Showing posts with label musicians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label musicians. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 7, 2024

AI song generators face legal scrutiny accused of copyright infringement. How it affects our musicians.; News Channel 5 Nashville, August 1, 2024

Lance Yarlott, a passionate musician, shared his thoughts on the matter...

His band prepared for their last rehearsal before recording in a studio on Middle Tennessee State University’s campus. Many songs come to life in a recording studio, however, they are no longer the only option.

There's been a surge of people using AI song generators from start-up companies like Suno and Udio...

MTSU copyright law professor and entertainment attorney Denise Shackelford explained the legal issues...

This year, Tennessee became the first state to protect musicians and other artists against AI, thanks to the Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act, or ELVIS Act for short."

Saturday, March 23, 2024

Tennessee becomes the first state to protect musicians and other artists against AI; NPR, March 22, 2024

  Rebecca Rosman, NPR; Tennessee becomes the first state to protect musicians and other artists against AI

"Tennessee made history on Thursday, becoming the first U.S. state to sign off on legislation to protect musicians from unauthorized artificial intelligence impersonation.

"Tennessee (sic) is the music capital of the world, & we're leading the nation with historic protections for TN artists & songwriters against emerging AI technology," Gov. Bill Lee announced on social media.

The Ensuring Likeness Voice and Image Security Act, or ELVIS Act, is an updated version of the state's old right of publicity law. While the old law protected an artist's name, photograph or likeness, the new legislation includes AI-specific protections."

Monday, January 29, 2024

Creatives Battling AI Companies Over Copyright Turn to Congress; Bloomberg Law, January 29, 2024

Isaiah Poritz, Legal Reporter; Diego Areas Munhoz 

"In 1908, the Supreme Court ruled that “piano rolls,” a new and increasingly popular technology that automatically played songs without a human musician, didn’t violate copyright law—a blow to the music industry. Songwriters and composers felt their livelihoods threatened but had no grounds to demand royalties from piano-roll makers that copied their sheet music.

That was until Congress stepped in the following year, amending the law to address piano rolls and ensure musicians were paid royalties.

More than a century later, musicians—along with other creatives—are yet again fearful an emerging technology could disrupt their industries: artificial intelligence."

Wednesday, August 9, 2023

Film and music industries on edge: AI's growing influence stirs fear of job displacement, copyright issues; KATU2ABC, August 8, 2023

KONNER MCINTIRE and JANAE BOWENS , KATU2ABC; Film and music industries on edge: AI's growing influence stirs fear of job displacement, copyright issues

"Currently, the Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act provides some protection to musicians. It was made law in 2018 and helps to ensure musicians are fairly compensated by publishers.

The law directly addresses piracy which has cost artists billions of dollars.

Five years later, Congressional leaders, including Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.,who serves as the Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, are concerned the law will not protect musicians against AI.

“For Congress, we’re now looking at old challenges with new dangers, including the ever-present threat of piracy as well as artificial intelligence, which pose still unknown questions for intellectual property protection efforts even as they open doors to a new world of technological capability that is, at present, limitless,” the congressman recently wrote in an op-ed.“If we don’t get AI right, it could very well render not only the Music Modernization Act obsolete – but also the policy choices we make next.”"

Friday, March 24, 2023

AI and Copyright: Human Artistry Campaign Launches to Support Songwriters and Musicians’ Rights; Variety, March 17, 2023

 Jim Aswad, Variety; AI and Copyright: Human Artistry Campaign Launches to Support Songwriters and Musicians’ Rights

"A new coalition to meet those challenges called the Human Artistry Campaign was announced at the South by Southwest conference on Thursday, with support from more than 40 organizations, including the Recording Academy, the National Music Publishers Association, the Recording Industry of America and many others.  

With a stated goal “to ensure artificial intelligence technologies are developed and used in ways that support human culture and artistry – and not ways that replace or erode it,” the organization outlined principles advocating AI best practices, “emphasizing respect for artists, their work, and their personas; transparency; and adherence to existing law including copyright and intellectual property,” which are outlined in full below. The campaign urges supporters to sign a petition to advance those principles."

