Black Flowers

youtu.be/M5ynIX0G-fQ?si=lrSEmCWronXE8m9Y

That is disgusting. Those companies can certainly afford to compensate the artists. I hope she can take them down.

youtu.be/zvIdOW7iUBI?si=H9X7ncRVxLB8BHgy

Does anyone know how AI training works, and how song lyrics, audio recordings, and video recording fit into the process?  
 

(And, a google search with an answer provided by AI is not what I'm looking for!)

Here’s more from folksinger/songwriter James Keelaghan

Here’s Jimmy’s song about the tragic 1949 Mann Gulch fire in Montana.

youtu.be/Dztj4X3fQps?si=5PIWGFBTsEg35qqE

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex Z

Does anyone know how AI training works, and how song lyrics, audio recordings, and video recording fit into the process?  
 

(And, a google search with an answer provided by AI is not what I'm looking for!)

---

Looks like there's an article about it in The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/2026/06/ai-music-generators-suno-google-udio/687485/

Someone’s comment from Lynn’s FB post

Seems like the battle is about use of copyrighted works -- and what is use requiring compensation versus what is "fair use" that doesn't require compensation -- and court cases are already in progress.  Copyright law is shaped by court decisions, not so such by the casual plain wording of the statutes that we can read.

The Performing Rights Organizations (PRO) are getting involved.  I don't buy the "big labels" only will get compensation.  A lot of little folks and big folks belong to ASCAP or BMI or other PROs, and the little folks ought to.   If Gordon Lightfoot gets compensation for AI creators using his copyrighted works, then Sally Smith and Fred Jones will get compensation too -- although the amounts may be quite different.

The battle has been joined.  Ain't over yet.  

So if the courts find in favor of the artists and award compensation, will this case law only apply to robots v humans?

Will the estate of Earl Scruggs be able to sue all bluegrass banjoists for training on the model of his recordings and published book? Should all bluegrass banjoists be paying fair use fees to the estate of Earl Scruggs for training on his work?

Would this mean that ALL new orignial work that is not exclusively based on knowledge gained from public domain origins now owe money to any copyrighted music that might have influenced them, directly or indirectly.

You know, musicians might want to think this through a little before it backfires.

^^^^ I give you “Understand Your Man” and “Don’t Think Twice it’s All Right “, or this....

Since “rock and roll” or “rock” has no solid documental evidence of existence before the US public domain date of 1930, all rock and roll is derivative and trained on copyrighted models.

Same with “bluegrass”.

This would be a significant blow to creativity and future art if being trained or influenced with/by copyrighted work would require compensation.

Basically, this would wipe out any educational use of art of any kind produced after 1930 if any part of that education influenced the student.

And how could one prove that they were not trained on copyrighted work?

Mel Bay is about to become super rich due to his original guitar method.

The compensation for instruction books has already been paid when I pay for them at the music store counter,, further compensation is not necessary. Jimmy Webb and others wrote some very original and sophisticated songs , why should he think a Mel Bay piano primer helped him do that in any significant way? The musical scale is not under copyright; there is no one to reimburse for its use. I know you love to be in that copyright-expired zone, Joel, with all those old tunes from the 1800’s, early 1900’s. To me it sounds a bit hypocritical to put an onus on musicians (& AI ) trained on later material , when you and others were trained on older musics.

The principle is "fair use."  That's been shaped by a long history of court decisions. 
 

Can't just apply casual jargon like "training" and use the same word for two different activities and conclude that therefore the activities are identical under copyright law. 
 

Copyright discussions go nowhere unless the participants have a comprehensive awareness of not only the plain meanng of the statutes but also how the statutes have been implemented as a result of legal interpretations from contests in courts over decades. 
 

I'm outta here.  Y'all can go to it!

chuckv97 , 1930 or earlier = public domain. I personally own all of that, and so does everyone else. Next year it will be 1931 and earlier (in the US).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joel Hooks

chuckv97 , 1930 or earlier = public domain. I personally own all of that, and so does everyone else. Next year it will be 1931 and earlier (in the US).

---

Yes, I know , Joel.  I deal with that posting YouTube videos re getting a copyright claim on some of them. I'm still puzzled by "fair use" - I thought it was about instructional videos but some of my vids have claims on only part of them ; for instance an Early Morning Rain rendition I put together, the first two go-through are instrumental - banjo and guitar - the last go-through is me singing à verse and that's the part that they put a claim against.  Go figger. Methinks they count the first two as my own arrangements, which they are, but the lyrics are Gordon's so they claim that section of the video. 

Back, just for a minute. 

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

See Chapter 1, section 107, for "fair use."

Gone.

This - “ 1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;”. So a Mel Bay book would fall under “commercial nature” leading to a copyright claim on any tune that isn’t pre1930. Most of my lessons on YouTube would also fall under that category once I get monetized, I’m guessing. Sheesh….

Back.

Some "fair use" court decisions information:

https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/

Also, one can use a copyrighted work by "paying the mechanicals," as they say, which are royalties collected by specific trade organizations on behalf of the creators of a copyrighted work.  For example, if you want to put a Gordon Lightfoot song on your CD, don't have to get Gordon's signature on a piece of paper.  Rather, deal with the trade organizations and "pay the mechanicals."

I'm telling y'all, this stuff can complicated.  It can be far removed from casual common sense based only on plain wording of the statutes.  There are plenty of attorneys who specialize in intellectual property rights.

Gone.

Reading Chapter 1, Section 107 of the copyright law reminds me of Potter Stewart's analysis of obscenity; you can't define it, but you know it when you see it. You can't know for sure that your use of a copyrighted work is unfair until a judge says it is.

It’s very vague

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Hornet

That is disgusting. Those companies can certainly afford to compensate the artists. I hope she can take them down.

---

But screwing artists is part of a long music-business tradition.  Remember the 80's and 90's when lots of people were saying we needed more business models in education and government?  They were wrong.

I was a teenager in the 1960’s influenced by folks who kicked down the old doors of the establishment- I still cringe when I hear the term “business model”. (how ‘bout a nice little war to boost earnings….?)

Another aspect of AI just reported.

trendaisecurity.com/en/resourc...-incident

Can someone say "HAL"?

In addition to dealing with AI and learning how to use it, we're all going to have to learn a new, arcane language, just to be able to discuss it. My old, Third College Edition of the Webster's New World Dictionary includes the word "agentive", but there's no "agentic" listed. Do you speak AI?