The Record Industry Is Going After Parody Songs Written By an Algorithm (vice.com) 60
Georgia Tech researcher Mark Riedl didn't expect that his machine learning model "Weird A.I. Yankovic," which generates new rhyming lyrics for existing songs would cause any trouble. But it did. From a report: On May 15, Reidl posted an AI-generated lyric video featuring the instrumental to Michael Jackson's "Beat It." It was taken down on July 14, Reidl tweeted, after Twitter received a Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notice for copyright infringement from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, which represents major and independent record companies. "I am fairly convinced that my videos fall under fair use," Riedl told Motherboard of his AI creation, which is obviously inspired by Weird Al's parodies. Riedl said his other AI-generated lyric videos posted to Twitter have not been taken down.
Riedl has contested the takedown with Twitter but has not received a response. Twitter also did not respond to Motherboard's request for comment. The incident raises the question of what role machine learning plays when it comes to the already nuanced and complicated rules of fair use, which allows for the use of a copyrighted work in certain circumstances, including educational uses and as part of a "transformative" work. Fair use also protects parody in some circumstances. Riedl, whose research focuses on the study of artificial intelligence and storytelling for entertainment, says the model was created as a personal project and outside his role at Georgia Tech. "Weird A.I. Yankovic generates alternative lyrics that match the rhyme and syllables schemes of existing songs. These alternative lyrics can then be sung to the original tune," Riedl said. "Rhymes are chosen, and two neural networks, GPT-2 and XLNET, are then used to generate each line, word by word."
Riedl has contested the takedown with Twitter but has not received a response. Twitter also did not respond to Motherboard's request for comment. The incident raises the question of what role machine learning plays when it comes to the already nuanced and complicated rules of fair use, which allows for the use of a copyrighted work in certain circumstances, including educational uses and as part of a "transformative" work. Fair use also protects parody in some circumstances. Riedl, whose research focuses on the study of artificial intelligence and storytelling for entertainment, says the model was created as a personal project and outside his role at Georgia Tech. "Weird A.I. Yankovic generates alternative lyrics that match the rhyme and syllables schemes of existing songs. These alternative lyrics can then be sung to the original tune," Riedl said. "Rhymes are chosen, and two neural networks, GPT-2 and XLNET, are then used to generate each line, word by word."
The problem was ... (Score:2)
.. he didn't have the AI generate a 4 chord song. [youtube.com] /s
Article doesn't say if back in 2019 the Writing billion songs with C# and Deep Learning [habr.com]
also got harassed.
Copyright is horribly broken. Worse, there are no penalties for filing a false DMCA. These IFPI scumbags would call Imaginary Property on 2 notes if they could.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like the problem is that he didn't actually change the song.
From what I can gather without seeing the actual video, he played the song verbatim, along with a video. That's not really much different from people using copyrighted music as a soundtrack for their regular videos.
Weird Al doesn't do this. He sings. He creates a new musical work that is a parody of an existing musical work.
AND.... (Score:1)
> Weird Al doesn't do this. He sings. He creates a new musical work that is a parody of an existing musical work.
His record label also pays royalties on his behalf to the original song's artists and label.
Re: (Score:3)
> Weird Al doesn't do this. He sings. He creates a new musical work that is a parody of an existing musical work.
His record label also pays royalties on his behalf to the original song's artists and label.
Citation on this? I recall an interview with Weird Al (which I cannot currently find) where he said that copyright has never been an issue with his parodies, that most artists looked at it as a badge of honor to have attracted Al's attention and where flattered by the "remake" of their original work, and the rest simply didn't care.
Re:AND.... (Score:5, Informative)
- Stranger in Parodies: Weird Al and the Law of Musical Satire [fordham.edu]
Re: (Score:3)
There have even been times, I hear, that he presented an artist with a parody song, already written, and asked permission to go forward. The artist said no, and Al didn't go forward, despite the fact that his lawyer said that he certainly could. THIS is an example of how to be a good human. Good on you Al! Way to 'Just Eat It"
Re: (Score:3)
Mr. Yankovic licenses all of the musical compositions and music videos he parodies directly from their respective copyright owners.