Monday, March 13, 2023

Taylor Swift is a Pioneer of Intellectual Property Rights; American University Intellectual Property Brief, March 13, 2023

 Abigail Smith, American University Intellectual Property Brief; Taylor Swift is a Pioneer of Intellectual Property Rights

"Every time Taylor Swift walks out the door, she facilitates massive changes for the intellectual property rights of artists in the music industry.

Taylor Swift is one of the most popular artists in the world. Even if you don’t like her music, you have to admire her fighting spirit. Lately, she has been in a public battle with Ticketmaster over the availability of tickets for her upcoming tour. Before that, she fought with music streaming services to promote selling albums—thus, profiting off the work put into creating those albums—instead of allowing them to be streamed for free. Before that, she was fighting for her ownership rights over her music. Many of Taylor Swift’s battles have to do with her intellectual property rights, and the outcomes may impact all musicians."

Tuesday, February 21, 2023

This Inner Richmond Bar and Club Could Face A $30,000 Fine for Copyright Infringement; Eater San Francisco, February 21, 2023

 Paolo Bicchieri , Eater San Francisco; This Inner Richmond Bar and Club Could Face A $30,000 Fine for Copyright Infringement

"Neck of the Woods, a Clement Street haunt for college students and fans of lowkey shows, is being sued by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP). That makes it one of 12 such nightclubs throughout the country the group is taking to task over allegedly not paying ASCAP licensing fees, for which fines could reach up to $30,000. Hoodline writes the fee is a relatively small payment bars throughout the country commonly pay to play songs on jukeboxes, at open mics, and at events of that nature.

A prominent bar owner in San Francisco, who chose to remain anonymous, told the outlet the fee is somewhere in the range of $1,000 a year. The San Francisco Examiner reports Neck of the Woods kept a license with the ASCAP from 2009 to 2015 but, even then, failed to pay its dues and had its license with the ASCAP terminated. The payment is compensation for musicians who are, ever more so in the digital age, often paid poorly for their talents."

Wednesday, January 11, 2023

Dr. Dre, Greene Feud Over Music Copyright in Politics: Explained; Bloomberg Law, January 11, 2023

Isaiah Poritz, Bloomberg LawDr. Dre, Greene Feud Over Music Copyright in Politics: Explained

"The dust up is the latest in a long history of musicians fighting politicians they say use their songs for political purposes—like campaign rallies and ads—without permission, and in violation of copyright law.

The complaints go back decades. Bruce Springsteen famously demanded that Republican President Ronald Reagan stop using his “Born in the U.S.A.” for his re-election campaign. The soul duo Sam & Dave in 2008 requested that then-presidential candidate Barack Obama stop playing “Hold On, I’m Comin’” at his campaign events."

Sunday, January 30, 2022

Is Old Music Killing New Music?; The Atlantic, January 23, 2022

Ted Gioia, The Atlantic ; Is Old Music Killing New Music?

"A series of unfortunate events are conspiring to marginalize new music. The pandemic is one of these ugly facts, but hardly the only contributor to the growing crisis.

Consider these other trends:...

When a new song overcomes these obstacles and actually becomes a hit, the risk of copyright lawsuits is greater than ever before. The risks have increased enormously since the “Blurred Lines” jury decision of 2015, and the result is that additional cash gets transferred from today’s musicians to old (or deceased) artists.

Adding to the nightmare, dead musicians are now coming back to life in virtual form—via holograms and “deepfake” music—making it all the harder for young, living artists to compete in the marketplace."

Monday, February 3, 2020

BYU students compete to make new art out of old — and now copyright-free — works; The Salt Lake Tribune, February 2, 2020

, The Salt Lake Tribune; BYU students compete to make new art out of old — and now copyright-free — works

"The entries in BYU’s second annual Public Domain Film and Music Festival will screen Wednesday, Feb. 5, at 7 p.m., at the Varsity Theater on the BYU campus. Admission is free.

The contest covers both film and music based on works whose copyright protection has lapsed. Musicians have a week to compose something based on public-domain music, and film crews of five or fewer have 48 hours to make a short film based on a public-domain book.

