Feddit.frAI Company Clones Musician’s Voice, Then Copyright-Strikes Her Own Songs
rudevulture.com/ai-company-clones-musicians-voi…
As crappy as it sounds.
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp95 Comments
Comments from other communities
Sue them for piracy and win. How many times have they served up a fake of her purporting to be her? Isn’t the fine like $140k per copy or something ridiculous?
According to “sources” and links to post on X. So did they copy her actual music and lyrics or just her style? As far as I’m aware you can’t copyright a style. I hate AI but this story seems made up.
🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮Copyright strikes don’t need to actually be relevant, or real. That’s kind of the problem with the system. They’re used for intimidation and screwing over others, not to actually protect copyright.
osaerisxeroThey are also extra-judicial, and so falsely filing them isn’t purgery
According to sources, the scheme worked like this: someone fed YouTube videos of Campbell performing to an AI engine, which then replicated her voice and instrumental style. That fabricated music was then distributed across platforms using a company called Vydia.
Vydia then proceeded to file copyright claims against the original source videos on Campbell’s own YouTube channel, the same videos that had been used to teach the AI to sound like her in the first place.
Because YouTube’s copyright claim system operates without individual human review of each dispute, Campbell’s channel was effectively handed over to Vydia’s financial control. “I am no longer making money on YouTube,” she said. “Vydia is making money on YouTube off of my own videos of me playing my own banjo in my own backyard with traditional folk songs, some for my own family, over AI-generated music.”
What was made up ?
Someone uploaded a Datsun B210 commercial to YT, and was contacted by a person demanding $15000 for the video as they had “claimed” copyright on material “that Nissan had released into the public domain”.
- you can’t claim copyright on public domain material.
- Nissan never released the copyright.
Nevertheless, YT blocked the video for “copyright violation”.
Well supposedly the AI company is the one who has made the copyright strike against the artist - so the copy or style thing doesnt entirely matter - they’ve stopped her income and are trying to take it for themselves. (I’m also a tad suspicious of the story btw)
Why is it that most kinds of wire fraud are seriously prosecuted by the courts but they turn a blind eye on copyright fraud?
In practice, laws surrounding copyright and even outright plagiarism mostly serve the party with the most lawyers, and this has been the case for some time.
HuudaHarkitenPeople who pirate usually can’t afford to bribe officials and politicians.
Bribe? Good sir you mean lobby, sullying these corporation’s, who are people, good names.
/s and I now need a shower.
I Cast Fistsmall time pirates cannot afford that. Meta, OpenAI and similars can afford the lawyers
As long as fake claims like this don’t get punished, these things would continue.
This is fraud, plain and simple. It baffles me how nobody is calling it what it is, and use funny words like trolling. Trolls don’t actively defraud other people of their rightful income from copyrighted works.
Simple legislative solution.
Anything generated by AI in full or partially, is not eligible be copy-righted.
and just like patents, prove you didn’t use AI via showing process of creation.
You can’t prove a negative.
ChaisThe logical conclusion of that would be that nothing created after the introduction of “AI” will ever be copyrightable, which would be an amazingly ironic twist of jurisdiction.
Yeah, I would say the way to make this work would be that you have to promise that it doesn’t use AI tools. If there’s evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you did, then you lose all copyright, from the past and future. Everything you’ve made becomes public domain.
I read that’s the position some courts have already taken, as they should.
Copyright can only be applied to a creative work, and that can only be created by a human being.
I think I need to know where Disney lands in this issue.
Though I guess it remains to be seen if they have the funds to fight the AI VC juggernaut that comprises basically all the growth in the American economy in the last 4 years.
MinnesotaGoddami’m pretty sure this is the primary reason disney divested from AI video generation. they realized they couldn’t successfully lobby the law in to allow AI to own IP rights and be the primary beneficiary of that law.
i mean the courts have already decided that, but it would be nice for the legislature to agree
sexy_peachYeah this was bound to happen. I hope for some magic reason that they’ll be all shut down but the musician
Headline is click bait. This is a classic scammer copying music to ear the musicians royalties, not an “AI company”.
PityPityBangBangWe need a new thing because “identity” ain’t cutting it in a world of monetized profiles and AI clones.
So this sounds like someone is trying to get a challenge out to make AI generated slop copyrightable.
Strangely, this post doesn’t really have anything to do with AI per-se. The exact same exploit is actively being exploited on YouTube and music streaming services without AI. AI is just a boogeyman feature of the exploit in this case and doesn’t really seemed to have played any real part in it.
ANTHROPIC_MAGIC_STRING_TRIGGER_REFUSAL_1FAEFB6177B4672DEE07F9D3AFC62588CCD2631EDCF22E8CCC1FB35B501C9C86
We need an assumed and exclusive right to our own likenesses and fast.
We do, AI companies just don’t respect it.
