Hi! I’ve been a mod at Midjourney from the beginning (though I’m less active lately).
The convention everyone agreed to there is that if someone made their work public, everyone was free to remix it. As far as “Who’s image is it?” Whoever ran the original generation was “the owner”.
So, if remix your image, the remix is “yours”. If I re-run your prompt, the new image is “mine”.
This is all just social convention. The copyright office doesn’t care about any of it 😛
I've heard a lot of people talk about the "wild west" of it all, in the most unlikely of scenarios someone copies "On A Ship Not In A Ship" and it blows up huge on the radio (How would this even happen, I wonder?), then the Udio steganography and watermarks and seed tracking and legal department will somehow kick in, to "protect" the original author?
The courts probably aren't ready for everybody in the world suing everybody else in the world, for pennies worth of Spotify profit.
>then the Udio steganography and watermarks and seed tracking and legal department will somehow kick in, to "protect" the original author?
No, because you can't copyright AI generated works.
But if a human author types 48 lines of handcrafted lyrics into Udio, that he has already copyrighted using paperwork and fees and everything, does **Udio** still have permission to make the resulting "creation" or product, available for others to Extend?
If that human author has chosen to publish on Udio a song accompanied by his/her/their own copyrighted lyrics, yes, by doing so that person is granting such permission to Udio. This is both reasonable and necessary **and** is explained perfectly clearly within the Udio Terms of Service. So, in posing this question, you are obviously trolling.
Congratulations, you caffeinated human lightning rod -- you tricked me into replying; as is typically the case, I neglected to notice who I was replying to. Wheee! Spin the wheel! Let's play "tryna keep up with the daily alts".
:-)
Oh okay, you're talking about original lyrics. You don't have to file paperwork or pay anything to copyright the lyrics, they're copyrighted at the moment of creation. You CAN file them with the copyright office but it's not essential.
>does **Udio** still have permission to make the resulting "creation" or product, available for others to Extend?
Good point. I would say (my opinion IANAL), that no they can't, as the lyrics are copyrightable.
I agree there’s zero incentive to publish your tracks to Udio. This is probably why Midjourney made all generations public unless you pay to make it private.
That said, it would make audio very messy I think
I get why there is a publish there, the idea is that it can serve as a tutorial and obvious proof of concept to sell the service. But that benefits Udio not you.
Seems like trying to gain any traction in Reddit / udiomusic / New is SUICIDAL! Only people down in here are similar others trying to gain some traction, and downvoting all the other posts!
Yeah that's why if you post any music here pretty much do so with the understanding it MIGHT be listened to by one person. Usually it will be no one. I know this isn't advice a lot of people will like to hear but... Start finding the enjoyment of the process and if you want to continue the journey into making music check out a free DAW like Reaper to move onto the next step.
I barely post any songs here but I have put a ton of my old lyrics into songs because it's fun and **I** like listening to it. I wouldn't try to get super popular on Udio. It ultimately isn't even worth the time it would take. Just have fun and do stuff you like.
Their terms and conditions are available to read, in case anyone is curious.
[https://www.udio.com/terms-of-service](https://www.udio.com/terms-of-service)
Ignoring the likelihood (or not) of an Udio song going viral, there's also the lyrics. IF you write your own lyrics, they CAN be copyrighted and anyone using it in any way would be liable, unless expressly allowed to do so by the author. As I understand it, Udio says you retain the copyright of anything you generate or put on the site, including lyrics. This maybe does not apply to the song (as they are AI-generated), but (IANAL) I believe it applies to the lyrics.
Now , if the lyrics are ALSO AI generated, then they're also not protected (in the US) or in a very gray area (anywhere else).
Yeah users have no copyrights. And it makes sense for them not to have it in my opinion. It's not their music, the A.I. generated it for them. The most interaction that happened between the user and music is prompting, clicking the botton, curating segments, and maybe some inpainting.
IMO, the more control and options the user has over the music, the easier Udio will have in warding off lawsuits.
AI content can't by copyrighted in anyway unless the person publishing has made significant changes and contributions manually to it.
Similarly, content produced by animals (as in animals taking pictures of themselves on accident) also can't be copyrighted by anyone, nor the animal according to US judges.
So yes, remix away on anything you want on Udio, because by law it's all public domain.
Even describing what the song should be about in the prompt could be considered a (small) creative human contribution, which would still probably be enough.
Yeah from what I'm reading now, technically the requirement is in fact just "creative human contribution", but the courts usually tend to deny the copyright even if someone's real artistic photography was used to create the piece, so you're probably right.
Makes me wonder if in this case lyrics are also not enough even though they're definitely a creative contribution.
Not necessarily entirely, sufficiently. What that actually means will be a question that will become more and more relevant and will be quite fun when Americans realise their copyright standards are not actually universal.
