Episode 5: Alan Clarke and Gavin Strube on AI, Copyright, Digital Replicas, and Protecting Creative Work

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Joey Stuckey (01:04):
Welcome to Stuck on Sound.
I'm your host, Joey Stuckey, andtoday's show is all about AI.
Welcome to the program, and wehave quite an interesting topic
today, one that I'm reallypassionate about.
Over the past year or so, uh AIhas really come into its own.
It's moving at a rapid pace,it's changing every day, and of

(01:26):
course, in the entertainmentindustry, it's really the
current disruptor.
And uh one of the things that Idon't know about AI is how it
applies to intellectualproperty.
But I have sourced two amazingfolks to help us understand AI
and the law, Alan Clark andGavin Strooby.
Gentlemen, welcome to theprogram.
I appreciate being here.

SPEAKER_00 (01:47):
Thanks, Joey.
Thank you for having us.

Absolutely.
So, so you know, there's there'sso much to unpack here.
And um and I I really feel likethe the first piece of confusion
uh is what is protectedvis-a-vis copyright when you're
using AI.
And the big thing here is thatthere are a lot of people who

(02:14):
were not traditionally part ofthe music space who are using AI
to create songs.
They're not they're notsongwriters, they're not
musicians even.
Uh, so there's a lot of thatgoing on.
And then, of course, there's alot of musicians that are using
AI in various ways uh as a tool,sometimes for composition,
sometimes for sound recording.

(02:35):
So there's just so much going onwith AI, and you know, the the
question is uh how how do youprotect intellectual property
that's being created byartificial intelligence?
Is that even a thing you can do?
I know that, you know, um, withthe recording academy, aka the
Grammys, uh, there's a rule thatno solely generated work using

(03:00):
AI is admissible for an award.
And sort of the scuttle buttgoing around all the chat rooms
on the internet is that theLibrary of Congress and the
government has somethingsimilar.
But there's also uh peoplesaying, well, if I use a certain
percentage of AI, I cancopyright that.
And I was like, you know what,I'm tired of not knowing.

(03:20):
Let me see what Alan says.
So that's really the thing.
I mean, because you know, at theend of the day, if you've chosen
music as your career, you haveto be able to monetize it.
And so, you know, if you want tostay in the business, so what
what is the what does the lawsay that you can protect and how
does it look at intellectualproperty generated by AI?

SPEAKER_00 (03:45):
I think, Joey, one uh way to start out our
discussion is just setting outwhat uh a copyright is and what
a copyright protects, and thatis uh an origin a copyright is
an original work in fixed form.
And when we talk about AI, Ithink the key word in that

(04:06):
definition is original.
And uh it copyright protects theexpression of an idea, not the
idea itself, not a title.
Um, and it grants certain rightsto the copyright holder, as you
know, the copyright owner.
But um there are issues uh whenwe talk about uh works that are

(04:32):
created by AI, and when we talkabout that, we're talking about
generative AI, which is um uhthe the type of artificial
intelligence that uses machinelearning um and databases to
create what uh comes out as newor original content, like text

(04:53):
or images or videos or music, asyou said, uh based on the user
prompts.
And so the issue comes down tois that original content uh the
same as an original work infixed form and therefore
protectable?
Gavin, do you have any uhthoughts on uh this?

SPEAKER_03 (05:13):
Uh no, just that um it the the the biggest issue uh
when AI comes into it reallycomes down to uh how much was
created by the AI.
Um and and and did the AIessentially it would the AI be

(05:34):
the author uh of the work.
That's what the the mainquestion is going to be.
Um I don't want to jump aheadtoo much, but but the Library of
Congress has uh has hinted thatum if a uh if if AI generated

(05:55):
content is the result of a of aprompt, then depending on how
much work was put in on gener oncreating the prompt, then it may
be copyrightable.
Um but it's it's really it itgets a little metaphysical.
You know, where did the creativespark come from?
Did it come from the person ordid it come from the machine?

(06:17):
Um basic oh go ahead, sorry.
And then that that that I thinkis gonna be where the where the
inquiry where where thequestions are gonna be headed.

SPEAKER_00 (06:25):
Um tagging on to that, the the basic starting
point is that AI-generated workswithout human authorship
generally can't be copyrighted.
And that was uh Joey, you saidyou didn't mind if we got a
little bit into the legalesehere.
Let's do it.
But that was uh decided in acase that you may have heard of

(06:49):
called Thaler versus Perlmutterin the uh back in 2023, not long
ago, in federal court inWashington, D.C.
And that uh that courtreaffirmed what the copyright
office had already said thatAI-generated content in and of
itself cannot receive copyrightprotection, but there's some
exceptions, like what Gavin'stalking about.

So, I mean, for me, you know, as a music
creator, um I I guess thequestion becomes you know, it if
I mean I have a friend who is uha very clever fellow, and you
know, he thinks visually.
Uh he's a great visualstoryteller.

(07:32):
And of course, as a blind personmyself, that is not my
bailiwick.
Um and he created a piece ofcover art for me for a single
that I was gonna release.
Um, and um uh uh he just had anidea and said, hey, you know,
what do you think about this?
If you want it, it's yours.
And he used AI to generate it.

(07:53):
And uh, you know, he he veryspecifically gave AI very
specific prompts.
You know, I want this, I wantthis, I want this, I want this,
that kind of thing, and came upwith an interesting cover.
And of course, my first questionwas, who actually owns this
thing?
Can I use this?
Can I not use it?
But but I guess the question is,if if I understand correctly,

(08:14):
we're saying that the potentialto copyright a work uh would
depend on how much originalityor how much impact the human has
on creating the work through theprompts.
And my question is, how how doesone prove that?
Like, what would what would thevehicle look like to establish

(08:39):
you know whether the promptswere sufficient or not?

SPEAKER_03 (08:44):
That's a very good question, and we will let you
know when it's been decided.

So is it is it a uh is it is it sort of this the
same old story of we'll have tohave a lawsuit to decide the
law?

SPEAKER_03 (08:56):
Uh essentially.
Uh I think some good advice toto artists who are using AI in
as an assist is to save yourwork, um, save your prompts, um,
document the process that youwent through so that if you end
up being that test case, thatthe information is there.

(09:19):
Because what you want to I Ipromise I'm not going to
entirely speak in cliches, butyou have to establish that the
AI is the brush, not the artist.

No, I get it.
And and that see, that seemsmore fair to me.
Um, because I I I uh this iskind of this is kind of one of
those things when when Nixonsaid I am not a crook, but he
but he really was.
Uh I I'm I am not a Luddite.
I I am not against technology.
Um I you know, I'm the I don'twanna I don't want to sabotage
or anything like that.
I think AI has some reallyamazing uh things that it can

(09:53):
do.
And as a blind person, I'm veryinterested in AI being to help
me interface with visual contentuh since I can't see.
So I'm all about that.
Um I'm I'm I'm less clear.
I mean, if I like Waymo and wantto get in a car that drives
itself yet, um give it a couplemore years and I'll hop in.
But the but the thing is, Imean, some people on the

(10:15):
internet, because I am I am Ihave been proselytizing a little
bit.
Uh I have been warning of someof the pitfalls of AI uh in the
music sphere, and I have beenjust saying essentially that we
need comprehensive federallegislation to put some
guardrails around thistechnology.