The contest is run by BYU’s Copyright Licensing Office, which secures licenses for copyrighted educational materials to be used by the university’s instructors, said Kenny Baldwin, the office’s director of operations.

The contest is a way to educate students about how copyright works, Baldwin said, and “inspire the community to embrace their own right as creators of creative content.”"

Saturday, January 18, 2020

Can R.E.M. stop Trump campaign from playing its songs at rallies?; CBS News, January 17, 2020

Kate Gibson, CBS News; Can R.E.M. stop Trump campaign from playing its songs at rallies?

"As R.E.M. threatens legal action to stop President Donald Trump from playing its classic hit songs at campaign rallies, the iconic band joins other musicians who have objected to their work serving as backdrops for politicians. Legal experts say artists do have a say in how their music is used, but getting their day in court can be costly and take years to pursue."

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Blurred Lines Songwriters Have Got to Give It Up for the Gaye Family: Pharrell Williams v. Frankie Christian Gaye; The National Law Review, April 27, 2018

Jodi Benassi, The National Law Review; Blurred Lines Songwriters Have Got to Give It Up for the Gaye Family: Pharrell Williams v. Frankie Christian Gaye

"The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court’s judgment after a jury trial, ruling that the song “Blurred Lines” infringed Marvin Gaye’s 1970s song “Got To Give It Up.” Pharrell Williams, et al. v. Frankie Christian Gaye, et al., Case No. 15-56880 (9th Cir., Mar. 21, 2018) (Smith, J) (Nguyen, J, dissenting)...

Judge Nguyen issued a strong dissent, stating that the decision allowed the Gayes to accomplish what no one has before: copyrighting a musical style. In her view, the two works were not objectively similar as a matter of law under the extrinsic test because they differed in melody, harmony and rhythm. She believed the majority established a dangerous precedent that strikes a devastating blow to future musicians and composers everywhere."

Saturday, July 15, 2017

Why musicians are so angry at the world’s most popular music streaming service; Washington Post, July 14, 2017

Todd C. Frankel, Washington Post; Why musicians are so angry at the world’s most popular music streaming service

"With the money from CDs and digital downloads disappearing, the music industry has pinned its hope for the future on online song streaming, which now accounts for the majority of the $7.7 billion U.S. music market.

But the biggest player in this future isn’t one of the names most associated with streaming — Spotify, Amazon, Pandora or Apple. It’s YouTube, the site best known for viral videos, which accounts for 25 percent of all music streamed worldwide, far more than any other site.

Now, YouTube is locked in an increasingly bitter battle with music labels over how much it pays to stream their songs — and at stake is not just the finances of the music industry but also the way that millions of people around the world have grown accustomed to listening to music: free of cost."

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Taylor Swift Wants YouTube To Treat Artists More Fairly, Too; Huffington Post, 6/20/16

Sara Boboltz, Huffington Post; Taylor Swift Wants YouTube To Treat Artists More Fairly, Too:
"Taylor Swift, Sir Paul McCartney and U2 are among those set to join the music industry’s increasingly loud battle with the world’s largest music service: YouTube. The musicians hope to plead the case in a series of ads this week that it is time to reform a 17-year-old law known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that they believe puts tech giants before musicians.
Enacted way back in 1998, the DMCA offers certain protections — sometimes called “safe harbor” — for websites hosting copyrighted content. Under the law, websites like YouTube can serve copyrighted music uploaded by ordinary users so long as the site takes it down when the rights holder asks. In an open letter to be published Tuesday in D.C.-based publications The Hill, Politico and Roll Call, dozens of artists and major record labels call for reforming the DMCA, according to multiple reports.
Many major record labels are currently involved in contract renegotiations with YouTube, or will be shortly, meaning the letter will make its debut at a key time. Those same labels believe that the DMCA gives big tech companies like YouTube a leg up in negotiating fees — meaning less revenue is making its way back to music creators. And that doesn’t make artists very happy, either. Music industry executives call that difference between actual profit from user-generated content sites and estimated potential profit a “value gap.” And they’re out to close it."

