November 22, 2023 • 37 mins
Hey All!
Another mini-episode! We recently received a copyright claim on one of our original works, BUT we fought it and kept it up! Kurt and Leo talked about what happened, how it was handled, and what you could do if you ever find yourself in that situation. As artists, we must know how to protect ourselves and defend ourselves against unjust claims.
Be sure to check out our link here for the latest episodes! More to come!
https://justonesong.start.page/
Another mini-episode! We recently received a copyright claim on one of our original works, BUT we fought it and kept it up! Kurt and Leo talked about what happened, how it was handled, and what you could do if you ever find yourself in that situation. As artists, we must know how to protect ourselves and defend ourselves against unjust claims.
Be sure to check out our link here for the latest episodes! More to come!
https://justonesong.start.page/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:11):
Oh boy. Okay, so updateswith the show Man. We got the
we got a copyright infringement. Younotice I looked into it and did you
see the correspondence. Yeah, theysent an email that basically said, oh
are bad, your episodes back up? So it was really weird. So
(00:33):
just some background was when the showwas in its infancy, we used to
just be songwriting, and that justas time went on and I became more
involved as a dad. Now I'vealways been involved as a dad, but
like life, as life got going, it just became more and more difficult
to write and release songs on theshow in a timely manner. So we
(00:56):
kind of had to abandon that modela little bit, a little entirely for
now you intend to get back ontoit. But the way it worked was
there'd be an early episode, wewould write a song, we'd play the
song, and then we would recordthe song separately and release it later,
and that song itself would be liketo Spreaker, it would be the next
(01:19):
episode. But what's been happening isSpreaker has something in their terms of service
where you know, they're not amusic hosting platform, which is fair.
They're a podcasting company. You're notthere to promote music or not. You're
not there to show the song,but you can talk about the song.
So they had been routinely removing thoseepisodes a we reviewed this, this is
(01:42):
a song, this isn't a podcastepisode, which is fair. I take
no issue with them doing that.I understand, if anything, that's a
kike in our but to get thosesongs released properly on Spotify, Apple meanchay
exactly to put the song itself throughthe proper channels. So what they flagged
(02:02):
was the first song we wrote withwith Quinn McCarthy. It's a cool episode,
the very first episode of the show. They flagged the song itself in
the very next episode and they said, this is a claim for copyright infringement,
and I thought that's ridiculous because theepisode right before it shows us writing
(02:23):
the song live, something I andQuinn we can both attest to that this
song is original piece of work.The process happens in the very beginning episode.
I am one of the songwriters.There's no way we're infringing on copyright.
And the document you documented the creationprocess too, so there's it's impossible
to say that you that I willfullyinfringed right that I willfully. It's impossible
(02:49):
to say that I did it onpurpose, because that that happens. People
will be accidentally writing a song thathas the same melody or similar lyrics,
or if God forbid, it hasthe same subjective essence of the song,
and then they get an infringement.Hey, you plagiarized my work. Well,
I didn't mean to. Intent isimportant, but impact, you know,
(03:09):
you basically wrote the same song.It does happen, and it's rare,
and it takes a lot of youknow, to determine that. It
takes some pretty skilled legal minds,I guess sometimes to see if it's truly
infringement. But that's what I askedto see. I reached out to their
(03:29):
legal department and I said, hey, this is an original piece of work.
We didn't willfully infringe on anyone's copyright. Can you please tell me the
details of the claim? And so, Leo, you and I were talking
and we were like, well,maybe Quinn copyrighted the song and his pro
did a sert because what they don'tThey send out like bots and they just
(03:49):
scour the internet for similarities. Yeah, when you got this, When we
got the email, I had immediatelythought because that same situation happened to me
with the song that I wrote inmy last in another band, I got
a copyright. So there's a differencebetween a like and this was on YouTube.