(10:36):
And I I've gotten a lot of grieffor it.
Uh and and so, but there arepeople that have said, well, the
Library of Congress says uh ifif there's a certain percentage
of AIs being used, it can becopyrightable.
Is that true?
I have not seen that.
Um, so I'm just trying to makesure that we have the truth out

(10:56):
there.

SPEAKER_00 (10:57):
It's not uh uh there's not a given percentage,
but what the copyright officehas said that uh is is that the
extent of the human involvementand the level of control that
the human creators are exertingare big crucial factors to
determine the copyrightabilityof the uh work that is AI

(11:21):
assisted.
But at the moment, we don't knowwhat that really means, correct?
In terms of a specificpercentage, exactly.
It's it's a blurry line.

Yeah, yeah.
So so how do you how would yougo about if you were wanting to
copyright your work uh uh andand there's you know some
ambiguity in the law, um, and asas as Gavin rightly said, you
know, save your prompts, be ableto show what what brought you
there.
But what do you what do youthink?
And let's be clear, we're notyour lawyer, and this is not

(11:52):
legal advice.
But but but but what what do youthink would be the correct
procedure?
If you I mean, would you file,would you bother to file a
copyright uh if you if it's AIgenerated or AI assisted?
Uh I guess would be the way tothink about it.
Would you file a copyright atthis time?
Does it does it have anybenefit?

SPEAKER_03 (12:12):
I mean, it it there's always a benefit to it.
The um I mean the the wonderfulthing about copyright in the US
is that as soon as you createcopyrightable work, it's
copyrighted automatically.
Right.
Nothing has to be done.
Um but you do need thatregistration to assert some of
the most important rights underunder the copyright law.
Right.

(12:32):
Um I I would suggest one of twoavenues.
Um based on what the thecopyright office has said, um
the the probably the thecleanest route would be to
either register your prompt andthen register the resulting work
as a derivative work of yourprompt.

(12:55):
Uh, interesting.
Um, or uh register the work asuh not for the art itself, but
for the arrangement andselection of the elements that
went into the art.
For example, if you put in yourprompt and you the AI gives you
the result, and then you modifyit and change it.

(13:17):
So you're essentially selectingthe elements that go into the
finished work.
Right.
Um that that can be protected inand of itself.
It's how websites get protectedby by selecting and curating the
elements.
It's how phone books can becopyrighted, uh, by selecting
what goes into the phone book.
It it tends to be um I mean,copyrights are copyrights.

(13:42):
They're they're they're they'revery important protections to
have, but a a you know, editing,arranging, and selecting style
copyright can be seen as alittle softer or weaker, since
what you are protecting is theselection of the elements, not
the elements themselves.

(14:03):
I gotcha.

Now, is there a is there a specific form that
allows that that uhdifferentiation uh of selecting
elements versus because I alwaysuse you know the SR form where I
copyright the underlying workand this fixed sound recording.
I mean, that's that's all I'veever used.
Is there a specific form onthere that allows you to sort of
spell that out, or how does thatwork?

SPEAKER_03 (14:24):
Oh yeah, it's it's part of the the online
submission form now.
You but when you select the typeof the type of work that you're
that you are uh registering, andthen you are absolutely going to
get emails from the copyrightoffice asking for additional
detail.

Okay, I gotcha.
I gotcha.
Well, that's great.
I mean, so that's that's that'sreally fascinating.
Um the um you know, one of thethings that, and I hate to go
too far afield, but I I do thinkthis is cogent.
You know, one of the things thatI foresee uh uh being attempted
uh is corporations um trying toown AI generated works.

(15:06):
And um this this is as you guysremember, I'm sure the the fake
artist scandal uh that happenedwith Spotify years ago, where
essentially they uh hired abunch of session players and
said, you know, make music inthe style of Jay-Z, and then um
we're gonna own these rights,we're gonna own these

(15:27):
copyrights.
And and when when you listen toJay-Z, we're gonna say, hey, you
uh you may like these artiststoo, and we're gonna funnel them
over to stuff that that we ownso that fewer money has to go
out of the company, or uh, youknow, fewer payments has to go
out of the company to to artistslike myself.
Um, you know, I mean, I I I justI wonder your thoughts on like

(15:50):
corporations saying, well, weown the AI, therefore we own the
work that it generates.
Is that is that is thatsomething that might happen?

SPEAKER_03 (16:01):
I mean, look, I mean, corporations try and own
everything.
Um it's it's gonna happen itjust like just like corporations
can can own other othercopyrights.
Yeah.
Um and you know, it's it'll justinvolve having the the the
person who's sitting in theircubicle putting in the prompts

(16:22):
uh to be operating under a workfor hire agreement or execute an
assignment so that whatever theyhave goes on to the the
corporation.
Gotcha, gotcha.

I mean that seems like you know the the kind of
thing that that that uh you knowthere's there's a there's a lot
of people in the sort of I guessyou know the distribution uh
business of streaming, you know,sort of the utility model of
streaming and all that kind ofstuff.
And then and everything'sutility model, right?
I mean even the AIs are you know20 bucks a month or whatever

(16:52):
they are.
Um and and so you know thatthat's that's where that's
another question for me, youknow, and and again, maybe this
is too esoteric, but if I'mpaying a subscription to use an
AI, um, you know, I I justwanted, you know, I'm I'm
wondering like what the uh whatthe the the the law would say uh

(17:15):
would the company if the companyowns the AI that I'm sort of
renting, would they have theclaim on my work?
Would that be something thatshould happen?

SPEAKER_00 (17:22):
One thing I would say, just coming from the lawyer
standpoint, is you have to readthe fine print of the uh uh
service that you're using interms of what output, what you
can do with the output and whoowns the rights to the output.

Um that's something that you should
investigate prior to spending alot of time using a certain
service.
Right, right.
Because I mean, then we all weall you know, I mean, I have a
phone uh that I use for forwork, and uh if I don't accept
the user agreement, I can't usethe phone, and so I don't buy
you know the user agreement'slike 80 miles long.

(18:02):
Right, right.
Most of us skip and go agree andjust keep moving because
otherwise the phone doesn'twork.
So, but that's that's somethingwe should probably not do then
with the AI uh generated uh uhstuff.

SPEAKER_00 (18:13):
And if you have a question, my two cent plug for
lawyers is you can always askyour contact your music lawyer
or entertainment lawyer to uhconfirm you know who can
probably do a quick look at thecontract and and weed through
all the legalese to let you knowwhat rights you're giving up.