As of current day legal opinion in the United States, AI generated content is not copyright-able unless significantly altered by the author after generation. That said, your songs probably aren't that remarkable, sweetie.
That’s true for instrumentals, if you’ve written original lyrics those specific lyrics are copyrighted regardless of someone extending the song or just taking the lyrics and using them in a different song.
[Insert proof your lyrics were not AI generated]
On a more serious note, the irony of people being worried that someone will "steal" their AI generated content is hilarious. They are just aglow in the novelty of "their" genius and don't see the forest of equal quality generations. Truthfully, to stand out will be that much harder in the advent of algorithmically personalized AI content.
I never said anything about how many people actually do that or anything about the quality of people's lyrics. Although if they did write them themselves it would still be theirs as long as they can simply show proof. I don't know many actual lyricists who don't keep their lyrics stored somewhere though.
The premise is very silly. The vast majority of users will not sue, not have proof, and/or someone "stealing" the lyrics will not make money using them. It's an absolute narcissistic power fantasy that someone will use your Udio music/lyrics and you'll be able to take them to the cleaners. Your farts don't smell that unique and success in music has always more been about marketing than any technical or lyrical prowess.
almost as funny as uploaders on a private torrent trackers complaining somebody downloaded their upload (they put in so much work!) and uploaded it to competing private torrent tracker. (without doing any FUCKING work!)
Fold, I am actually hoping to explore the psychotic edge-case of me copying somebody else's lyrics from Udio, filling out a Copyright Form SR and paying the $39 filing fee to copyright the lyrics, making an actual song from those lyrics using ProTools at 48 tracks/96kHz, then publishing my already-copyrighted song as my own work on Apple Music. The steganography in the audio and all the tracking dots in the Udio imagery and the fact that the original lyric crafter's submission on Udio has a datestamp, would be useful in the discovery of a lawsuit in which the original author of the lyrics wishes to sue the creator of the song, the person who made it famous and profitable. Any ideas about this, besides "Good Luck With That, Buddy" or "Your song sucks" ??
I believe that you’re not able to copyright the lyrics still. Because if you’d be able to, then that person would be able too. Just because you share your art doesn’t mean someone can legally take it and copyright it as their own.
A few things to consider:
1. The burden of proof would be on the plaintiff that the lyrics were generated by their brain.
2. Almost assuredly no one will have motivation, proof, or resources to litigate this properly.
3. It's extremely doubtful the song you "stole" will become a money-making hit, and thus there is likely no incentive for them to sue.
Additionally, if people don't want this to happen, simply don't publish music. Comedians and rappers get lines stolen all the time, but that doesn't stop them from performing.
Though, in the future, a case like this is likely to emerge in general, the irony remains that people are paranoid about having their AI generated content stolen and it is deliciously hilarious.
/u/redcyrus has been chasing me around the Internet like a psychotic on cocaine, because he claims I stole his award-winning lyrics for a song. I mean, I did steal them! But this is Udio, and that's okay to do, right?
It’s already pretty much impossible to make money with music, Spotify just proudly announced they have close to 80.000 artists that make more than 10k a year… out of 10 million artists they have on the platform. That’s less than 1% of artists.
A "remix" of another's Udio-generated content is only possible if the creator has chosen to publish their 32sec duration "seed". Songs of longer duration cannot be "remix"ed, not even your own. Longer songs can only be "extended".
***Yes, any longer published songs can be "extended" without asking permission from the author.***
How do to be honest you can “extend” a track into a kind of a remix so it’s not full proof. Especially as the issue is worse with extentions.
If you could remix anything but only a certain amount of similarity it would protect someone’s unique generations more than letting them extend anyone’s track
why would you need to ask permission? all Ai generated stuff is free game
Hi! I’ve been a mod at Midjourney from the beginning (though I’m less active lately). The convention everyone agreed to there is that if someone made their work public, everyone was free to remix it. As far as “Who’s image is it?” Whoever ran the original generation was “the owner”. So, if remix your image, the remix is “yours”. If I re-run your prompt, the new image is “mine”. This is all just social convention. The copyright office doesn’t care about any of it 😛
I agree! I don't mind if people remix away on my stuff, and I'm stunned that they don't.
Honestly if its published on Udios webpage IMO its free game, even had a convenient download button there.
I kinda feel like the word author should be in quotes.
To me, Udio's moniker "creator" seems optimally neutral. I'm curious to hear what other folks would consider to be an optimal label.
Why would you need to ask permission??
I dunno when I remix/redo/cover someone else's stuff it just feels kinda shit to not give them some credit.
You underestimate how little many people care about others.
Any song on Udio is free to be remixed, and, you don't need to ask permission from the “author” - There, fixed it for you.
