Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Tuesday, January 14, 2025
Anthropic to Enforce Copyright Guardrails on AI Tools
www.hollywoodreporter.com: A trio of major music publishers suing Anthropic over the use of lyrics to train its AI system have reached a deal with the Amazon-backed company to resolve some parts of a pending preliminary injunction.
4 comments:
Genie Li
said...
t’s such a strange feeling, because on one hand, AI could be the future of art—pushing boundaries and creating new possibilities. But on the other hand, seeing a company like Anthropic just use lyrics from artists like Katy Perry, the Rolling Stones, or Beyoncé without paying for them feels pretty unfair. It’s almost like taking something so personal, like a part of an artist’s soul, and using it for free without even asking. When artists create something, they put so much of themselves into it. So when someone else, like an AI company, can just take those lyrics and use them for their own purposes, it makes me question who really owns art in this age. It’s not just about money, but about respect for the artist’s work and their creative energy.
Reading about this application of lyrics creation in AI and publishing companies attempting to intervene made me wonder about the potentially gray area of parody lyric creation in that parodies themselves are under fair use to a certain extent as it transforms the pre-existing song or artform in a meaningful way, avoiding copyright infringement. But, if an AI is trained on a particular song and then produces another song (either by prompt of the user or just based off of the dedicated output of the LLM) that follows the same syllabic and rhyme structure as one within its training set, would this be considered a form of copyright infringement? Clearly using the syllabic and rhyme structure in parody creation isn’t copyright infringement, but now that an AI is capable of doing that work, will publishers view this in the same way and would this kind of output be outside of the guardrails already implemented? Clearly copyright law over the coming years will come under higher scrutiny and examination in order to better understand how AI and the creation of lyrics is involved.
I am glad to see that publishers are standing up against AI, it is so sad to see that AI has gone pretty much unregulated and unchallenged since its development. While it can be a helpful tool, the fact that it has been allowed to steal and pirate from music, art, and all things creative is ridiculous. Everything it generates creatively is based on works that humans have created and therefore is stealing work constantly, which is why I am glad to see Publishings standing up for their rights. WHile I recognize they are only in it for the money, it is their livelihood and I hope that it is the first of many in a long line of lawsuits to protect the rights of creators. Without anyone willing to fight artists will become obsolete, and life without creativity is not really worth living. While AI can never create something new I believe there will come a time if its art generation side becomes developed enough that businesses will choose AI over artists for time and cost efficiency effectively cutting new art out of the world.
I think this is somewhat good news, that corporations are starting to take action to protect against AI. Especially in industries like music where it has become stupidly easy to get a bot to write a mediocre recreation of songs written by real people. That whole situation is not helped by an influx of people online claiming that it's an easy way to make money which just leads to platforms being flooded with the same recreations of bad music in hopes that they can create some sort of passive income. But with laws such as this one limiting AI to at least having to follow basic copyright laws, provides me with some hope that much of the AI craze we are currently in will die down when people start to realize that AI is a tool not a fix all solution that should not be thrown at every faucet of life.
4 comments:
t’s such a strange feeling, because on one hand, AI could be the future of art—pushing boundaries and creating new possibilities. But on the other hand, seeing a company like Anthropic just use lyrics from artists like Katy Perry, the Rolling Stones, or Beyoncé without paying for them feels pretty unfair. It’s almost like taking something so personal, like a part of an artist’s soul, and using it for free without even asking. When artists create something, they put so much of themselves into it. So when someone else, like an AI company, can just take those lyrics and use them for their own purposes, it makes me question who really owns art in this age. It’s not just about money, but about respect for the artist’s work and their creative energy.
Reading about this application of lyrics creation in AI and publishing companies attempting to intervene made me wonder about the potentially gray area of parody lyric creation in that parodies themselves are under fair use to a certain extent as it transforms the pre-existing song or artform in a meaningful way, avoiding copyright infringement. But, if an AI is trained on a particular song and then produces another song (either by prompt of the user or just based off of the dedicated output of the LLM) that follows the same syllabic and rhyme structure as one within its training set, would this be considered a form of copyright infringement? Clearly using the syllabic and rhyme structure in parody creation isn’t copyright infringement, but now that an AI is capable of doing that work, will publishers view this in the same way and would this kind of output be outside of the guardrails already implemented? Clearly copyright law over the coming years will come under higher scrutiny and examination in order to better understand how AI and the creation of lyrics is involved.
I am glad to see that publishers are standing up against AI, it is so sad to see that AI has gone pretty much unregulated and unchallenged since its development. While it can be a helpful tool, the fact that it has been allowed to steal and pirate from music, art, and all things creative is ridiculous. Everything it generates creatively is based on works that humans have created and therefore is stealing work constantly, which is why I am glad to see Publishings standing up for their rights. WHile I recognize they are only in it for the money, it is their livelihood and I hope that it is the first of many in a long line of lawsuits to protect the rights of creators. Without anyone willing to fight artists will become obsolete, and life without creativity is not really worth living. While AI can never create something new I believe there will come a time if its art generation side becomes developed enough that businesses will choose AI over artists for time and cost efficiency effectively cutting new art out of the world.
I think this is somewhat good news, that corporations are starting to take action to protect against AI. Especially in industries like music where it has become stupidly easy to get a bot to write a mediocre recreation of songs written by real people. That whole situation is not helped by an influx of people online claiming that it's an easy way to make money which just leads to platforms being flooded with the same recreations of bad music in hopes that they can create some sort of passive income. But with laws such as this one limiting AI to at least having to follow basic copyright laws, provides me with some hope that much of the AI craze we are currently in will die down when people start to realize that AI is a tool not a fix all solution that should not be thrown at every faucet of life.
Post a Comment