Yeah, that's that's a that's a really
important point, I think,because um the uh I mean people
say, Oh, I can't afford anentertainment attorney, and my
response is you can't afford notto have an entertainment
attorney.
Um and you know, um I I reallybelieve in that.
And Alan, you know, you when wewhen we uh first started working

(18:50):
together, um I knew you know Iknew some things, but I I
basically said to you, uh, I'mgonna pay you for several hours
and uh teach me what I need toknow so I can be on the lookout
um when I when I you know getthese contracts and stuff like
that.
Like what are some what are somered flags?
You know, how does copyrightreally work?

(19:12):
Uh and so you know we did that.
And then later I went toBerkeley uh and started working
on a uh you know towards mymaster's degree in music
business.
I got derailed for healthreasons, never finished it.
But uh so I I've been doing thisa long time, I know a lot about
it, and I still run everythingby you.

SPEAKER_00 (19:31):
Well, you you uh certainly are one of the most
educated and knowledgeablenon-lawyers I work with for
sure.

Yeah, I but I mean I yeah, I I appreciate that.
That's very that's very kind.
But I just you know I justwanted to make sure everybody
knows, like, you know, eventhough I eat, sleep, and breathe
this stuff every day, if I hadif I had you know a contract,
uh, you know, I I would uh Ialways want to make sure that
Alan looks at it and and youknow he'll he'll definitely find
something I've missed.

SPEAKER_00 (20:02):
Um one thing interesting about uh contracts
is that they now address the useof AI.
Um and and just like in the uhwhere you have to disclose in
and copyright applications ifany AI was used, um the creators
of music, you know, if you ifyou enter into an agreement for

(20:24):
distribution or recording, uhmost of these contracts now
require a warranty in theircontracts that there was no use
of AI.
And there's typicallyindemnification, which is what
you the the the$2 word that youreally want to watch out for in
contracts saying that if you uhmake a false representation and

(20:49):
uh the company ends up gettingsued, that you're gonna
indemnify the company for theirlosses and legal fees.

So are you seeing are you seeing a a for lack of a
better word, like corporatepushback or or uh on on artists
using AI?
Is that discouraged or are theyjust protecting themselves?

SPEAKER_00 (21:10):
Protecting themselves.
Um, and and some are even uhmonetizing it.
I have, for example, a clientthat uh is licensing its, and I
may be getting a step ahead ofin our discussion, but they're
licensing their music that theyown the rights to uh to be uh
used uh in uh AI training.

(21:35):
So so they they have contractsthat that grant um rights to
their music to third parties,allowing them to uh to use it
and you know get paid for it.
So it's legal.

Well, I think that's a perfect segue,
actually, to our next point,because the training is the
whole thing.
I mean, and and it's uh theproblem from my perspective uh
as an artist uh and producer andrecording engineer, blah, blah,
you know, it's there's not a lotof clarity or or or just you

(22:09):
know really good access to howthese companies are scraping the
data.
Um it's it's it's rather opaque.
Um, you know, it it's justthere's not a lot of
transparency involved in in howmuch you know where they're
getting the data from and howmuch they're using.
And uh, you know, I of course umfeel like if you use if you use

(22:32):
my music to train your your AI,uh I should get some kind of
compensation for that.
And um the uh you know kind ofthe thing that I think about is
there was a there was a personon Facebook.
Generally, Joey does not wastetime responding to weird
comments uh or negativecomments.

(22:54):
But but this one I felt was wasuh really you know out in left
field, and I felt like I wantedto answer.
And and what the comment was.
Was you know, why are youworried about getting money from
your music being used uh by AIto train it?
You have gotten for free uh uhall your influences.

(23:18):
If you listen to the Beatles, uhthen you have you have stolen
from the Beatles and you're notpaying them.
And my response uh to that wasessentially, well, you couldn't
be more wrong because uh I Ibought the album that I of the
Beatles album that I wanted, soI paid for that.
I uh I went to music school, soI paid for that.

(23:41):
Um I I also, even on the radio,where I'm not directly paying
the radio, I am being marketedto.
So the radio station is makingmoney, then the artists are
making money, so I paid forthat.
So every everything I've evergotten from an artist, I have
paid for in some form orfashion.

(24:01):
And that's of course, mostly themore important point, really, is
that I'm a living, breathinghuman being, and uh AI is not.
But but uh I wonder, you know,what we I'd like to talk about
the whole process of scraping.
And as as you as you guys arewell aware, there's no, or at
least uh to my knowledge,there's no comprehensive federal

(24:21):
legislation that addresses this.
Uh there's the Elvis Act thatTennessee's passed, uh, which
really is more of a likenessthing.
I mean, you know, it it doesn'treally speak to the whole to the
whole uh proposition of scrapingdata.
But what do you what do youthink?
How do how do we determine, youknow, how the artist should be

(24:42):
paid, uh, if if they should bepaid, how the company should
approach you know theirtraining?
And what's what's what's thewhat's the universe look like in
that in that reality?

SPEAKER_00 (24:52):
Well, it's a balance, uh, and and there's uh
two different sides uh to the uhequation here.
One is the the rights of theunderlying IP owner uh whose
work is being used for thetraining.
Um and then there's the the AIdevelopers that claim that it's

(25:17):
what they're doing with theunderlying works is
transformative.
Um so what these cases that arecoming out all the time now are
looking at doing is trying tobalance those two different
sides and make sure there'scompensation for the the owners

(25:39):
who are providing the data usedto uh train the AI.

Yeah, and I mean is there a mechanism in place or
do we need some sort ofclearinghouse or something that
you know c clarifies if yourmusic's even being used?
I mean, what what is the how howare people determining, I mean,
not only what what do they whatshould they be paid, but are

(26:05):
they being used?
What's what's the landscape looklike there?

SPEAKER_03 (26:09):
It's a giant question mark at this point.
Um and and that and that's oneof the one of the problems is
that um by the time this is oneof the situations where by the
time the law catches up, it'sgonna be too late.
These AIs are gonna be trained.
Um I mean, scraping the entireuniverse of the internet for all
this material uh happens at thespeed of thought.

(26:33):
And uh as far as you know,there's nothing official, um at
least that I'm aware of rightnow, um, they're the the best
bet right now is to be proactiveand as as Alan was saying,
license your material to the AIcompanies ahead of time.
And it's a way of them beingable to essentially buy uh buy

(26:55):
the privilege of not being suedlater.
Exactly, yeah.
But as far as as far as amechanism or or uh I mean, I
personally the the blueprint isalready there.
Uh there needs to be an ASCAP ora BMI um for AI uses of
material.
Um you know, a cover cover bandsings your song at a bar, you

(27:17):
know, you still get uh coveredby an ASCAP license.
Um you know, there has to besomething like that uh in the AI
space as well.
Uh how that is tracked andmonitored is gonna require
somebody a whole lot moretechnically minded than me.
But uh that really is I you knowwhat one of the more fair

(27:41):
proposals out there to make surethat you know if your material
is part of this database that'sbeing used to you know send the
AI to music school, uh as itwere, yeah, then you should be
you should be paid a fairroyalty, just like anyone else
when their music is used.