Monday, November 4, 2013

Friday, November 12, 2010

How to save the music industry; GQ.com, 8/13/10

Paul McGuinness, GQ.com; How to save the music industry:

"Bourget's action was a milestone in the history of copyright law. The legal wrangling that followed led to the establishment of the first revenue-collection system for composers and musicians."

http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entertainment/articles/2010-08/13/gq-music-paul-mcguinness-on-music-piracy/file-sharing-on-spotify-and-piracy

Sunday, November 29, 2009

[Op Ed] Copyright piracy has made it expensive to produce our films; Sunday Monitor (Uganda), 11/22/09

[Op Ed] Alec van Gelder, Sunday Monitor (Uganda); Copyright piracy has made it expensive to produce our films:

"Africa’s creative industries could be great success stories but they are held back by weak copyright protection. While the wealthiest Western creators often shout loudest, it is the poorest African entrepreneurs who suffer most. In some important ways, copyright piracy makes it more expensive to make a typical African film than a Hollywood blockbuster.

Piracy makes it harder for film-makers and musicians in developing countries to recover their costs than for their counterparts in Hollywood or Nashville. Where piracy is high (up to 90 per cent in much of West Africa), a musician or movie producer has precious little time to recover the original investment before the rip-offs move in and make it impossible to compete. No African country has piracy levels below about 25 per cent of the market."

http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/oped/Copyright_piracy_has_made_it_expensive_to_produce_our_films_94900.shtml

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Canadian Musicians vs. Canadian Recording Industry Spokesperson; Michael Geist Blog, 10/25/09

Michael Geist, Michael Geist Blog; Canadian Musicians vs. Canadian Recording Industry Spokesperson:

"The government continues to play catch-up with the copyright consultation submissions (my submission appeared on Friday). It has just posted two interesting contrasting submissions: the Canadian Music Creators Coalition, actual Canadian musicians who warn against DMCA-style reforms and Don Hogarth, CRIA's communication person, who warns against people who warn against DMCA-style reforms."

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4483/196/

Sunday, October 11, 2009

Musicians Starting To Assert Copyright Termination Rights Against Record Labels; Techdirt, 10/9/09

Mike Masnick, Techdirt; Musicians Starting To Assert Copyright Termination Rights Against Record Labels:

"There's been a lot of attention recently to the news that the heirs of comic book artist Jack Kirby are alerting companies of plans to take back the copyright on various Kirby characters, using the termination rights in the Copyright Act. This followed a very long and drawn out lawsuit involving a similar attempt over Superman. The details are really complex, but copyright law allows the original creator (or heirs if that creator has passed away) certain opportunities to basically negate a deal that was signed early on to hand over the copyright on certain works. The idea was to help protect artists who signed bad deals, but in practice, it's just been a total mess.

Still, given the success of the Superman saga in getting at least some of the copyrights back, suddenly lots of people are looking to see what other copyrights can be reclaimed. Apparently, a bunch of musicians are now lining up to try to regain their rights from the labels starting in 2013 (the first year musical works are eligible). As the article notes, with record labels still too clueless to figure out how to successfully build business models around new acts, many still rely on sales of old music to bring in a lot of their revenue. If the labels lose the copyrights on much of that music... well... let's just say suddenly The Pirate Bay may be the least of their concerns."

http://www.techdirt.com/

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Op-Ed: Nancy Sinatra; New York Times, 8/4/09

Op-Ed: Nancy Sinatra; New York Times:

"Terrestrial radio is the only radio platform that still doesn’t have to pay these royalties. Internet radio and satellite radio pay artists when they play their records, so do cable television music channels. In fact, AM and FM radio stations that stream their signal online pay performance royalties.

The United States is one of a small number of countries where artists and musicians are not compensated when their music is played on over-the-air radio. Because the United States doesn’t have performance royalties, radio stations in countries that do collect them do not have to pay American artists. In many of these countries, American artists make up as much as 50 percent of radio airplay, and this prevents millions of dollars — industry estimates are $100 million a year — from flowing into our economy.

I believe in a performance royalty because recording artists and musicians from every generation deserve to be compensated for their art."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/opinion/04sinatra.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=sinatra&st=Search