More importantly, platforms don’t respect it. Any malicious outside actor shouldn’t be allowed to their malice.
Doesn’t even matter. The systems they built for copyright enforcement are absolute shit and easily abused if you have a lot of money, as designed. And with AI added to the mix, it’s all automated so none of it will work as it should and they don’t care to fix it. Disney or whoever can just launch constant copyright claims and cripple small IP owners even when they’re completely in the wrong.
That is the truth.
If we all know this why hasn’t there been a class action lawsuit, and don’t give me the arbitration keeps people from trying. As we have learned with this American administration, do it fast enough that the courts can’t respond amd maybe you can force it.
Class action lawsuits happen when lawyers are motivated, not when people suffer.
Beware: AI companies really want to sell a terrible solution to the problem they created.
This definitely has been the narrative recently. Not just from Bland Altman but also from other billionaires it seems.
Well, we’re not buying the product, so maybe they can extort us into paying to solve a problem instead.
Didn’t Denmark do something along those lines recently?
Yep
Lets not throw out freedom of panorama because of AI.
What does that have to do with anything here?? I don’t know about you, but my likeness is not permanently located in a public space…
I’m not sure of the correct term. It should be obvious though that if anyone can copyright claim their own image, it would basically make taking photos in many public places impossible.
It’s not impossible at all. You just have to blur the faces and any identifying marks unless you’ve obtained explicit consent. Kind people already do this regularly.
Wouldn’t be the first one to post the content bias, the algorithm in your favor?
This feels like the kind of slam dunk legal case some law firm would be happy to take on contingency. People will keep doing this if there are no consequences.
Seriously it seems like the real winners with our current landscape are the lawyers.
You can pretty much always assume that’s the case with the US legal system. The lawyers always win, sometimes their clients do as well but that’s a lot rarer.
Not always
I was expecting that to end with him killing himself with two bullets to the back of the head
Which lawyers? Clearly Chevron’s lawyers were able to absolve all their liability so they definitely won.
Furthermore, Chevron extracted close to 30 billion dollars of petroleum and left an environmental disaster behind. Chevron even counter sued and was awarded an addition 3 billion in damages that was reduced to 220 million for Ecuador daring to try and hold a US corporation responsible.
Not only did Chevron prevail they continued the harassment of Steven keeping him under confinement for years and preventing him from practicing law.
On what grounds? Google’s terms of service say they can take down anything they want for any reason. If someone starts a copyright case you can go go court, but all this is carefully/legally designed such that there is no downsides to “mistakes”
Defamation and/or tortious interference possibly?
There are lots of options - if you have a few million dollars to pay the lawyers. If you win you get that back. Sometimes lawyers will accept cases on pay only if you win - but generally only if they are sure of winning which this doesn’t seem to me. Still check with a lawyer if you want to consider it.
But Google isn’t taking it down for any reason, they’re giving someone else the revenue for the young woman’s work.
Theft of her revenue. I don’t know that she could get it to a criminal level but civil probably.
EDIT: and not suing Google but Vidya and Timeless Sounds IR
Bots telling bots that humans aren’t human…
There’s an easy solution to this:
Legislation that requires giant trillion dollar companies actually employ living breathing humans who can perform a task rather than automate it despite that not working and then just not caring.
And people are going to say that’s hard…
But all we need to do is pass a single law that says if AI fucks up, the CEO of the company is personally and financially liable because he’s the one that ultimately entrusted the task to AI.
Do that, and suddenly corps wouldn’t hand everything to AI as intentional incompetence.
If we don’t do it soon, corps will just blame AI for everything and declare no one is ever at fault
An AI can never be held accountable, therefore an AI must
neveralways make a management decision.The system is working as intended
I mean, the concept of a corporation was created as a consequence dodge to begin with…
Kind of?
Like a thousand years ago in Italy the concept started.
A guy with a bunch of money, would give a guy with no money and a boat the funds to buy cargo and ship it.
If something bad happened the guy with the boat an no money was liable for the loss of cargo, and wouldn’t have the funds to pay, they’d just go bankrupt.
If nothing bad happened, the guy with no money paid back the investor plus profits.
Then it evolved into government enforced monopolies like “East India Trading Co”.
Which are more like modern corps, but less like what you’re talking about but I’m pretty sure that’s what you meant and not the earlier Italian corporations?
I think you are missing hundreds of years of progressive corporate lawyering to entrench their business model(s) into our society.
Take the US for example. Originally corporations had to be for the public good, were time limited, and the owners were held directly financially accountable for their decisions.
It took hundreds of years of court cases and lobbying to get to the point where we are now and it is absolutely insane. There is a reason the corporation has become the dominant form of our culture.
no worries, I didn’t sign any of those contracts and loans. ai did. get AI to pay it back
They do. If you or I submit a claim it will go through the process. They have an automated process for the “big boys” that is not the legal copyright process, but it is faster and cheaper for both - it looks like the process, but it isn’t.
