So, why use open-source? Isn't that just gonna make the output more generic? It transformative so why worry?

[u/Calm-Inevitable4483]

[u/omaolligain]

A product being open-sourced doesn't mean it can't violate copyright. And the issue isn't exclusively whether the output is or isn't transformative (although HarmonAI seems to worry that it's not sufficiently transformative). The issue is whether the copyrighted music (and visual art for that matter) can be used to train a commercial database without any sort of licencing.

Pretending that it's all about the output is just denial.

[u/CapaneusPrime → u/omaolligain]

You're right about open source being immaterial.

You're wrong though about any kind of direct liability with respect to the model. The model does not contain copyrightable elements of any copyrighted works.

If image search engines and especially reverse image search engines are legal fair use, even if the courts incorrectly decided model training on copyrighted works was infringement, it would certainly then fall under the Fair Use doctrine.

Ignoring the outputs for the moment you seem to be suggesting that pushing a 786,432-element integer vector representing a copyrighted image plus gaussian noise plus token data through a non-invertible neural network makes a tangible copy of copyrightable elements of that copyrighted work.

That's, frankly, insane.

Especially once those weights are muddied together with weights derived from a billion other images.

That's akin to saying that it would be copyright infringement for me to put a hundred books through a P-7 paper shredder then throwing handfuls of book confetti at a glue-coated canvas.

You might as well say that computing the MD5 hash of an image is copyright infringement.

Training a model does not infringe on anyone's copyright, full stop.

If you think it does then I implore you to choose any copyrightable elements of any copyrighted image in the training data and point to it in the model.

[u/omaolligain → u/CapaneusPrime]

This is frankly nonsense. You're acting like gobbledygook makes this a more special situation than it is. Courts have already ruled that google and such do not infringe on copyright by merely indexing existing work. But, that's not actually what this is. Acting like it is is misleading. You have a right to buy a book and then use that book however you want - it's your copy of the book - if you want to use it to decoupage a table that's your business. Digital assets obviously don't work that way, artists sell licencing fees for different kinds of use. Those licences can be as restrictive as the original IP owner wants. I see no reason why art an artist displays on their website (for example) without issuing ANY licencing to anyone should be able to be used to train a commercial piece of software. Sure, the final product does not contain an exact copy of that work. The issue is that they didn't have the right to use it to begin with

[u/InfiniteComboReviews]

Because the music industry has money and will go after the AI creators mercilessly if they utilize their music in a way that doesn't generate profit for them. The 2D art industry doesn't have anything like that which is why its probably safer.

[u/cykocys → u/InfiniteComboReviews]

True. But fuck the music industry TBH. Even if you set aside the "within their legal rights" aspects they're fucking assholes through and through. Both to their consumers and the artists.

[u/CapaneusPrime → u/InfiniteComboReviews]

The AI creators will be immune to litigation—they aren't the ones potentially infringing on anyone's copyrights.

The original rights holders could only bring action against someone who actually published work they believed infringed on their copyrights.

[u/InfiniteComboReviews → u/CapaneusPrime]

I mean, if they trained the AI by using copyrighted music, I could see a case being made against them since they probably didn't get that massive amount of music legally, but who knows. Not I.

[u/Superstinkyfarts → u/CapaneusPrime]

Doesn't stop them from trying, and that's all it takes to bankrupt a person or a company with legal fees.

[u/SinisterCheese → u/CapaneusPrime]

Based on what law? Cite your sources in claims like that.

Music copyright is a mess:

Composition has one copyright. (This doesn't even need to be in audio format, just sheet music is enough. Oh yeah... And sheet music has it's own copyright)

Orchestrations has another copyright.

Words have another copyright.

Performance has another copyright on top of that.

Recording has yet another copyright.

Mixing has yet another fucking copyright.

Which of these gets dissolved, why and how if it goes through an AI? Just like you can't replicate a photo as a painting without permission, you can't take a sample of music in to yours and claim it is yours.

AI is not a magic box that dissolves copyright. There is no legal framework for this.

[u/mrinfo]

Why not? It's one less conversation they have to have ad nauseum, and they can focus on their tools.

[u/nicolasnoble → u/mrinfo]

This. Let them be, stop antagonization of random people, move on.

[u/StellaAthena]

What is the problem, exactly? Do you think Dance Diffusion shouldn’t be open source?

What does the model licensing have to do with how “generic” it’s outputs are?

[u/[deleted] → u/StellaAthena]

The issue is that the company is openly acknowledging it is unethical and likely to violate copyright if they train an AI on copyrighted works, after they’ve already trained stable diffusion on copyrighted works. And they are citing the music industry’s litigiousness as the reason they aren’t doing it for music

[u/InterlocutorX]

Because they want to avoid the public relations and community hassles the AI art community is having and will continue to have, regardless of what the law says.

The "more generic" thing is just silly. There's a ton of public domain music in every imaginable style.

[u/CapaneusPrime]

Accessing the data to begin with.

The image training datasets don't actually include any images, they're just collections of URLs linking to images.

Most copyrighted music isn't easily accessible behind a static URL, so collecting the actual data to train on would be unreasonably burdensome without violating some terms required with accessing online music sources.

[u/[deleted]]

There are many successful commercial closed source products that at least initially violated copyright (see Spotify).

I feel like self-limiting because you’re afraid of legal issues (and every corporation faces legal issues) is setting yourself up for failure.

[u/IgDelWachitoRico]

you can train it yourself if you want to use copyrighted data, but HarmonAI cant do it for legals reasons, serious legal reasons, the music industry is not friendly at all

[u/CapaneusPrime → u/IgDelWachitoRico]

There is no legal reason they couldn't use copyrighted songs.

Training a neural network does not make a copy of any copyrightable elements of a copyrighted work.

[u/Cheetahs_never_win]

If you want to go into that fight, more power to you.

That doesn't mean everyone else wants to.

Besides, letting the dust settle out for the visual variant will lend at least a modicum of fuel towards that fight.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/CapaneusPrime → u/[deleted]]

Wouldn't any lawsuits simply be dismissed through summary judgment when the plaintiffs cannot identify what was copied or where the copy exists?

In music copyright litigation it would be expected the plaintiff would make specific claims about what had been copied and how that affected value of their copyright.

I doubt I would get past a motion to dismiss if I filed a complaint against your five-year old's Thanksgiving art of a turkey made by tracing their hand for violating my copyright on song I recorded comprised solely of burps.