Yeah, I like that.
I think that makes a lot ofsense.
And you know, uh, most of us inthe music business aren't
getting rich.
And uh and and and you know, thethe work for for most of us, at
least for all the people Iassociate with, the work is its
own reward.
We just gotta make sure we caneat.
Uh so you know, but so I dothink that um, you know, being

(28:23):
compensated is a good idea.
You know, will are the are theAI companies open to uh you
coming in and if if you're asmall fry like myself, are they
open to you coming in andsigning an agreement or are they
still just working with themajors?

SPEAKER_00 (28:40):
In terms of that, you know, it it definitely is an
it depends on which one you'retalking about.
We're talking to.
I mean, there there are I I haveuh smaller clients that have
definitely licensed their works.
Uh the ones that I have workedwith are kind of niche music.
Okay.
Um you know, a particular stylewithout going into specifics,

(29:05):
but uh, you know, that thatwould be uh a unique um thing,
not just a uh you know pop orrock artist.
But uh but uh definitely, Imean, just like licensing for a
commercial, um, you know, youyou you definitely have the the
indie artists that can uh gettheir music used.

So is is the is the licensing process with the
AI companies, is it akin to synclicensing?
Are they are they doing, youknow, uh are they doing it kind
of that way?
Uh or or do you know?
But I'm just curious about someof the nuts and bolts.
Uh you know.

SPEAKER_00 (29:43):
Well, as as you know, I mean that you're looking
at at two different uh copyou're looking at the copyright
and the sound recording, right?
Um, which would have to alsoinvolve the uh the the
composition.
So just like in sync licensing,um there are two rights, two
copyrights um that are having tobe licensed.

(30:05):
When when a quote unquote songis licensed, you're you're
looking at the two differentcopyrights.

Yeah.
So it's so they're they're doingthey're doing a similar a
similar look, uh, uh a licensingkind of thought.
Um and as far as far as thesound recording goes, um you
know, I I I this now this is myignorance, so I apologize.
But I mean, are the AIs scrapingmore than just the composition?

(30:33):
Are they scraping like you knowguitar styles and and and stuff
like that?
I mean, uh, you know, do youwhat are we seeing legally when
you when you adjudicate thisstuff or when you talk about it?
I mean, are they are they mainlyscraping you know for the
compositional uh elements or orthe sound recording elements or
both?
All of the above.

(30:54):
Okay.
Because that's that's the otherthing, is like, you know, uh,
there's a c there's a we won'twe won't name names, but there,
but there's a company uh who ismaking a lot of uh noise using
AI uh with uh the voices of deadcelebrities.

(31:15):
Um and uh and and you can haveyour emails or or anything you
want said in the voice of thiscelebrity.
Um and uh and it's absolutelycreepy because I had a friend
send me a text message uh withusing one of these voices, and I

(31:36):
mean I could hear the personbreathing.
Uh when they when they spoke,their the pauses were natural.
Uh when when there was somethingthat was exciting, they were
saying, their voice went up inpitch and became excited.
Uh it it just was, it was uhfrom a technological standpoint,
extremely impressive.
Um, but when we're moving, andthis is sort of a a side trip,

(32:00):
but when we're moving into youknow likenesses and and the
voices of people that are youknow no longer with us, I mean,
uh uh how are they what what isthe protection there from having
your likeness and your your it'snot your image per se, it's your
your sonic you know footprint, Iguess, um taken.

(32:21):
What what what's happeningthere?
Because I I find that you knowagain, that's part of the
entertainment business.
If you if you're able to haveJames Earl Jones, you know, um,
do do a commercial for you andhe's dead.
I mean, what you know what whatwhat does that look like as far
as what what's protected andwhat's not protected?

SPEAKER_00 (32:40):
I like the uh the the term that is used for this.
It's called digitalresurrection.
Um here we are, Easter weekend,how appropriate.
Yeah, how appropriate.
That's great.
But uh the nice thing about itis is that it is legally
authorized.
As you know, there are lots ofuh lawsuits over sound alikes

(33:02):
where uh uh advertisers andcompanies try to use people that
sound like whether it's uh youknow a Donald Trump or a uh
whoever that has a reallydistinctive voice.
Yeah, like somebody.
Yeah, to sell their products.
But this is uh uh where you'vegot, and and I think the

(33:24):
company, one company that thatyou're talking about is Eleven
Labs.
Yeah, that's the one.
They uh they officially partnerwith um the estates of famous
people, whether they're actorsor or otherwise, and uh and
license them from those people,and then um they they reproduce

(33:47):
the the cadence, the timber, thetone, um, and and allow these
dead celebrities to readaudiobooks or text and p PDFs in
their uh app.
So um they they uh it allows uhyou know various brands to

(34:08):
license these voices legally umfor their commercial commercials
and commercial projects.

So as we've said already, the law is usually you
know 10, 10, 15 years behind thetech, uh, and it it takes a
while to catch up, and and asyou know, as Gavin said, it's
too late that it's all done.
Uh and so you have to you knowkind of take a step back.
Uh so uh when we talk about theElvis Act and and these other
sort of um uh somewhatprotective um you know laws that

(34:38):
are out there, I mean, what isthe status of of you know
protection um when we're talkingabout your likeness, which is
another important thing thatsomeone in the music space um or
or the entertainment space hasas a as a you know a way of
generating revenue?
What I mean, what are we seeingas far as guardrails and

(35:00):
protections there?

SPEAKER_03 (35:01):
Well, that's actually one where um it may not
have been intended uh for thisuse, but the there's a suitable
law already in place.
Um and it requires a briefdetour into trademark land.
Right.
Um but but it's uh it's 15 USC1125, false designations of

(35:24):
origin.
Um it's it's usually used for umit's usually used for uh
unregistered trademarks, uh youknow, trademarks that people
have that haven't been you knowregistered through the US Patent
and Trademark Office.
Um but in in but the wording ofthe statute is that if anyone

(35:45):
uses any name or indicator tofalsely imply uh endorsement or
sponsorship by another person,then they're liable.
And it's actually been the hookfor um uh for for most you know

(36:09):
um NIL name, image, and likenesscases where you know you're
using this person's name ortheir face or their voice uh to
imply that they endorse aproduct or a message, you know,
that they can face liabilityunder this statute.

(36:29):
Um interesting.
And it just goes to show thatyou know the law may move
slowly, uh, but lawyersrecognize that, and creative
lawyering can help uh you knowplug the gaps, as it were.
Gotcha.