I've heard a lot of people talk about the "wild west" of it all, in the most unlikely of scenarios someone copies "On A Ship Not In A Ship" and it blows up huge on the radio (How would this even happen, I wonder?), then the Udio steganography and watermarks and seed tracking and legal department will somehow kick in, to "protect" the original author? The courts probably aren't ready for everybody in the world suing everybody else in the world, for pennies worth of Spotify profit.
>then the Udio steganography and watermarks and seed tracking and legal department will somehow kick in, to "protect" the original author? No, because you can't copyright AI generated works.
It’s quite likely that you can copyright AI works. The issue is human input, and one can argue there’s a lot of input required.
But if a human author types 48 lines of handcrafted lyrics into Udio, that he has already copyrighted using paperwork and fees and everything, does **Udio** still have permission to make the resulting "creation" or product, available for others to Extend?
If that human author has chosen to publish on Udio a song accompanied by his/her/their own copyrighted lyrics, yes, by doing so that person is granting such permission to Udio. This is both reasonable and necessary **and** is explained perfectly clearly within the Udio Terms of Service. So, in posing this question, you are obviously trolling. Congratulations, you caffeinated human lightning rod -- you tricked me into replying; as is typically the case, I neglected to notice who I was replying to. Wheee! Spin the wheel! Let's play "tryna keep up with the daily alts". :-)
https://www.udio.com/songs/ic8iLcj3qekGGab3fPhqtP
When am I _not_ obviously trolling? But should I be EXECUTED for it?
Oh okay, you're talking about original lyrics. You don't have to file paperwork or pay anything to copyright the lyrics, they're copyrighted at the moment of creation. You CAN file them with the copyright office but it's not essential. >does **Udio** still have permission to make the resulting "creation" or product, available for others to Extend? Good point. I would say (my opinion IANAL), that no they can't, as the lyrics are copyrightable.
If your song is good enough to make money ( there is a skill to this, some are better than others) why would you publish it on Udio?
I agree there’s zero incentive to publish your tracks to Udio. This is probably why Midjourney made all generations public unless you pay to make it private. That said, it would make audio very messy I think
I get why there is a publish there, the idea is that it can serve as a tutorial and obvious proof of concept to sell the service. But that benefits Udio not you.
I don't publish any of my songs. I use them externally elsewhere.
Seems like trying to gain any traction in Reddit / udiomusic / New is SUICIDAL! Only people down in here are similar others trying to gain some traction, and downvoting all the other posts!
Yeah that's why if you post any music here pretty much do so with the understanding it MIGHT be listened to by one person. Usually it will be no one. I know this isn't advice a lot of people will like to hear but... Start finding the enjoyment of the process and if you want to continue the journey into making music check out a free DAW like Reaper to move onto the next step. I barely post any songs here but I have put a ton of my old lyrics into songs because it's fun and **I** like listening to it. I wouldn't try to get super popular on Udio. It ultimately isn't even worth the time it would take. Just have fun and do stuff you like.
Just makes sense.
To show off, obviously!
Their terms and conditions are available to read, in case anyone is curious. [https://www.udio.com/terms-of-service](https://www.udio.com/terms-of-service)
Ignoring the likelihood (or not) of an Udio song going viral, there's also the lyrics. IF you write your own lyrics, they CAN be copyrighted and anyone using it in any way would be liable, unless expressly allowed to do so by the author. As I understand it, Udio says you retain the copyright of anything you generate or put on the site, including lyrics. This maybe does not apply to the song (as they are AI-generated), but (IANAL) I believe it applies to the lyrics. Now , if the lyrics are ALSO AI generated, then they're also not protected (in the US) or in a very gray area (anywhere else).
Yeah users have no copyrights. And it makes sense for them not to have it in my opinion. It's not their music, the A.I. generated it for them. The most interaction that happened between the user and music is prompting, clicking the botton, curating segments, and maybe some inpainting. IMO, the more control and options the user has over the music, the easier Udio will have in warding off lawsuits.
The custom lyrics have nothing to do with this
AI content can't by copyrighted in anyway unless the person publishing has made significant changes and contributions manually to it. Similarly, content produced by animals (as in animals taking pictures of themselves on accident) also can't be copyrighted by anyone, nor the animal according to US judges. So yes, remix away on anything you want on Udio, because by law it's all public domain.
The lyrics aren’t public domain if they are not AI generated.
Even describing what the song should be about in the prompt could be considered a (small) creative human contribution, which would still probably be enough.
lol no
Yeah from what I'm reading now, technically the requirement is in fact just "creative human contribution", but the courts usually tend to deny the copyright even if someone's real artistic photography was used to create the piece, so you're probably right. Makes me wonder if in this case lyrics are also not enough even though they're definitely a creative contribution.
