👍

To add my own opinion on this, I would say a chord progression is not enough "content" by itself to be a copyrighted work. As glitchart stated, AI output cannot be copyrighted. However, because of the nature of how AI's are trained, their output may still infringe upon the copyright of others. That being said, a single chord progression is probably not enough to infringe anything. It's like trying to copyright a color palette. An elaborate painting that was created using those colors may be subject to copyright, but not the colors themselves. I guess it depends on how elaborate this chord progression is.

Complexity aside, how are you "recreat[ing] it from scratch"? If it is truly being created from scratch, did you need the AI output at all? I would argue the AI output is being used in some way to produce your own version, not truly created from scratch. However, the way it is being used may simply be as inspiration. If you are listening to the AI-produced chord progression, and using that to inspire you to create (even a similar) chord progression of your own, that is inspiration. If you are memorizing the notes and reproducing the exact same notes in a new set of chords, that ... may still technically count as "copying" and therefore a derivative of AI output. Just as it would still be considered copying if you closely studied a copyrighted work of pixel art, then created a replica of it pixel-by-pixel from eidetic memory.

It's ok to be inspired by an existing work that leads to you creating a new work, even if the new work has some similarities to the original. The line that separates inspiration from derivation is, unfortunately, fuzzy and- sometimes- moving.

Q: For the scenario you outlined above, how would copyright law see it? 

A: I don't know. In all likelihood, it would not care so long as you were contributing a significant amount of creative input, and not just relying on the majority of the work to be done by the AI.

 

Q: For the scenario you outlined above, how would OGA see it in regards to submission rules?

A: Depending on how complex the original chord progression is (e.g. de minimis? ) and depending on how closely you replicated it and what method was used to do so, it may be "inspiration" and would not be considered an "AI assisted asset". Or it could be considered borderline, and may be permitted with limitations, and it would need to be labelled as AI assisted. However, those are the two possibilities for the scenario you've described: "Yes it's fine" or "Maybe, it's kind of ok", but not "No, definitely not allowed"

I think it would be less confusing to put that instead. "Steal" implies "take without paying", which is exactly what people are supposed to do here. 

If people can't use this asset without paying for it, they can't use it. 

I recommend something more like "please be sure to give credit if you use this"

Thanks for the details. So you did not overlay the reference images on your art as you were drawing it nor copy-paste any parts of them? EDIT: Provenance provided in DM, thanks! :)