Weird Al does this on his own, just so he doesn't ruffle feathers. (He truly seems to be an amazingly nice guy.) He does not do so because it's what the law requires. He goes far above and beyond.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a legal treatise, but it cites original sources:
https://www.mentalfloss.com/ar... [mentalfloss.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah the AI doesn't parody (Score:2)
I just read the lyrics this guy created with his tool. They in no way parody the original.
Here it might be useful to note what parody is.
parÂoÂdy
Verb.
produce a humorously exaggerated imitation of (a writer, artist, or genre).
From Cornell Law:
When an author or artist ridicules a well-known work by imitating it in a comedic way. To the extent that the parodist copies material protected by copyright, the publication may be considered a copyright infringement unless excused by the fair use defense.
Th
Re: (Score:2)
I want that guy's tool. I can create a nice tune but I'm hopeless at lyrics. I could have the tool parody my bad lyrics and come up with something better.
Re: (Score:2)
However, to avoid abandonment of copyright, they do need to get in touch with him and tell him to either stop or get a license, which they could grant for free or for $20 or whatever. They just can't ignore it, because under the law ignoring it implies that you're okay with people violating the copyright, and other people are welcome to do so.
I think you are thinking of trademark law here. It is my understanding that the only way that a copyright can be abandoned is through an overt act by the copyright holder stating that they have given up their copyright. Trademarks on the other hand need to be actively defended or you will lose your trademark ala Aspirin or Yo-Yo.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It sounds like the problem is that he didn't actually change the song.
From what I can gather without seeing the actual video, he played the song verbatim, along with a video. That's not really much different from people using copyrighted music as a soundtrack for their regular videos.
Exactly - the video is the text of his new song lyrics, but the audio is the instrumental version of the song, unchanged. Unfortunately for him, that doesn't really help with his parody defense.
Weird Al doesn't do this. He sings. He creates a new musical work that is a parody of an existing musical work.
Yes, although it should be noted that there's a distinction between parody and satire in copyright law. Parody, which makes fun of the original, is protected fair use, so Weird Al's "Smells like Nirvana", which makes fun of Nirvana, is protected. So is his "I perform this way", which pokes fun at Lady Gaga. Satire, w
Re:The problem was ... (Score:5, Interesting)
It sounds like the problem is that he didn't actually change the song.
Exactly - the video is the text of his new song lyrics, but the audio is the instrumental version of the song, unchanged. Unfortunately for him, that doesn't really help with his parody defense.
Weird Al doesn't do this. He sings. He creates a new musical work that is a parody of an existing musical work.
Yes, although it should be noted that there's a distinction between parody and satire in copyright law. Parody, which makes fun of the original, is protected fair use, so Weird Al's "Smells like Nirvana", which makes fun of Nirvana, is protected. So is his "I perform this way", which pokes fun at Lady Gaga. Satire, which uses a work to poke fun at something else, is not protected. So Weird Al's "Eat it", which uses Michael Jackson's "Beat it", doesn't actually make fun of Jackson and therefore is an unprotected satire, not a protected parody (ironically enough, given that's what the AI author here was relying on).
Weird Al gets around this by asking permission for each of his songs, so he doesn't have to reply on copyright fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped reading AC replies when Slashdot banned non-registered anonymous posters. I actually read yours for some reason and I was going to ask why you'd write an informative post as AC. Unless you're actually Weird Al....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I stopped reading AC replies when Slashdot banned non-registered anonymous posters. I actually read yours for some reason and I was going to ask why you'd write an informative post as AC. Unless you're actually Weird Al....
Sometimes an AC is also moderating
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
1984 is a diary
The idea is: Publicise or sell the algorythm !! (Score:2)
The idea is: Publicise or sell the algorythm, not the song!
- Each listener get a different song
- no copyrighted matterial is sold, only the A.I. algo or resulting generating primitives for generating a different song each time.
Re: (Score:2)
Harassing smallbies (Score:1)
It's easy to sue and tie people up in court cases and lawyer fees if you have deep pockets. Being right does not prevent one from being dragged through legal mud in the process. The big co's hope the harassment alone will stop somebody from doing something that makes them uncomfortable.
The outcome I'm hoping for is (Score:2)
someone convinces the Record Industry to issue DCMA takedown notices to themselves for content they actually own.
Re: (Score:2)
Which they can safely ignore as they own the content. And whoever filed the claim would be liable for perjury. Great idea.
