve and accomplish specific requirements and results.
So if I understand right, you can choose models that are trained exclusively on cc0 materials and also make checkpoints specific to any type of realism or art type you want, but the question specific to licensing is: how do you prove you used the right model and checkpoint to license any A.I. generated art as cc0?
The answer to this question is to me clear: you can't, and actually you can not prove either if a so called "non A.I. generated" assets was really made by a human. You can try to figure out and get close to the real source of the assets based on some patterns, but you can not assure anything. You can even make the A.i. draw like an amateur artist and make the A.I. make the same mistakes a human would make and make art with the A.I. indistinguishable from real human art if you train it with the right set of assets (for instance by feeding it with amateur assets).
it looks fantastic, the final result looks as if it was made in 3d. I love it.
Hi Tsorthan Grove, I've submitted the mix with the same pitch as the original track "lights". I think this solves the issue you mentioned, if you are not happy with the results or know how to improve it feel free to send me any audio with the track rendered at your desired pitch and I'll be glad to mix it.
Hi, sure feel free to change it the way you want. It is not my intention to degrade the quality but I can't keep the same scale and pitch when mixing so many tracks and they do not all match the pitch and bpm (in this case I think all matched the bpm but not the pitch). Feel free to do the changes you want and I'll be glad to remix it again and share it if you want.
Thanks for the sharing such great tracks!
the beats and patterns are beautiful and hypnotic. I love it.
this sounds amazing, deep, atmospheric, I love the beats... great track... I could not resist to do this: https://opengameart.org/content/lights-iron-fields-low-breeze-loop-cosmic-creature-remixed-tsorthan-grove-vs-vitalezzz
Pages