SPEAKER_00 (36:43):
So we're pending uh sorry, Joe, I was just also
pending federal legislation.
There was a 2025 um bipartisanactually Senate bill to protect
um uh likenesses and voices fromAI generated, unauthorized, I

(37:03):
should say, AI-generated umdigital replicas, and that's the
No Fakes Act, um, which uh holdscompanies as well as individuals
liable for um putting out andsharing, reproducing
unauthorized digital replicas.
And um it it's if it passes,it'll create a national standard

(37:26):
for the right of publicity, uh,because right now it's just it
exists in various states um youknow different at different
levels.
Uh, but it'll it's got a processfor removing infringing content.
And um uh there, but you know,as as with other bills, there

(37:47):
are certain organizations thathave raised concerns um about
how it's gonna impact fair useand free expression and um and
and that kind of thing, butwe're keeping an eye on that
bill.

So so for people that don't know, and and I'm I'm
I'm not the one to talk aboutthis, when we talk about fair
use, that's that's an importantuh argument, I suppose, that
that can be made when we'retalking about all of these
things.
Um basically the the way Iunderstand it, and and I'm sure
this is imperfect, uh, but it'sit's if you're using uh

(38:24):
something um uh for educationalpurposes, um you you have you
you you know you can do that.
Is that is that basically thethe the encapsulating idea of
fair use?
Let's look you know we shouldprobably talk about that with
all this stuff.

SPEAKER_00 (38:40):
You know, that's part of it, but that doesn't
mean you can go out andphotocopy a textbook.
Gotcha.
You know, it's and and one thingthat's important as far as fair
use goes, it's actually adefense of a copyright
infringement lawsuit.
Um so that's what when we weretalking before um about

(39:02):
copyright infringement lawsuitsagainst AI companies for um uh
using the uh underlying works intheir training, uh AI training,
um they claim that it's fair usebecause it's uh uh a
transformative use.

(39:22):
Um but of course, as wementioned, the uh the owner of
the copyright is claiming thatit's uh uh illegal, um
unauthorized copying.
So um fair uh transformativefair use happens if uh a new

(39:43):
work changes the copyrightedmaterial with new expression or
new meanings or messages.
Um but and and in addition toeducation, fair use can be
parody, it can be criticism, um,but something other than just
copying.

Now, my recollection uh is that the
parody defense is is a weakerdefense.
Is that is that true?
Is that mean that because youhave Weird Al out there doing
all kinds of parodies, making alot of money on it.
I mean, how does you know howdid that work?
If is that is that a weakdefense or a strong defense?

SPEAKER_00 (40:22):
If you're my understanding as an aside is
that we're Weird Al getslicenses.
Okay, he may, yeah, I don'tknow.
That's you're probably but uhbut uh as far as that goes, it's
got to be uh for for it to be aparody, it's got to be a parody
of the underlying work itself,um, and not using that work to

(40:44):
make fun of something else.

Oh, I see.
Okay, okay.
Well, and and then and the otherthing is, you know, just talking
about this, like as far as fairuse goes, when you when we say
transformative, um to me, andI'm not a lawyer, so you
probably have a differentunderstanding of this, but that
sounds like a very nebulous,hard thing to define.
Um, how do we define you knowtransformative?

(41:09):
You've taken my work and you'vemade it to something different.
And you know, and and and evenif that's true, I mean, one
would think that the sort ofembryo of the of the work would
still be my composition.
So, I mean, how how do we how dowe balance those ideas uh when
you're talking about it?

SPEAKER_00 (41:29):
The courts look at a couple of things.
One is um added value, like ifthen if the new work adds new um
insights or understandings, orone word that they use is
aesthetics.
Um they also look if they're atif there's a new purpose or a
new character, like put in acontext different from the

(41:52):
original.
Um and then uh the one of thebig thing things that courts
look at is um whether it is amarket substitute or not.
So in other words, the tri ifit's transformative, it's not
gonna affect the original uhowner's ability to profit from
the original work.

Oh, okay.
That's interesting.
So so I mean, do you remember uhI I forget the artist, forgive
me, I know I should know this.
Uh, but you know, the police hadthat song Every Breath You Take,
and then and then they took itand uh a hip-hop artist or um
changed it every day.
I pray, I think, was the was theline.
Um and and but they kept theessential melody, um, you know,

(42:37):
was the was the same and and anduh for the for the uh chorus,
but then the verses were I thinkrap.
I mean, how how strong is thatas a transformative vehicle?
I mean, is that is that enough?
Is that I mean, what if youknow, how how do we how do we
judge uh you know what whatamount has to be transformative?

(42:59):
How do you have how do you kindof have feeling or a or a or or
a baseline to decide if yourwork is transformative or not?
The short answer is the jurywill tell you.

SPEAKER_03 (43:10):
But uh, you know, in the in the in that case, you
know, that you know, a big partof being in the intellectual pro
in the intellectual propertyspace as a as a lawyer is being
in the risk management business.
Um and in that in thatsituation, you know, you know,
that that's that's a recipe forum a co-author credit and a

(43:30):
substantial settlement.
You know, that that is you knowuh in the better safe than sorry
land, that's the kind of thingyou would want to get permission
for, or um, you know, be beprepared to to litigate and
probably eventually settle.
Um the the famous one is uh twolife crew.

(43:50):
Right.
Um where even if you win on thefair use side, you know, you're
gonna win after, you know, asix-figure legal bill.
Sure.
Um and you know, this is wherethe intellectualism of it, you
know, runs smack into the brickwall that is practical reality.

(44:14):
Um and the the reality is thatthere is no bright line.
It's all gonna come down to thethe famous words that every
lawyer hates.
A question of fact, which is wewhich is that we can't, you
know, argue our way out of thaton the law.

(44:36):
It's gonna come down to youknow, the the finder of fact,
whether that's a judge or ajury, is gonna have to sit there
and listen and compare them andsay, Did you take from what's
called the heart of the matter?
Is it, you know, as Alan wassaying, is it transformative
enough?
Is it a market replacement?
Um, you know, all thoseelements.
And and you know, the whetheryou read it in a in a case book

(45:00):
in law school or on a a blogpost talking about um Um, you
know, IP law or listen listenabout it on a podcast.
Um that that little nugget of ofinformation and guidance costs
somebody a lot of money to bevery unhappy.
Right.

unknown (45:17):
Right.

SPEAKER_00 (45:18):
That oh sorry, Gibb.
That uh old expression of uhdon't ask permission first, ask
ask forgiveness later doesn'tapply with with copyright.
Um it's always better to um getthe license on the front end,
like the case you were talkingabout, um they did not request

(45:41):
permission to sample the policeuh before they released their
track.
And so the police sued forinfringement and were awarded
100% of the royalties.
So uh that is uh uh uh a goodexample uh of uh licensing uh

(46:02):
what what should have been doneon the front end.
Gotcha.