The copyright system is broken (Score:5, Interesting)
The way the system is set up right now, someone is gonna have to fall on the sword and eat the cost of defending a high-profile lawsuit for parody. To cement in everyone's minds once and for all that parody is in fact protected under fair use, and to discourage IP holders from filing frivolous lawsuits in the hopes the accused will fold without a fight.
Re:The copyright system is broken (Score:5, Interesting)
He got the artists permission because he wanted to. If an artist did not give permission he respected that. Where did you read that he did it to avoid a court battle?
Re: (Score:1)
Well, you see, he put in that tell-tale clue about
(Just like musicians incorrectly think they're allowed to control what events their licensed music is played at.)
So it is probably safe to assume that his political leanings and personality characteristics lead him towards misinformation, misconceptions, and thinking that he is the holder of secret knowledge of the intentions of people. In this case that wierd Al feared lawsuits, not that
Re: (Score:3)
Well, here is a quote from Weird Al's own website:
https://www.weirdal.com/archiv... [weirdal.com]
Does Al get permission to do his parodies?
Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies. While the law supports his ability to parody without permission, he feels it’s important to maintain the relationships that he’s built with artists and writers over the years. Plus, Al wants to make sure that he gets his songwriter credit (as writer of new lyrics) as well as his rightful share of the royalties.
The same information can be found from multiple other sources. If you have a source claiming that "Weird Al feared lawsuits", please post it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't that guy who did the song that originally inspired Amish Paradise get a stick up his bum over something and try, after the fact, to retract his permission and sue Weird Al?
Re: (Score:2)
According to Yankovic, it was all a misunderstanding: “Two separate people from my label told me that they had personally talked to Coolio and that he told them that he was okay with the whole parody idea Halfway into production, my record label told me that Coolio’s management had a problem with the parody, even though Coolio personally was okay with it. My label told me they would iron things out—so I proceeded with the recording and finished the album.”
After the Grammy Awards in 1995, Coolio spoke out against the parody, “[I] ain’t with that I think that my song was too serious I really don’t appreciate him desecrating the song like that his record company asked for my permission, and I said no. But they did it anyway.”
Years later, Coolio apologized to Weird Al about the misunderstanding surrounding the spoof. “I’ve since apologized to him,” the rapper said. “That was a stupid thing for me to do. That was one of the dumbest things I did in my career.”
Re: (Score:2)
So broken that when Weird Al Yankovich made his song parodies, even though he was protected by the fair use exception for parody, he proactively got permission from the original song owners first.
He did it / does it because he doesn't want to burn bridges, and wants to be respectful. ... unless you can actually prove this is the case.
Re: (Score:3)
So broken that when Weird Al Yankovich made his song parodies, even though he was protected by the fair use exception for parody, he proactively got permission from the original song owners first. Just to avoid a long, messy, and expensive court battle to reiterate that he didn't need their permission to make parodies. Unfortunately, that seems to have given music publishers the wrong impression - that parody is illegal unless they first give permission. (Just like musicians incorrectly think they're allowed to control what events their licensed music is played at.)
The way the system is set up right now, someone is gonna have to fall on the sword and eat the cost of defending a high-profile lawsuit for parody. To cement in everyone's minds once and for all that parody is in fact protected under fair use, and to discourage IP holders from filing frivolous lawsuits in the hopes the accused will fold without a fight.
Someone has long since fallen on the sword: 2 Live Crew, in a suit decided by the Supreme Court, Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music, in 1994. But there's a difference between parody and satire. Parody pokes fun at the original work and is protected by fair use, while satire uses the original work to poke fun at something else, and is not protected. As SCOTUS said: "parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim's (or collective victims') imagination, w
Re: (Score:2)
No, Weird Al gets permission out of respect for the original artist. He knows he doesn't have to legally, but he does s
Re: (Score:2)
No, Weird Al gets permission out of respect for the original artist. He knows he doesn't have to legally, but he does so out of respect and professionalism.
No, you're wrong, for all of the reasons noted in the post you replied to, including the quote from the Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyhow, what I've found is the Weird Al version of a song usually lasts far longer than original song ever did. Maybe not for famous artists like Michael Jackson, but there are songs you never hear about anymore other than the Weird Al version.
Any artist should be flattered that Weird Al would want to write a parody of their work. There are many Weird Al songs for which I've never actually heard the original.