There's a difference between a copyright claimand a strike. A strike you
(04:10):
only get three and a claim islike, hey, they give you the
opportunity, they're gonna keep the songup, but you're not gonna be able
to monetize it. So all theplays are gonna go to the copyright holder,
which is fine. But so Ithought within this case, maybe Quinn
within the time of you guys recordbecause we recorded that episode what three years
(04:32):
ago, Yeah, in the timethat the episode was recorded, you guys
released the song. He said,Hey, I like this song. I'm
gonna publish it through a distributor,you know, district kids, hey,
baby Tuncor or whatever, and putit up on Spotify and then he registered
it with his PR be it BMIor as CAP. And that's what I
(04:55):
thought happened because I have seen they'llgo retroactively in your back catalog, like
of songs that I'll release some likea snippet of a trailer of a song
right, like a little teaser andput it on TikTok YouTube and then I'll
get a copyright flag that basically says, hey, this isn't your song,
(05:15):
which it is my song, butit's just kind of like an automated process
that bots have depending on like whatyou opt in through your distributor and your
p r O and they'll flag it. So I thought that's what happened.
But you told me Quinn had notreleased the song. The only place that
song was. Yeah, you know, It's it's really tricky reaching out to
(05:40):
an artist to ask them if theyare flagging your material, because that could
come off as insulting. And Ididn't want to offend Quinn. Like I
reached out to him and I said, hey, you know, if we
checked we checked in. I justwant to check up Quin. I'm doing
my due diligence. Someone flagged ourepisode or our song for a copyright infringement.
Did you you initiated claim and orI was just kind of bringing it
(06:03):
up. I didn't. I didn'tsay that. I didn't ask him out
right, but he brought it.He asked me, he says, are
you asking if I reported our episodefor copyright? I said, I am,
but only because I'm sure you didn'tand I want to make sure I
can clear you so we can figureout where this's went. So he said
in text right on writing whatever,he was like, I, Quinn McCarthy,
(06:24):
did not, you know, issuea copyright claim on this song?
And I said, have you publishedthis song since the time of its writing
with any performance rights organization or anyentity with publishing power and he said no,
I did not publish this song,so it wasn't Quinn and he didn't
(06:44):
issue it. So I included himin the correspondence as well. So I'm
like, well, why, whythe heck would they issue a copyright infringement.
So I reached back out to Speaker'slegal team and it took them about
two hours to like get They acknowledgedmy message. It was like a chat
message, right, they acknowledged it, and they said, let me look
into this, and they came backwith just paragraphs and paragraphs of like intellectual
(07:09):
property law and like all this intellectualproperty policy and we take this very seriously
and copyright claims aren't to be youknow whatever. Yeah, I got,
and I responded with like, hey, yeah, So in essence, they
stonewalled you. They're just throwing thebook at you. Yeah, so they
tried. They tried that. SoI responded with, I'm a paralegal and
my own specialty. My area thatI pursue is an intellectual property and copyright
(07:32):
law, so I'm very familiar withthe laws surrounding IP and I responded with
that. I said, I knowthese laws, I know what's limiting,
what's prohibited, and I understand,but this is not copyright infringement. I
didn't infringe on anyone's property unless youcan prove that I did, and if
you're not showing me that information,then this claim is baseless. This is
(07:56):
what I pretty much said, like, there's no validity if you are moving
my episode because it violates your ruleon having music on the platform. That
I can get behind. That Iunderstand, but do not accuse me of
infringing copyright when you don't have theproof to back it up. And that
was Leo. That was when theyresponded with, We're very sorry. We've
(08:18):
reinstated the episode and we've wiped anysort of claims made against you, So
it would I feel like they're botflagged it. What I'm guessing is their
bot was going through our episodes,found us performing it the first time in
our show, found the similarities betweenthe next episode, and was like,
(08:41):
oh, this is in another podcastepisode, and it didn't connect the two
that it was the same people doingit, and so we got the infringement
flag. Yeah, even that isweird, Like if they're going through retroactively
going through old episodes, what ifthe podcast that uses the same song as
their introduction and you know what Imean, that's a weird way of like
(09:03):
flagging material for copyright and there's noway for them to prove whether or not
that song was an original piece thatyou can signed, or that you wrote
yourself and that you produced and youput it on the podcast, which in
this case you did. So Yeah, just I've never seen it happen like
that before on a podcast, no, in which that brings up a larger
(09:24):
concern because in their the law thebook that they threw at me, right,
they were saying, if you're usingsomeone else's music on your podcast for
an intro or something like, youneed to independently obtain their permission to use
it. But here's what bothers meis they didn't notify me of the claim
(09:46):
before they took down the episode.They took it down and then notified me.
