TAXI.com

The cat is out of the bag and will not go back in. So, I think this should be easy, and here is my proposal to the industry. The rules I came up with are extremely easy to implement and will create substantial additional revenue for established voice artists and AI service providers. Please discuss.


I) Rules for AI voice clones

1. The voice artist has to explicitly allow cloning of their voice for it to be legal.

2. The artist explicitly allows voice cloning if their PRO publicly provides the following information on their AI-dedicated web pages:

a) The artist's IPI number for AI-related royalties.

b) The restrictions of use if applicable. These can - but do not have to - be exclusions such as
- political statements
- religious statements
- racist statements
- ad hominems
- explicit lyrics
- advertising
from use with the voice clone.

3. Unless negotiated differently with the artist, the split for any AI voice clone is 25% of all revenue from the works created with it.

4. An AI voice clone's name is the commonly used corresponding artist name plus the prefix "AI". For instance, if a voice clone of Elvis Presley was used, the name that has to feature where typically the artist name shows is "AI Elvis Presley".

5. The providers of AI services have no rights to works and no claims to revenue payments from the use of the services or contributions to works they provide. There business plans need to account for this by corresponding fee structures.


II) Rules for AI lyrics

Rule I) 5. applies in analogy. All rights are owned by the creators who used and prompted the AI service or software. Creators are liable for potential plagiarism by the AI services they use.

-------------------------

I think rule I) 5. is justified as the providers of AI services often rely on ideas and algorithms created and published elsewhere. In the case of lyrics, the prompt for the AI is the main creative work by the artist/creator, and smaller changes to lyrics created by AI would make royalties splits immensely difficult to implement. With proper fee structures, AI services should be able to be very profitable even without royalties income and their revenue depends on usage and, thus, computing power they provide, which seems appropriate. Plagiarism must be ruled out and creators cannot offload this burden to AI service providers, while it is clear that the latter should strive for original content (this is the purpose of AI).

Tom/CTWF

I don't think it will work because most artists have a brand and a style and why would they want that to be diluted by shitty amateur producers making crappy music ( which is what 99% will do )

No, I think you will find labels will shut down AI clones of their artists as it will devalue the catalogue, brand, legacy etc. If they WANT to make some AI stuff, like a new Elvis record or something like that then they will hire the best professionals to work on it.

I'm sure there are lots of unreleased demos and unfinished songs by famouse artists in record company archives that could be resureccted using AI voice models but is actually based on some performance of that individual. Take something like the John Lennon tracks they used on the Beatles Anthology back in the 90's. How cool would it be to have a much better quality vocal for Real Love and Free As A Bird, they're his songs and it would still sound like him singing but be much better quality than the demo tape they had to use back then.

I think us sync producers would be better served by high quality session singer type models that we can use without fear of reprisals as long as we bought the licence to do so.

Mark

cosmicdolphin wrote: ↑

Wed May 10, 2023 1:40 pm

I don't think it will work because most artists have a brand and a style and why would they want that to be diluted by shitty amateur producers making crappy music ( which is what 99% will do )

To an extent, this problem exists with remixes (not entirely the same, I know). Some artists just monetize it (instead of us), when we upload our crap to YouTube etc. Others don't, and you have to take it down. It is possibly going to be similar with voice clones.

cosmicdolphin wrote: ↑

Wed May 10, 2023 1:40 pm

I think us sync producers would be better served by high quality session singer type models that we can use without fear of reprisals as long as we bought the licence to do so.

Yes, that is my point on the other thread.

can-i-submit-ai-rap-t150689.html