jasrys

Sharing in case useful for someone. Started getting into this subject in 2015, and full disclosure: I'm no physicist by any means. Without the formal background, the math and concepts were really hard to conjure and comprehend purely from the page, so I built an interactive self-study guide to "feel" the equations from Newton to holography. https://apples-to-entanglement.jasonrys.com/

NASA tested one at Marshall about a year ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UShD03eG9IU

No one. At least in the US, copyright requires human authorship.[1]

There are several ongoing cases, probably most prominently the Thaler v. Perlmutter case. [2]

[1] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf

[2] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/docs/us-brief-for-appellees.pdf

AI generated music is not protected by copyright, at least in the US, since copyright can only affix to works created by humans (the "human authorship requirement").[1][2] Without copyright protection, there is no "economic value" -- at least directly tied to the songs themselves. AI generated songs are not paid royalties at e.g. The Mechanical Licensing Collective for US streaming use.[3]

[1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-03-16/pdf/2023-0... (Copyright Registration Guidance section)

[2] https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/02/23/thaler-loses-ai-authorship...

[3] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/USCO-Guidance-Letter-to-The-MLC...

You can read more about what that deal covered — and didn’t cover — here on NMPA’s site:

https://www.nmpa.org/twitch-makes-deal-with-nmpa-but-streame...

They haven't licensed publishing (at least not yet). Source: am publisher

1. lots of established law and case law (at least in the US), this is already a well-settled problem and folks have the tools and proper venue to bring infringement claims. Yes, federal copyright infringement litigation is prohibitively expensive for many issues. There is a now a "small claims court" for smaller issues. [1]

2. Those works cannot be copyrighted (at least in the US). [2]. And hey, someone already tried copyrighting every song melody [3]

[1]: https://copyright.gov/about/small-claims/

[2]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...

[3]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJtm0MoOgiU

This is probably a somewhat unpopular opinion on HN, but it is where many of the artists I work with are generally trying to get to. Consent, compensation, and credit.

Couldn't go to a better home. Thanks for making this field approachable.

It depends, but yes, usually. Post-1978, the author of a work is also the copyright owner as soon as the work is fixed in a "tangible medium of expression" (written down, recorded, dictated, etc.). The exception to this is when the work was created as a "work for hire" (WFH) [1] for an employer. The rules around what constitutes a bonafide WFH are governed by agency law in the US. The primary court case in this area is The Community For Creative Non-Violence v. Reid which outlines a fairly high bar for a work to be considered a true WFH (it asks questions like: did you go to an office where the employer told you what to do and how to create it, did the employer provide you materials, did the employer pay you as a salaried employee rather than a contractor, how were you treated tax-wise and benefits-wise, etc.). That said, as the copyright owner at the moment of fixation, you can absolutely assign that copyright in writing to anyone you'd like. So functionally, there is usually a backup clause saying something like: "this is a work for hire for us, but, in the event it's deemed not a work for hire, you hereby assign the copyright to us anyway."

[1] https://copyright.gov/circs/circ30.pdf [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_for_Creative_Non-Vio...

Royalty rate increased to $0.12/copy as of January 1, 2023 for songs under five minutes in length (the rate increases from there for longer songs). [1][2]

[1] Case docs for CRB Phonorecords IV (see subpart B): https://app.crb.gov/case/detail/21-CRB-0001-PR%20%282023-202...

[2] Summarizing article: https://variety.com/2022/music/news/songwriters-win-copyrigh...

further discussion/illustration https://ciechanow.ski/naval-architecture/#free-surface

Subscriber here. Just a note to say this is a beautiful, helpful, and well thought out in-depth tool for planning (particularly love the scenario modeling). While my financial updates tend to only be on a ~monthly schedule, I often pop in more frequently simply for design inspiration. Thank you Kyle.

> Spotify also does nothing to promote and pay independent artists, they actually charge most independent musicians (even the ones not making profit) to be displayed on their platform rather than paying royalties, which is a pretty much giant ponzi scheme.

This is false.