And that's something that I think isfrustrating because you don't have the chance
to prove yourself, you know,like you'd think it'd be like you have
thirty days to address this claim oror we remove the episode, you know
what I mean, like there shouldbe a litit. And well, they're
(10:07):
they're doing that to protect themselves.I mean, that's a monetary thing,
right because if you you compound thatover a bunch of copyright infractions over every
single episode on their on their platform, you know, that's saving them the
legal retribution of like, oh wehave So they're they're they're pro act first,
(10:28):
find out later, shoot first,ask questions later. I understand.
I understand that approach, but theproblem is I can't even access the episode
as it's posted, right, I, as the creator, can't even go
in and try to find where ifit was a different episode where the claim
is they're saying, they don't provideany context. They remove the whole thing
(10:50):
and you can't even go in tosee what's contested. And so where I'm
like nervous, is okay, theydid this to an episode where I was
one of the original songwriters. Butwith our listening episodes, we have permission
from the songwriter. Like Donnie Hart, we have his song in the episode
itself because we listen to it andwe review it. But I also use
(11:13):
portions of the song as our introand outro. I obtain permission from the
songwriter to do so. That's partof the agreement when they have the song
on there. But like, whatif they remove the episodes? Does it
matter that I have agreement? Isthere any way for me I need to
find if there's a way for meto submit the you know, the uh,
(11:37):
what is the term? What's theword? Submit the proof that I
have their permission. You have acontract with the songwriter giving you explicit permission.
This is an issue. Then thisis a bigger issue that I've come
across with like songs that I fuckingwrote and I'm getting flagged like I have.
I've had multiple videos that I usedold songs that I wrote and I
(11:58):
published in a TikTok or you knowso media platform and they got taken down
or the sound got muted and theywere like, oh, you don't have
the copyright to it. I'm likeI kind of do because I wrote the
song, but there's no really there'sthe recourse for that, like the the
the actual process to you, foryou is like so convoluted and and you'll
(12:18):
get the same kind of thing thatspeaker did. I think that's just the
just the way they handle these thingsthat they throw the book at you of
like hey, these are these arethe things that you're you know, and
they don't really take into consideration like, oh, well, maybe I'm talking
to the person that actually composed andwrote this song. And that's a bigger
topic with like our consumption of likemusic, copyright law, social media,
(12:41):
and like the way in the mediumswe're actually using these things and like they're
they're going, they're they're kind ofdoing an over bearing blanket of protection on
themselves from a financial standpoint, whichis mind boggling to me because TikTok,
even Instagram, like some people thatare actually posting their own music will get
(13:05):
it like a copy like hey,we're taking this down this copyright. And
then you see another profile and they'rethey're using like back and Black by a
CDC and it has like two pointfive million views, and you're like,
yeah, how does that work.It's it's like random, It's like it
doesn't. They're not. It's Ijust think the I think it shocked.
It goes up to chance, right, Like the bots aren't going through they're
(13:28):
just it's like a shotgun blast you. They just scatter and they go in
all directions and they hit wherever hereor wherever they're It's not a focused approach
because honestly, why would it bethe man power it would take to comb
through all of that data all ofthese videos. You have to use the
bots, but it's impossible. Yeah, but it's it's it's artificial intelligence,
(13:52):
I mean, and that's the largerconversation too. AI is stupid just inherently
it's dumb. It's it's machine learning, and it's learning from all this whatever
exists already. But we're con findingpatterns and waveforms than if they're you know,
identical or similar. That's the It'san issue with covers too, right,
(14:15):
I mean YouTube has some blanket licensesfor covers. Well, it's it's
but it's funny you bring up YouTubebecause YouTube is like one of the biggest
villains in this whole thing. Youknow for sure, there's no we talk
about we've talked about before. Wetalked before about like educational YouTube channels where
(14:39):
they're not turning a profit except throughdonations. And it's not illegal to solicit
donations for something educational, right,so long as you're not requiring people to
pay for it. But then youknow, under copyright law, intellectual property
law, if you're using you know, intellectual property for educational purposes, you
don't need to pay a mechanical fee. You don't need to pay royal on
(15:00):
it. And so we've brought uplike Adam Neely, for instance, where
he's a jazz bass player, buthe's YouTube channel. I don't think he
has a YouTube channel anymore. He'sgot a he's on Nebula, but YouTube.
