My understanding of the linked report is it's saying you can't register a work as being "Copyright ChatGPT" or what have you. This is obviously stupid on a bunch of levels—just to begin with, how would "ChatGPT" sue someone for infringement? If it can't, then its copyright is meaningless.
The article is about whether the human using ChatGPT can claim copyright.
AI generated music is not protected by copyright, at least in the US, since copyright can only affix to works created by humans (the "human authorship requirement").[1][2] Without copyright protection, there is no "economic value" -- at least directly tied to the songs themselves. AI generated songs are not paid royalties at e.g. The Mechanical Licensing Collective for US streaming use.[3]
1. lots of established law and case law (at least in the US), this is already a well-settled problem and folks have the tools and proper venue to bring infringement claims. Yes, federal copyright infringement litigation is prohibitively expensive for many issues. There is a now a "small claims court" for smaller issues. [1]
2. Those works cannot be copyrighted (at least in the US). [2]. And hey, someone already tried copyrighting every song melody [3]
This is probably a somewhat unpopular opinion on HN, but it is where many of the artists I work with are generally trying to get to. Consent, compensation, and credit.
It depends, but yes, usually. Post-1978, the author of a work is also the copyright owner as soon as the work is fixed in a "tangible medium of expression" (written down, recorded, dictated, etc.). The exception to this is when the work was created as a "work for hire" (WFH) [1] for an employer. The rules around what constitutes a bonafide WFH are governed by agency law in the US. The primary court case in this area is The Community For Creative Non-Violence v. Reid which outlines a fairly high bar for a work to be considered a true WFH (it asks questions like: did you go to an office where the employer told you what to do and how to create it, did the employer provide you materials, did the employer pay you as a salaried employee rather than a contractor, how were you treated tax-wise and benefits-wise, etc.). That said, as the copyright owner at the moment of fixation, you can absolutely assign that copyright in writing to anyone you'd like. So functionally, there is usually a backup clause saying something like: "this is a work for hire for us, but, in the event it's deemed not a work for hire, you hereby assign the copyright to us anyway."
Royalty rate increased to $0.12/copy as of January 1, 2023 for songs under five minutes in length (the rate increases from there for longer songs). [1][2]