Sure. In an infringement lawsuit involving a fair use defense, courts will apply the "four prong" test [1] to determine whether or not such use is indeed fair use under copyright law. The first of the four prongs, the "purpose and character" of the use, is also known as "transformativeness." The Goldsmith/Warhol ruling (to simplify) said that Warhol's changes to Goldsmith's photograph were not sufficiently "transformative" even though they contained new expression (adding orange color etc.) because the end result effectively competed with the original photograph and therefore did not qualify as a fair use.

Right, your backwards movie example would fail the fair use test too. Nothing's really added, there's no new expression, it competes with the original, etc.

[1]: https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/

I testified to the US Copyright Office this morning on AI in their roundtable session on AI and music[1]. A good portion of the focus of this panel was on whether copyrighted inputs (in this case, sound recordings and musical compositions) being fed into AI models for training purposes could plausibly constitute a fair use under existing US copyright law.

Some of the comments here are missing the context of the recent (a week or so ago) Supreme Court decision in the Goldsmith/Warhol case[2], in which the Court ruled that transformativeness is not dispositive in and of itself in the context of a fair use defense to a copyright infringement claim. Of course, this has not been put to the test in the courts in the context of AI training yet, but it seems fairly clear that this ruling would likely extend to AI training on copyrighted works.

We (rightsholders in the music industry) hope to come to win-win licensing arrangements with the AI community and allow access to our songs for AI training purposes if the artist/writer so desires. There are some early talks in progress. Cautiously optimistic. Japan's approach seems short-sighted and desperate.

[1]: https://copyright.gov/ai/listening-sessions.html#sound-recor... [2]: https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/1176881182/supreme-court-side...

Already a thing: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56992086

In addition to the new registration guidelines, the USCO announced a new AI initiative and series of public hearings

https://copyright.gov/ai/

Other way around. UMG: Bieber's recordings. Hipgnosis: publishing copyrights (music and lyrics), neighbouring rights (public performances of Bieber's recordings, mostly outside the US), and Hipgnosis bought Bieber's downstream artist royalties for use of the recordings (UMG will still own them but pay Hipgnosis instead of Bieber for the royalties previously owed to Bieber under the terms of his record deal)

Most of these types of catalog sales are back catalog only. Bieber's is too:

"In any event, the far-reaching buyout encompasses a “100% interest” in London, Ontario-born Bieber’s publishing (“including the writer’s share of performance”), on top of the artist’s masters and neighboring rights for his more than 290-work back catalog. The latter specifically includes the two-time Grammy winner’s projects that released before December 31st, 2021."

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2023/01/24/hipgnosis-song-m...

There is a conference in Nashville next week (Music Biz 2022) discussing opportunities/challenges at the intersection of music/tech/data. You may discover some interesting music-adjacent industries and companies by attending or perusing the schedule. https://musicbiz.org/events/music-biz-annual-conference/musi...

Wixen Music | Full Stack Developer | Full time | Onsite | wixenmusic.com

Wixen Music Publishing, Inc. is a music publishing administration company providing royalty collection and licensing services for many of the world’s most iconic songwriters.

We’re looking for a full stack developer to help build new and maintain existing features and services which get songwriters paid for their music when it’s used by streaming services, TV shows, films, video games, etc. Experience with Laravel is preferred but we are open to candidates with translatable MVC framework experience.

Stack / Qualifications:

* PHP 7.x / 8.x

* Nginx

* Laravel

* MySQL

* Vue / jQuery

* Tailwind CSS / Bootstrap

* Laravel Livewire

* API integrations

* Git

* Ubuntu familiarity

Why you want to work here:

* Competitive salary

* A casual office environment in a small, independent, family owned and run, writer-friendly music publishing company proudly representing some of the finest music ever written

* The ability to play a large role in ensuring both small and megastar musicians can make a living from their music

* Healthy work-life balance. We get an early start at 7:30am but call it a day at 4pm so we can spend time with our friends and family

* Profit sharing and defined benefit plans

* Health insurance and optional dental insurance plans

* Two weeks paid vacation

* An additional week of paid vacation between Christmas and New Years upon completion of 16 hours of community service

Apply: licensing[at]wixenmusic[dot]com