He's like, I'm an educator.My videos are educational, they're free,
No one has to pay to useit. I don't turn a profit
(15:22):
from the videos themselves, only frompeople who donate to me to keep this
going. But YouTube will regularly flaghim for using songs to demonstrate some educational,
some musical whatever. I'm driving homefrom work, I'm not in that
mindset, so words are coming hardto me. But he's trying to demonstrate
(15:43):
some musical properties, some technique orwhatever, and he gets flagged. So
he moved to Nebula, which isa different platform. You have to pay
to use Nebula, but Nebula isfor educational informative of creators. So Adam
Neely is on there. I followa bunch of I subscribe to Nebula in
(16:04):
certain channels. And what they areis if if a creator on Nebula gets
flagged, Nebula doesn't remove the material, but they investigate the copyright flag.
They look into it themselves, andthat's like a big deal with them.
That was one of their main focuses. So it's it's doable. It's possible
(16:26):
to be creative creator friendly as opposedto copyright friendly. But also Nebula is
a paid service, so you kindof paid and it's not as bloated as
YouTube. YouTube is owned by Googleand they know where their profit margins and
like their their income is coming from. And they're not making money when they
(16:48):
go and they put a team ofyou know, a legal team together to
investigate U copyright infringement, right theythey it's it's it's small potatoes for them.
Nebula, their entire business model ispredicated on the educational piece, so
they will have the infrastructure and thebandwidth to investigate that. That's true.
It's it's it's weird because we're inthis kind of limbo stage of the mediums
(17:12):
in which people are and education isa perfect example because most I would say
ninety nine point nine percent of allmusic education is passed down from prior material.
Like you're not improv jazz fusion ingto teach a kid, you know,
(17:32):
the doray Me scale, you're showinghim Twinkle Twinkle, Little Star,
bah Bah Black Sheep. Those mightbe in public domain, but I'm right,
are educational pieces. If you're like, hey, i want to investigate
Harry styles and I'm going to showyou the I'm going to show you the
chord changes and the melody and howthey work together, and you're using that
(17:56):
educationally, but there's no there's there'sno bias as far as like, uh,
like, you're gonna get flagged regardlessbecause the standards in which YouTube and
these bigger platforms. That's the otherthing too, It is like the sheer
magnitude of the reach of the heavyhitters like YouTube and TikTok is exponentially bigger
than a platform like Nebula, sonot allowing creators to uh to put to
(18:23):
make these completely legal educational pieces,not infringing copyright, but flagging them for
copyright, and then you have togo through this huge kind of dialogue of
like why it's not copyright, whichis it's hilarious to me because the ball
is in the court of these legaldepartments, you know, and they just
(18:45):
kind of throw this blanket statement oflike, oh, well, this is
copyright law, and then they comeacross someone like you who's like, actually,
I know copyright law, and I'malso the creator of this content.
I think it's important for creators toknow and I mean not to be pair
leegals in them, but have tobe a little bit educated in the subject
(19:06):
matter because it's important. No,you're right as creators. Yeah, and
personally too, Leo. And I'mnot trying to like be like this is
I'm like this guy. But that'slike my goal to work in the legals,
eventually work in the legal side withintellectual properties. I want artists to
know their rights. I want youto know the powers that you have,
(19:26):
because inevitably, whether or not it'sright, you will get flagged for copyright
like at some point it could probablycome across that. And the thing is
my experience with Spreaker and the reasonwhy I'm not pulling our content from Spriaker
and moving it elsewhere. On principle, hey, that's a huge pain in
the ass. But b is,like I presented my issue, I reached
(19:52):
out to their team and they responded, and they did their due diligence right.
They threw the book at me andsaid, this is law, and
it's your duty as a creator.If you believe in your material and you
think it was wrong, engage withthem. Talk to them. They're doing
their jobs. But they were veryreasonable when I explained, no, no,
(20:15):
no, I know this, I'veread this, this doesn't match.