Re: (Score:1)
This actually doesn't go quite far enough. The Court was actually pretty restrictive in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose. They didn't say that parody was automatically fair use. They said that inasmuch as parody was a form of criticism, it could claim the same kind of fair use protection as other forms of criticism. But even
Re: (Score:1)
The practical problem is when the parody is popular enough that it competes with the original recording. If your ear is "worn out" by the parody, you are less likely to purchase the original, the reasoning goes. Thus, being a parody alone doesn't protect you from copyright claims.
Re: (Score:2)
Criticism is a valid form of fair use, because you are unlikely to get permission. Parody is a form of criticism.
But what we are calling a song parody, isn't a criticism of the original song. But changing the words to poke fun at something else.
A reason why Weird Al licenses songs is because the parody exception may not apply, and testing that in a court room is expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
They are. Public performance [cornell.edu] is a separate right protected by copyright, and you don't get a license for public performance simply by buying a CD or a streaming subscription.
I'll be charitable and assume that you're referring to BMI/ASCAP licensing. Well, those contracts are being rewritten to exclude uses in connection with political events [deadline.com]. So even still, they are.
Got it?
Not fair use at all (Score:2)
I am fairly convinced that my videos fall under fair use
Well then please explain it to us. Running an algorithm against a piece of music to produce another piece of music seems like a derivative work. If he wrote a paper on it and had clips, then that might be fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
I am fairly convinced that my videos fall under fair use
Well then please explain it to us. Running an algorithm against a piece of music to produce another piece of music seems like a derivative work. If he wrote a paper on it and had clips, then that might be fair use.
According to many YouTube "creators", simply putting "I claim fair use" in the description of your video makes you legally immune to copyright law (at least in courtrooms that have a gold fringe on their flags).
Re: (Score:2)
That depends, if the result makes sense it should be fair use under parody.
If the result is going on raw artistic value, well The Verve are a good example of how using 7 seconds of another song's tune will land you legally screwed.
Sounds more like a derivative work than parody. (Score:2)
There's no person creating a parody, there's an AI making a derivative work. Good luck in court with that. The US Patent Office already said AIs can't author patents.
Even Weird Al Wasn't Always "Parody" (Score:3)
So fun fact, just because you are changing words around, doesn't mean it is fair use.
Parody is when you are criticizing the thing being borrowed from. Not just being funny or criticizing something else.
So if we look at Weird Al:
- Fair Use / Parody: Smells like Teen Spirit / Smells like Nirvana: Is a song mostly about Nirvana and the grunge music scene.
- NOT Fair Use / Parody : Beat it / Eat it: Is a song about a Fat Guy who likes to eat, nothing to do with Michael Jackson.
Re: (Score:2)
I could see an argument about Eat It being parody, pointing to it making fun of Michael Jackson drastically changing his appearance by putting unhealthy things in his body, by pointing out another possible drastic change to his appearance by putting unhealthy things in his body.
Okay, that's a hell of a stretch, but if there were other documents released at the same time by wierd al to point it out, I'd say it fits. Christ, feels like I'm back in gradeschool english where everything is a goddamn metaphor.
Re: (Score:2)
I could see an argument about Eat It being parody, pointing to it making fun of Michael Jackson drastically changing his appearance by putting unhealthy things in his body, by pointing out another possible drastic change to his appearance by putting unhealthy things in his body.
Okay, that's a hell of a stretch, but if there were other documents released at the same time by wierd al to point it out, I'd say it fits. Christ, feels like I'm back in gradeschool english where everything is a goddamn metaphor.
Yeah, but Eat it came out in 1984. Michael Jackson still looked, well, like Michael Jackson.
It's only fair use to parody the material itself (Score:3)
Pick up a guitar (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Many are. But most? I'm not so sure about that.
Songs aren't just chords. So the same chords can be part of very different songs. Also It's exceedingly common for there to be changes in harmony to track the melody (E.G. Nicely exposed here: Lemon - https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] subtitles may help ), to have modulations, to use non diatonic note combinations and to use modes other than the most common choices of Aeolian or Ionian. The standard thing with a common chord sequence it to start messing with i
Where's the examples? (Score:1)
I combed all over and couldn't find any examples of these alleged infringements. Did I miss a link to some?