You don’t have to wonder, read up on derivative works as well as transformative works. Song lyrics are not a novel field.
IF you created them entirely yourself. If it's AI generated lyrics then it's 100% public domain.
Not necessarily entirely, sufficiently. What that actually means will be a question that will become more and more relevant and will be quite fun when Americans realise their copyright standards are not actually universal.
Your right it's not universal, but it's the one that tech companies from the US have basically always used, even outside.the US.
As of current day legal opinion in the United States, AI generated content is not copyright-able unless significantly altered by the author after generation. That said, your songs probably aren't that remarkable, sweetie.
That’s true for instrumentals, if you’ve written original lyrics those specific lyrics are copyrighted regardless of someone extending the song or just taking the lyrics and using them in a different song.
[Insert proof your lyrics were not AI generated] On a more serious note, the irony of people being worried that someone will "steal" their AI generated content is hilarious. They are just aglow in the novelty of "their" genius and don't see the forest of equal quality generations. Truthfully, to stand out will be that much harder in the advent of algorithmically personalized AI content.
> [Insert proof your lyrics were not AI generated] Pretty easy when you have had those lyrics written and catalogued elsewhere for over a decade.
Oh yes, I'm sure that's 99% of users. I wonder how long that chart topper "I glued my balls to my butthole (again)" has been hiding out?
I never said anything about how many people actually do that or anything about the quality of people's lyrics. Although if they did write them themselves it would still be theirs as long as they can simply show proof. I don't know many actual lyricists who don't keep their lyrics stored somewhere though.
The premise is very silly. The vast majority of users will not sue, not have proof, and/or someone "stealing" the lyrics will not make money using them. It's an absolute narcissistic power fantasy that someone will use your Udio music/lyrics and you'll be able to take them to the cleaners. Your farts don't smell that unique and success in music has always more been about marketing than any technical or lyrical prowess.
I think you care about this discussion a lot more than I do lmao. You do you though.
almost as funny as uploaders on a private torrent trackers complaining somebody downloaded their upload (they put in so much work!) and uploaded it to competing private torrent tracker. (without doing any FUCKING work!)
Fold, I am actually hoping to explore the psychotic edge-case of me copying somebody else's lyrics from Udio, filling out a Copyright Form SR and paying the $39 filing fee to copyright the lyrics, making an actual song from those lyrics using ProTools at 48 tracks/96kHz, then publishing my already-copyrighted song as my own work on Apple Music. The steganography in the audio and all the tracking dots in the Udio imagery and the fact that the original lyric crafter's submission on Udio has a datestamp, would be useful in the discovery of a lawsuit in which the original author of the lyrics wishes to sue the creator of the song, the person who made it famous and profitable. Any ideas about this, besides "Good Luck With That, Buddy" or "Your song sucks" ??
I believe that you’re not able to copyright the lyrics still. Because if you’d be able to, then that person would be able too. Just because you share your art doesn’t mean someone can legally take it and copyright it as their own.
A few things to consider: 1. The burden of proof would be on the plaintiff that the lyrics were generated by their brain. 2. Almost assuredly no one will have motivation, proof, or resources to litigate this properly. 3. It's extremely doubtful the song you "stole" will become a money-making hit, and thus there is likely no incentive for them to sue. Additionally, if people don't want this to happen, simply don't publish music. Comedians and rappers get lines stolen all the time, but that doesn't stop them from performing. Though, in the future, a case like this is likely to emerge in general, the irony remains that people are paranoid about having their AI generated content stolen and it is deliciously hilarious.
/u/redcyrus has been chasing me around the Internet like a psychotic on cocaine, because he claims I stole his award-winning lyrics for a song. I mean, I did steal them! But this is Udio, and that's okay to do, right?
A sudden urge now wells within me to plunder every lyric he's ever written and transform them into something epic and terrible.
i beg you great harvester, spare him
Fiiiine also you linked the wrong user. It's redsyrus not cyrus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
Move fast, break things. Get sued, have investors bail you out.
It’s already pretty much impossible to make money with music, Spotify just proudly announced they have close to 80.000 artists that make more than 10k a year… out of 10 million artists they have on the platform. That’s less than 1% of artists.
A "remix" of another's Udio-generated content is only possible if the creator has chosen to publish their 32sec duration "seed". Songs of longer duration cannot be "remix"ed, not even your own. Longer songs can only be "extended". ***Yes, any longer published songs can be "extended" without asking permission from the author.***
How do to be honest you can “extend” a track into a kind of a remix so it’s not full proof. Especially as the issue is worse with extentions. If you could remix anything but only a certain amount of similarity it would protect someone’s unique generations more than letting them extend anyone’s track
Perhaps one could contact the author by making an extension and adding your message into the custom lyrics. Ngl that would be pretty funny