And so that's that's I mean, bringing it back
to AI, I mean, these are allsort of you know related uh
subjects because you know if ifyou know the if the AI um
manufacturer authors or or orcreators or whatever you call
them, you know, are wanted touse fair use, I mean, then they
have the same hurdles uh to tojump through, I would assume.

(46:27):
Um and uh it's just it's soeverything's so murky.
Um but um let me ask you, uh, aswe're starting to run near the
limit of our time, uh, are thereany things that that we have not
talked about that you feelpeople should know about how to
use AI, for lack of a betterword, responsibly with fewer

(46:50):
legal headaches?

SPEAKER_03 (46:51):
I mean, the the big thing is read the the let you
you read the user agreement umor talk to a lawyer who can give
you some advice on it.
I know they're long.
Um you know, Verizon hates whenI go in because I read
everything kind of thing.
Um but you need to know whatyou're agreeing to because you

(47:13):
may have, from the second youstarted using a program, already
given away the rights to whatyou create.
Uh especially for the thebrowser-based, like the
cloud-based platforms that areout there.
Um you know, if you have youknow a siloed instance of an AI,

(47:33):
it might be different.
Um but the you know, read thatagreement and you know, as we as
I said at the pretty close tothe beginning, save all your
work.
You know, if you you you'regonna have to, you may someday
have to prove that you know putin the work and had uh had a a

(47:55):
major part in the creativeexpression that was ultimately
created, and you you've got tohold on to that proof so that if
the copyright office or somebodyin a litigation needs to see it,
you've got it right there.

Yeah, I uh that that makes sense.
I I will say um one I'd like to,I'm gonna sidetrack a second.
Uh I I went to several AIsymposiums in LA uh during in in
January of 26, and uh uh therewas a lot of talk about uh you
know AI and what using itdifferent ways.

(48:31):
And sadly, there was no reallegal representation uh to
answer some of the questionswe've been talking about.
There wasn't a there was a musicattorney present, but he didn't
really, I don't I don't knowthat he was up on the latest.
Um he didn't really seem tospeak to uh any of the stuff
that I was worried about.
But anyway, um the uh the I Iwant to go to what you said

(48:52):
though about siloed, becauseWill I Am was present at one of
these uh discussions uh duringGrammy Week, and his uh sort of
idea that he floated aboutmaking AI uh more uh more

(49:14):
intelligible from a legalperspective was to own the AI
you used, to own the data youfed it, and to make sure you
owned all elements of yourdigital identity.
Um but uh the problem with, andI thought that was brilliant.

(49:36):
But the problem I have, and youmay have a quick, you know, I
you've thought about this, howdo you how do you do that?
I mean it's like how you knowhow do you how do you own the
AI, quote unquote, that you'reusing?
I mean, if if you're if you'repaying a monthly fee, you stop
paying that fee, you stopgetting access to the AI, or I
mean what what are your thoughtsabout that kind of idea?

SPEAKER_03 (49:58):
I mean, I I don't want to sound glib, but what's
gonna give open AI the mostmoney?
And that's move forward.
Um and and and operatingsoftware or really any digital
content on a license model hasuh people may not even be aware
of this, but that's been thereality uh for uh at least a

(50:19):
couple of decades now.
Yeah.
Um when you buy um software,you're buying a license to use
the software.
Even if you have a physicaldisk, which I mean, how many
computers even have opticaldrives anymore?
Yeah, right.
None.
Um even if you buy a physicaldisc, you know, if you have a
video game, for example, youknow, most most of the most

(50:40):
video games need to be connectedto the internet for constant uh
rights authorizations.
Um, you know, I've got I've gota Kindle with you know 600 books
on it, but I don't have 600books on that Kindle.
I have 600 licenses to accessbooks on that Kindle.
Um so even things that are youknow, you know one purchase,

(51:04):
download it, put my put theKindle back into airplane mode,
I don't own those books.
Um and really outside oflegislation or a consumer
uprising, um, just refusing torefusing to go along with this

(51:25):
um model of doing business inevery aspect of life.
Um voting with your wallet is isthe only way that's gonna make a
difference, and it's gonna haveto happen on a massive scale.
You know, it was I I think yousee it when there was uh uh

(51:47):
commentary about some newer carsuh needing uh licenses to keep
certain um certain optionsfunctioning, you saw that kind
of leak out a few years ago intointo the public sphere, and
there was a huge outpouring ofnegative uh publicity about it,

(52:11):
and the companies except for a acertain electric vehicle
company, um you know, the othermanufacturers all kind of backed
off of that.
Um you know, the subscriptionmodel is is uh a really valuable
way to maximize profits on thecorporate side.

(52:34):
And until it isn't, you're gonnasee a lot of resistance from the
corporations at abandoning thatand and allowing people to you
know own uh a given product.

That's that's that's exactly my thought as
well.
I was, I was still I wasthinking the same thing.
Um but that's that is that is abrilliant, a brilliant point.
Um and it and it really seguesbeautifully to the last thing I
want to talk about, which is I'mtaking a personal point of
privilege here and moving alittle bit away from AI.
But I, over the last handful ofyears, you know, the first thing
Alan said to me uh when whenwhen I was younger and more

(53:14):
handsome, uh was uh was that umyou know the law takes the theft
of your car and the theft ofyour song as the same thing.
Like it's you know, it's it'sit's theft, both things are you
know your property and and ifthey're stolen, they're stolen.
Um and so you can think aboutthose things in the um, and

(53:37):
apologies if I'm not making itas eloquent as you probably did,
Alan, but uh but um you canthink about those things uh as
the same thing.
And and and recently in the lastuh handful of years, um, it
occurred to me that um in oneimportant way that doesn't
appear to be true.
And um that way is that uh I canleave my car uh as my property

(54:03):
to somebody else if I want to.
Uh I can leave it in my will, Ican leave it to a friend, I can
do whatever I want to do withit.
Uh, but my song uh runs out ofprotection um, you know, 75
years after I'm dead orwhatever.
Um and I just wondered like whywe can't leave to our heirs or

(54:25):
or or our or or you know, whatif I want to leave my song to
St.
Jude so they can monetize it fortheir hospital?
I mean, you know, what why is itthat we we can't leave our
intellectual property in thesame way we can leave our our
physical property?

SPEAKER_00 (54:40):
Before I pass the torch here, because Gavin I
think has the the the realanswer to this, um uh the uh
term of a copyright is the lifeof the last surviving author
plus 70 years.
If you were saying I'm sorry.
Yeah.
If there's a couple of authorsor more than, you know, as you

(55:01):
see in a lot of uh popular musicthese days, you know, four,
five, six writers, it's gonnalast as long as the last
surviving author plus uh 70years.
And and Congress, when this waswhen this was being determined,
uh it's had a lot of changesover the years, uh, but they're
balancing the in the interestsof the owner with the interests

(55:25):
of people who want uh the rightsof those who want to be able to
uh use songs and uh uh uh theFirst Amendment rights,
basically, to be able to uh useexpression that's that's already
out there.
But Gavin has the I think theclearer answer.