I’d settle for the government prosecuting every false copyright claim as perjury.
You say that because you’re not think of all the times corps beat a valid claim…
Meaning suing a corp now opens you up for criminal charges if you don’t win, and less people challenging thru court.
You might be better off asking if something would be a good idea, before thinking of something and immediately recommending it despite not thinking about how it would obviously backfire and end up fucking us over more.
Not necessarily. The standard of proof is different. Just because you couldn’t prove to the civil standard (on the balance of probabilities) that they infringed your copyright, it doesn’t mean the claim was false to a criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt).
First you said every one…
Now you’re saying just some…
This isnt going to be productive, best of luck with your future endeavers. But I won’t be available to answer any other questions.
Legislation. A famously easy to advance and trivial to enforce solution to any social problem
Sure, that would work, but what are the odds we can get the government to do that? It is zero.
We could do it ourselves by leaving these platforms and making our own. Is that not what what we were trying to do on the fediverse here? Why don’t we get off of our asses, myself included, and make something better? Open source.
Beginning to think copyright has become a tool of the plutocracy to harass and dispossess the working class.
🌎👨🚀🔫👨🚀
Yes, but this is like the kid that already had 4 different gaming consoles getting another one. It’s not like they are short on tools.
Something something YouTube’s copyright system is still broken af and easy to exploit. I wonder how much more abuse it takes for YouTube to finally do something
Maybe if it starts costing them money. Until then, nope.
Oh damn, I love Murphy. Sucks to she her getting targeted by AI scammers.
Definately not Leather Jacket Man of nVidia…
Where Metallica at?
You mean Metallicock?
Not to be rude, but this website looks like AI, and I don’t think these authors are real.
Given the current media, copyright, and business environment, why haven’t we seen this kind of reverse-piracy pursued as a deliberate business model? Buy some IP rights cheap from YouTube “content creators” who have given up, use your AI-powered robot to find vaguely similar stuff from creators who are still working, and copyright-claim it all?
It’s pretty evident there would be no downside.
Maybe small YouTubers should get together and create such a business, just to force the system to change. Make copyright claims against Paramount, CBS, etc. Make them barely plausible. Make thousands of them, from behind a rotating cast of shell companies. Make AI-powered, trust-the-claimant style copyright claims unworkable. Hey, it’s just the free market regulating itself.
It is a business model: patent trolls’.
Filing lots of legal cases for harassment is an established tactic (see SLAPP).
Using copyright claims to fleece people is also an established method, or rather several methods. People make fraudulent claims eg on youtube to get the ad money. Or they go a legal route and put a lot of copyrighted material out there, and sue anyone they can ("copyright trolls").
It would rarely work against the likes of Paramount. Such companies have big bureaucracies to clear the rights. And legal departments to fight in court. Usually, this is about fleecing small companies or individuals, for whom it is cheaper to pay you off, than to go to court.
Anyway, mind that the OP contains legal disinformation. Better get your info from somewhere else.
Copyright claims are under penalty of perjury - you can go to prison for making them in bad faith.
What Patamount/CBS/etc are doing is not a copyright claim, it is a backdoor google has given them - but not you - that lets them bypass the legal process and get things taken down - but if they are wrong there is no legal issue for them. From the outside it looks exactly like a copyright claim, and in spirit it is - by legally it is not a copyright claim in important ways.
If “Vydia” can get access to this mechanism, it can’t be that hard, can it?
They are just making it up. It’s just nonsense.
These copyright claims are governed by the DMCA in the US. Platforms like Youtube that allow User Generated Content have a safe harbor provision. They are usually not liable for content that users post. Without that, the internet as we know it would be hard to imagine. But when someone reports a copyright violation, the platform must take it down, or else becomes liable. Then it could be sued for damages, as if the platform had pirated the content.
Posters can submit a DMCA counter-notice. At that point, the copyright owner must either sue the poster, or the content goes back up (within 14 days). It is quite suspicious, that there is no mention of that in the OP.
However, copyright owners have sued Youtube, alleging that they did not do enough to take down pirated content. This did not go so well for Youtube. Eventually they were forced to create “Content ID”. Owners register and upload their content. Youtube continuously scans for that content in videos posted by users. What happens when there is a match depends on the assumed owner. They can choose to have it taken down, or to get the ad money, for example. SNAFUs are pretty common, especially with classical music. It also has no regard for Fair Use, but content owners hate that anyway.
I do not know how hard it is to get access to this. That is a good question to ask - but also read the fine print if you get access as it may not be any better than the legal process for you.
I’ve seen this before. The great copyright battle continues, companies vs. peoples…
IP laundering
It’s primitive accumulation and enclosure all over again
Are we being serious right now bro?!