Legal and Ethical concerns in the CCIs

Activity 1 – Case Study

Case study details

A song titled “Heart On My Sleeve” was created and uploaded to TikTok by user ghostwriter977 and used AI to make it sound as though it was sung by popular artists Drake and the Weeknd.

The video surpassed 15 million views on TikTok and was later streamed more than 600,000 times.

The song was not completely created by an AI; the beat and lyrics of the song were all created and recorded by a human. AI was only used to make the vocals of the creator sound like the vocals of Drake and The Weeknd.

Despite this, the video was taken down from TikTok and all other music streaming platforms by Universal Music Group (UMG). According to an article from UMG released a statement saying that using the works of artists to train AI technology, such as the one used to create “Heart On My Sleeve,” is a violation of copyright law.

FOOD FOR FURTHER THOUGHT

• The song was notable because it was entirely AI-generated, using sophisticated technology to replicate the distinct vocal and musical styles of Drake and The Weeknd without their involvement or consent.
  Universal Music Group (UMG), which represents both artists, took swift action to have the song removed from streaming platforms, citing copyright infringement.
• The incident highlighted the complexities and legal challenges posed by AI-generated content, especially concerning intellectual property rights and the use of artists’ likenesses without permission.
• The “Heart on My Sleeve” episode has become a landmark case in the ongoing debate over AI in the creative industries, demonstrating both the potential and the pitfalls of this emerging technology.

AN IMPORTANT QUESTION TO CONSIDER IS WHO DESERVES TO RECEIVE PROFIT FOR AI-GENERATED MUSIC MADE TO SOUND LIKE A CERTAIN ARTIST.

The question of who deserves to receive profits from AI-generated music that mimics a specific artist involves several stakeholders and legal considerations. Here’s a breakdown of the key parties involved and the factors that might influence who deserves the profits

Possible Answer

Key Stakeholders
1. Original Artist
– Contribution: The original artist’s unique style, voice, and brand are being imitated.
– Considerations: They might have a claim to profits based on the use of their likeness or style, which could be seen as a form of intellectual property.

2. AI Developer/Company
– Contribution: The entity that developed the AI technology enabling the creation of the music.
– Considerations: They might claim profits based on their investment in developing the AI and the technology used to generate the music.

3. Music Producer/Creator
– Contribution: The individual or team using the AI to create the music.
– Considerations: They provide creative input, direction, and may decide how the AI-generated music is used and distributed.

4. Record Label/Distributor
– Contribution: They might be involved in the promotion, distribution, and sales of the music.
– Considerations: Their role can impact the commercial success of the music, and they often have contracts in place regarding profit sharing.

Legal and Ethical Considerations

1. Intellectual Property Rights
– If the AI-generated music closely mimics a specific artist’s voice or style, it might infringe on their intellectual property rights, such as their right of publicity or trademark.

2. Copyright Laws
– Copyright laws vary by jurisdiction, but typically protect original works of authorship. If the AI-generated music is considered a derivative work, the original artist may have a claim to profits.

3. Contracts and Agreements
– The distribution of profits can be influenced by existing contracts. For instance, an artist’s contract with their label might include clauses about the use of their likeness or derived works.

4. Ethical Considerations
– There are ethical concerns about using AI to mimic artists without their consent. Even if it’s legal, it might be considered exploitative or disrespectful to the artist’s creative legacy.

Potential Profit-Sharing Models

1. Revenue Sharing with Original Artist
– A percentage of the profits could be allocated to the original artist, acknowledging their indirect contribution to the music’s creation.

2. Licensing Agreements
– The AI developer could enter into licensing agreements with artists or their estates to legally use their likeness and style, with agreed-upon royalties or profit-sharing.

3. Collaborative Agreements
– A collaborative approach where the original artist, AI developer, and music producer share profits based on their respective contributions and agreements.

Feedback for the learner (if any)

Determining who deserves profits from AI-generated music that mimics a specific artist involves balancing legal rights, ethical considerations, and the contributions of various stakeholders. Ideally, clear agreements and licenses should be established to ensure that all parties are fairly compensated and their rights respected. As this area is rapidly evolving, ongoing legal developments and industry standards will continue to shape the best practices for profit distribution.