SPEAKER_03 (55:48):
I really, I mean, well, just to be clear, you can
uh pass along to your heirs, buteventually the rights do expire.
Gotcha.
Um and and you know, everyoneexpected Disney to spearhead a
new extension when Mickey Mousewas about to enter the public
domain, and lo and behold, theydidn't.
Um but why it's limited is youknow, blame James Madison.

(56:12):
Um and and it it's in theConstitution, not even an
amendment.
It is in the Constitution thatcopyrights will be issued for a
limited time.
And and that all goes back, Imean, it's I could talk for like
five hours about this, so I'llkeep it, I'll try and keep it
brief.
Um, it just goes back to theEnlightenment era and changing
the idea of the role ofgovernment in protecting art.

(56:38):
Um and you know, one key thingto bear in mind is that personal
copyrights like this are veryyoung.
You know, the concept of apersonal cop of a personal
copyright is is barely 300 yearsold.
Um before the statutes of Annein 1710, the the right to

(57:02):
republish and copy works wasowned by the publisher who or
the printer who held um who helda license from the king to be
able to distribute printed worksum uh and reproductions.
And that itself was just anoutgrowth of the old patronage

(57:27):
system, where you were able toproduce art because the king or
the prince or the pope paid youto produce the art.
Um, you know, the the theSistine Chapel doesn't belong to
Michelangelo, it belongs to theCatholic Church.
Gotcha.
And and the concept of itbelonging to the artist what was

(57:52):
brand new in the 18th century.
And then you come along to theUnited States in its infancy,
and they didn't want uh theright to produce art to be
beholden to the whims of a kingor an executive.
Good thing, you know, looking atcurrent events.

(58:14):
Yeah, so so um so they wanted tobalance the rights to
commercialize the art with thewhole idea of the marketplace of
ideas and making sure that thatart would eventually enter that
marketplace.
And you know that that you knowthe you set a time and you'll

(58:40):
monetize it and you'll be ableto distribute it and even
provide for you for yourchildren and to an extent maybe
even your grandchildren.
Um, but at some point it's timefor the public to take it and
run.
And the extensions to copyrightterms actually came about not

(59:00):
from artists but fromcorporations.
Um you know, the the old the oldjoke used to be that they'll
extend copyrights until MickeyMouse has no value.
Yeah.
And the that turns out to be tobe incorrect.
I think um I I think that theysaw that uh it was a hard enough

(59:23):
fight to get the the lastcopyright extension through
Congress, and it just wasn't inthe cards for another one.
Um so until there's anotherextension if that that ever
happens, you know, what theterms are now is what they are.
And it's it's just that thattension between um providing for

(59:44):
the artist and also making surethat um art is creating art is
seen as a worthy endeavor, thatyou know you can put food on the
table uh by by creating art, butat some point that has to belong
to the public.
So can't can Disney they canthey can still use if it's

(01:00:07):
public domain now, then they canstill use it uh as well or uh Oh
absolutely absolutely you canstill use it, but but and the
important thing is is that umthe the the other aspect is to
you just keep changing itbecause when you when you change
uh a piece of a piece of art, uhif it's changed sufficiently,
it's a brand new copyright.

(01:00:28):
So what entered the publicdomain was Steamboat Willy.
And Mickey Mouse now is nothingto do with Steamboat Willie.
Um and there's there's plentymore to go into on Disney.
They were very smart and alsomade Steamboat Willy a
trademark, which lasts forever.
Um uh so people who think theycan just start making Mickey

(01:00:48):
Mouse cartoons are in for a rudeawakening.

SPEAKER_00 (01:00:52):
Um but they can make Screamboat the uh the horror
film with the Steamboat Willieuh character that that came out
last year.

SPEAKER_03 (01:01:02):
Yeah, so you can do that.
You you can do that, but butgood luck trying to do a
knockoff uh Mickey MouseClubhouse to compete with Disney
Plus.
Um and that kind of idea ofevolving and changing the work
applies not just tocorporations, but to individuals
as well.

(01:01:22):
Um you know, if if the copyrightpasses to um passes to your
heirs, then they can always takethat and evolve the work a bit
and make something new.
You can see that famously um inliterature with uh with

(01:01:43):
Tolkien's works, where thecopyright passed to his son, and
he his son then took some ofTolkien's notes and made um more
complete versions of some ofsome of the stories in the
appendices of Lord of the Rings.
And I apologize for going off ona super nerdy tangent.

Joey Stuckey (01:02:04):
Oh, I love it.

SPEAKER_03 (01:02:04):
I love it.
I feel like Stephen Colbert now.

SPEAKER_02 (01:02:07):
This is great.

SPEAKER_03 (01:02:08):
But but but those works are are authored by by
Christopher Tolkien, not J.R.R.
Tolkien.
So that copyright is gonna lastfor a whole nother term.
Um and and that kind ofevolution of the work can help
extend extend the term and andallow it to remain, you know, an

(01:02:32):
asset in the estate.

That is absolutely fascinating and and really
really interesting and and Ithink important for people to
know because you know there'ssort of I I don't know if I mean
people will probably not agreewith me about this, but anyway,
um there's there's sort of not areal large middle class in the

(01:02:55):
music business.
Um I mean you tend to be at thebeginning or at the top, kind
of, and um you know, you youtransition through the sort of
the middle class um uh uh ofmusic as you're as you're
working.
But um, you know, it's for someof us, I mean, you know, that
that little bit of that littlebit of extra money, you know, um

(01:03:16):
uh having a longer copyright ofuh work, um, you know, having
having that that we can leave orpass on, it you know, could be a
real important thing.
But I I get I get the argument,and I do find it compelling that
it was part of the FirstAmendment and and why.
And that is absolutelyfascinating stuff.
So I mean, thank you forclarifying that because I I've

(01:03:38):
just, you know, obviously I'mnot a lawyer and and uh I have a
brain that likes to uh thinkthink like a lawyer if I if I
you know when I can, but um thatis really fascinating stuff and
uh I think important tounderstand.
So I I can't I can't thank youfor the time uh enough today.
It's been absolutely veryenlightening.
I I've I have been feelinguntethered and like it's the

(01:04:02):
wild west out there with AI, youknow, and and just not really
sure, you know, what um you knowhow how to how to use it or not
use it, or you know, what wasgonna happen.
Um and boy, what a lot ofclarity I've gained today.
And uh and I mean it really itreally is a thing where um uh

(01:04:23):
you know I was thinking aboutthis cover I mentioned earlier,
this cover art that my friendmade.
And and uh on one hand, um I'mnot gonna make t-shirts and
posters and stuff, so I don'treally care if somebody steals
it.
So I don't really, I don'treally care.
Um I just I just need a coverfor my single for Spotify or
whatever.
I mean, you know, but then butthen I was like, you know, but

(01:04:45):
then like how much how much ofthis can I actually own?
Uh, you know, how how can Ireally use it?
Um so there's a lot, there's alot that we've unpacked.

