Introduction
Music, especifically its creation, is an art form, and until recently, the idea of an artificial-intelligence writing music was limited to works of imagination. However, it is a rather emerging topic of discussion in today’s world. Finally, artificial intelligence is not limited to monotonous functional chores; the AI systems are gradually finding their way into spheres that are typically considered within the province of originality, like composition of music.
The journey of using computers as musical instruments started in 1951 with computer-composed pieces and underwent changes in coming decades. AI music generation can be broadly categorized into two divisions with slightly overlapping characteristics namely AI-assistive generation systems and AI generative software. AI-supportive tools work as automatic spell-checkers with auxiliary recommendations and changes that remain suggestive and do not take over a musician; they are implemented as plugins to DAWs. On the other hand, for an AI-generative program for music, it implies that it is possible to create music by a set of rules derived from a large number of samples of music. This program creates compositions with variations in them depending on the manner in which the user chooses them like the genre, tempo and so on. An example of this technology is AIVA (Artificial Intelligence Virtual Artist) which is commonly used to create music that is majorly commercial in nature the virtual artist composes music based on features derived from classical music and its instructions. Such duality of the AI talent, to accompany musicians, and to produce tracks on its own such that the artificial intelligence would help the musicians to create tracks and would develop tracks independently points to the technological progress that have taken place as well as the emerging questions about creativity definition, authorship, and position of the AI in the sphere of music.
The Copyright Conundrum
The integration of AI into music making entails a serious copyright question that treads on the fundamental principles of law that were developed with the intent of addressing human authors. In accordance with the current legislation, for instance the Copyright Act of 1957, the copyright vests in the human being who generated the work. Nevertheless, the case of using AI solutions for generating music challenges this concept because here we are discussing the creation of musical works without a clear author. When it comes to ownership of an object generated by an AI tool, the legal questions that arise are: To whom does an AI-generated work belong, the creator of the software, the user, the owner of the AI, or the AI itself? Additionally, another main issue is based on the principles of copyright protection, including originality and creativity, which are generally expected to be a minimum measure of the human influence.
Originality is raised as an issue when AI-generated works are based on analysis of large datasets and mimicry of patterns; this has an implication that such outputs cannot be regarded as original; Secondly, there is the issue of infringement of copyrights as most of the AI systems are trained on copyrighted work and they produce copies of these works which are a clear violation of copyright laws if the license has not been obtained. It will also result in a music that closely resembles the input data, thus continuing the cycle of litigation. On the international level, legal system lacks satisfactory solutions for these concerns; most legal systems require human authorship for copyright protection for which very few including China offer protection in case if substantial human input is incorporated. This paradox highlights the necessity for reformulation of the copyright regulations linked with the usage of AI in creation of any art products: on one hand, it is essential to preserve the rights of the creators of the works; on the other hand, copyright needs to encompass specific features of AI products.
Current Legal Landscape
The present legal regulation of AI-generated music is discouraged and has no standard method, as shown by the current legal system since the problem involves many aspects and is quite new. In most jurisdictions, the principles of copyright as emphatically anthropocentric, as they only count pieces authored by a human. For instance, existing laws in the States such as India, New Zealand, and United States have codified the general prohibition of an AI work to be protected under trademark laws because the latter only permits human authorship. On the other hand, in China there have existed some cases in which an AI-authored piece was awarded for a copyright but such actions have tended to be under conditions where AI embraces considerable human inputs to the creation process.
This inconsistency underscores a significant challenge. Although some high legal systems have started incorporating themselves in the capability of AI, many legal systems are still not flexible enough to incorporate the principle of AI generated creativity. The result of this is that there is a continuing state of legal flux around the developmental and usage of AI music generation technologies and the attendant challenges that come with authorship, rights, and the commercialization of creations that incorporate AI-processed music. It is evident that as technology gets evolved, especially in areas like AI there is a need to ensure that the law is more cohesive and is looking forward to deal with issues such as ownership of property where it has been generated by AI.
The Case for Public Domain
The argument for putting AI-created items in the public domain is convincing depending on a number of integrated arguments, which are considered to be applied on practical and philosophical levels. First, music created with AI is not unique or conceptualized intentionally like human’s art; AI functions as an algorithm that computes inserting new data into it on the basis of given patterns. The absence of creative activity undermines the very basis of established copyright law, a legal concept which has long provided the protection of original works authored by individual endeavours. Moreover, it is crucial to note that the concept of incentives that is the basis for the protection of copyrights seems inapplicable to AI, as incentive structures are unnecessary for these systems. Developers of AI technologies, on the other hand, receive adequate legal safeguards and incentives for their developments under current intellectual property laws. Economically, this means that by leaving results of applying AI works in the public domain, instead of trying to seek proprietorship over certain automated outcomes, the marketplace is a much more vibrant and open one. This approach removes the legal issues that are connected with suing AI-generated content which protects the human creativity and contributes to the development of more creative collaborations with the AI. AI is not only accomplishing this complex legal problem but preserving true arts by making the works created by AI available to the public, which is aligned with the essence of art, feelings, and experiences, to maintain the creative economy and AI harmony in the creative industry.
WAY FORWARD
The advancement and application of AI in the field of music composition brings out several enhancements and opportunities that mainly act as a helpful tool and enriches human work and creativity in allowing them to explore new ideas in music production. However, the idea of carrying forward the traditional tenets of copyrights and endorsing AI-formed artworks is not without challenges and controversies because of the works’ absence of human attributes such as the intention, passion, and originality. The following criticisms can be levelled for putting AI-generating music into the public domain: But, putting AI-generating music into the public domain also neutralizes those criticisms because it maintains the incentives for creativity and the marketplace to reward human creativity, avoids flooding the market with too many similar compositions and encourages cross pollination and innovation through cooperation. In addition to this, by using this approach, we are also able to avoid entanglement in the legal controversies regarding authorship and copyright infringement while sticking to the organic nature of creativity. Not only do these activities maintain the distinctive significance of human artists, contingently relying on emerging technologies to further avant-garde the artistic experience; but, also, harmoniously prepare the way for confluence of human creativity and technological sophistication to enrich human culture and artistic traditions.
References
- https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37507707
- https://time.com/5774723/ai-music/
- https://www.flow-machines.com/history/press/daddys-car-song-composed-artificial-intelligence-created-sound-like-beatles/
- https://openai.com/index/jukebox/
- https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/31/17777008/artificial-intelligence-taryn-southern-amper-music
- https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/421438-ai-composers-create-music-for-video-games
- https://aiva.crisp.help/en/article/i-dont-understand-the-terms-of-license-1wqvh5v/
- https://www.ibm.com/watson/advantage-reports/future-of-artificial-intelligence/ai-creativity.html