SPEAKER_00 (01:04:54):
Um Joey, just to interject real quick on that
point.
Um the uh one important thing,and and I know I I browbeat all
my clients with this, but uh ifyou if you are working with
somebody like that to createsomething, as you know, it as a

(01:05:14):
co-creator or creator of thework without anything in writing
to the contrary, they haveownership rights in the work
itself.
Absolutely so you would want tohave a written agreement with
that person in which theywarrant and represent that uh
either that they have allrights, that they're not copying
anything that's out there, um,that it's original to them, and

(01:05:38):
they warranty that they warrantthat to you, and they uh will
indemnify you if it turns outnot to be the case so that your
bases are covered.
You know, you could even addsome AI language in there as
well.
So AI is used.

That was gonna be my question.
Like, so so today, when we'redoing our our our
indemnification clauses, uh, wewant to make sure we include,
you know, using AI as a tool orwhatever.
Uh that they're they're sayingthat they have all the correct
uh permissions and and usages ofthe AI tool, right?
Um and all that kind of stuff.

(01:06:12):
And you know, there have beenpeople that uh have argued uh
uh, you know, we have thesethings called digital audio
workstations, DAWs, and that isthe software in which uh the
music professional records theirmusic.
And uh a lot of these uh DAWsnow include some form of AI

(01:06:32):
tool.
Um, you know, the most famousone, I suppose, is Isotope, uh,
and they have a thing where uhthe AI will suggest your initial
balance for your mix.
Uh I'm offended by that.
I I don't want that.
Uh I'm a recording engineer.
I don't need you to tell me whatmy balance should be.
But but you know, these toolsare are being included um in in

(01:06:56):
in the very software that wemake our our our music with.
And so there has been a questionof like, well, is that, you
know, how does that?
How does that apply to the law?
Does it, you know, does itapply?
Um, so anyway, that's that'sanother, you know, we've talked,
you know, talked your ears off.
But I mean, that's another thingthat that you kind of you know
wonder about when you're whenyou're uh doing this stuff.

(01:07:16):
As I say, I I refuse to usethat.
I don't I don't want yourprompt.
You know, uh I'm a recordingengineer by trade and
experience, and I don't needsomeone's suggestions of where
to start my levels.
But but there are a lot ofpeople that you know find that
helpful.
Um and and you know, so I Ithink what I'm what I'm saying
in a roundabout way is that whatis is would you just say to to

(01:07:38):
close that it would be a smartthing to have your mixer or your
uh whoever's doing your mixwork, uh, you know, give you a
work for hire and include thatthey had the rights to use any
AI tools.

SPEAKER_00 (01:07:52):
Right, right.
Just like they, you know, inmany agreements like that, they
they have a license to use thesoftware that they're using, as
Gavin was mentioning earlier.

Yeah.
So I mean that's that's I Ithink I think I'm gonna uh I mix
my own stuff, but if I ever goto somebody else, uh I I'm I may
uh I may uh I may put an AIclause in that too.

SPEAKER_00 (01:08:11):
Right, right, right.
One one last little thing thatthat kind of uh I don't know if
this is uh necessarily segued,but I wanted to make sure we
mentioned it.
Um when you register your yourcopyright, as we discussed
earlier, um there's a disclosureuh that you have to make if you
used AI.

(01:08:32):
And uh I have heard of peoplekind of skipping up fudging on
that.
Uh and uh and I just want to putout a warning there that you can
uh potentially lose yourcopyright and face a law lawsuit
for providing false informationto the copyright office.
So if if you do use AI when youuh uh file your copyright, be

(01:08:56):
sure to um to note that too.
And and there still may beprotection um even if you can't
register the uh the outputnecessarily.
If someone infringes on youroutput, if you uh it doesn't

(01:09:19):
mean the output is necessarilywithout protection, because the
copyright owner could have aclaim against third parties um
uh based on their rights in theoriginal IP that they use to uh
to train the AI, theirownership.
Um looking at the the cartoon,since we we're on a uh cartoon

(01:09:39):
kick a little bit today, like ifyou were uh an animator that
trains an AI on uh using yourcartoons, you could potentially
prevent third parties fromcopying anything generated in
the output, even though youwouldn't be able to necessarily
uh copyright the output, butyou've got the copyright in the

(01:10:02):
original.
So there is protection for theoutput.

Okay, that that's a really important point.
Um, because that is where Ithink a lot of people have
gotten confused.
Um that because a lot of people,as I say online in these forums,
are saying that the Library ofCongress, you know, will protect
uh elements of your copyright,uh, even if it can't be you know

(01:10:29):
fully protected.
And that's where the confusion,that's where the confusion is
because because and so whatwe're saying is that you know
there would be there would besome protection from the
original copyright that wouldprotect third parties from
stealing that while while the AIportion of the copyright might
not be protectable, and we don'treally know yet until everybody

(01:10:51):
gets in court and has a has abattle royale.
Right, right, right.
That's so is is that I want tomake sure I'm stating that
correctly.
So um that that's and and andalso would this be just as an
esoteric point, like if you ifyou falsify information to the
Library of Congress, I mean, isthat perjury or what is that?

SPEAKER_00 (01:11:11):
They it it it yes, it is illegal.
I don't know if it's necessarilycalled perjury, but it's uh
providing false information tothe government agency.
Gavin, do you know thespecification?

SPEAKER_03 (01:11:24):
Um I I'm I'm trying to think back to the the
authorization on a um in thecover application, it might stay
under penalty of perjury, butusually the um the penalty is
just gonna be lose yourcopyright.
Gotcha.
Okay.
So provided you weren't in anattorney who signed it, and then

(01:11:44):
you're in a whole different heldto a higher standard.

I gotcha.
That's that is absolutelyawesome.
You guys are absolutely thebest.
It has been such a privilege andsuch a pleasure to chat with
you.
Um, I wish I could do it moreoften.
Just just uh we've coveredeverything from copyright to
cartoons.
It's been a pretty good day.
Absolutely.

SPEAKER_00 (01:12:06):
Well, let's do it again, Joey.

I appreciate you all.
Thank you so much.
And uh this has been uhcertainly an education for me,
and hopefully I will be a bettersteward of uh of uh all the all
the paperwork I have to do now.

SPEAKER_00 (01:12:21):
Right.
Thank you.
Absolutely, thank you, Joey.
Thanks, Gavin.
Thank you.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Betrayal Weekly

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Episode 5: Alan Clarke and Gavin Strube on AI, Copyright, Digital Replicas, and Protecting Creative Work

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Betrayal Weekly

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

Episode 5: Alan Clarke and Gavin Strube on AI, Copyright, Digital Replicas, and Protecting Creative Work

Betrayal Weekly