They assessed and they listened, andthey complied with what I said because I
fought for my stuff. Whether ornot the song is worth fighting for a
subjective right, but it is amatter of principle. I suppose. I
don't want to be accused of infringingcopyright ever, because that goes against who
(20:40):
I am as a creator and amusician. But if you're an artist and
this happens, do your due diligence, educate yourself and engage with the people,
and you don't even need to behostile about it. You do collect
more flies with honey than you dovinegar. Right, Yeah, And I
think that's the important thing. Igot frustrated. I got a little you
know, like what the hell.But if you maintain a good dialogue and
(21:04):
you have this conversation, things likelywill go your way unless you actually infringe
copyright, in which case, like, don't do that. Man. So
there's two things. There's two thingsI feel like artists can do right now.
Something that I've changed in the differencebetween how I used to publish my
music, you know, five yearsago, as to how I publish now.
(21:25):
One thing is I opt out specificallyfor YouTube music. I don't publish
to YouTube music. And the reasonwhy is because you can publish your own
stuff through YouTube music without using adistributor. When you go through a distributor
to publish your music on these majorplatforms, you are automatically in their system
(21:45):
and their bot algorithm will Like ifyou were to publish like say you have
a music video and then you publishanother little small snippet of your saying video,
your your video is going to getflagged so opting out and kind of
looking at where you're putting your musicand having the control of like, Okay,
I'm gonna I'm gonna publish it througha distributor on these platforms, but
(22:06):
I'm gonna do with my own onmy own on you know, TikTok or
YouTube whatever. That's one thing artistscan do to prevent it. The other
thing is what I what I whatyou? What you mentioned is like do
your not do your homework, butlike escalate and you know, if you
do get copyright flagged and like I'venever done that just because I don't have
(22:26):
the time. I've never had avideo pulled down. But I have gotten
a copyright claim on music that Ihad released. And I know exactly where
it's coming from. It's because Iused a distribution platform, whether it's song
Trader. By the way, aband camp got purchased by song Trader.
Oh really yeah recently, I thinkwithin the last week. So change is
(22:48):
coming to band camp, which isfunny because band camp predicate, you know,
their entire business model was like fourthrough and by indie musicians and they're
getting kind of the corporate model.But whatever pop up, Yeah, and
it's so arduous. And that's thepoint, like they make these processes so
(23:12):
painful, arduous and annoying, sothat you just kind of like, oh,
I give up. But when youare the composer and the writer of
a song, and this is theperfect situation, like you're in your example
of the of this episode, likeyou literally have a recorded podcast of you
creating the song on the spot andthey're throwing copy at it. You One,
(23:33):
that's that's erroneous, and two that'slike, that's it's insulting. Right,
So it was the thing I needto I need to clarify though it
wasn't the podcast where we made thesong. It was the song itself.
But yeah, either way, itwas like obviously there wasn't a person reviewing
it. It was a bot andthat's but I just I think that's such
(23:56):
a strong indictment infringement versus I don't. I don't even know. I think,
yeah, it did scan the episodebefore and then it scanned ours,
and it wasn't like, oh,it's the same account, same song.
Fine, So that's just the disconnectunless someone maliciously put in a copyright claim,
(24:19):
which I don't I don't know whoI hurt. I mean to know
to have them know how to dothat and to know that you're like to
go through the channels I wanted sucha waste of time. And I don't
think that that is a like Aukham'srazor Man. It's the easiest explanation,
is the most simple one, likethere is the answer, like they they
(24:41):
And it's not like Spreaker is goingout and searching other catalogs. They're searching
their catalog and they found a match. They found a pattern like, oh,
this song sounds like this song fromthe previous episode, and they slapped
a you know it. It's thesimplest and most logical explan The the other
(25:03):
part of this too, because weare using these AI technologies to I mean,
corporations are using AI technologies now morethan ever to uh to do this
work. Because they I mean toan extent they I'm pretty sure they still
have farms of people, you know, working circles of twelve hour shifts where
they're just sitting and looking for copyrightyou know what. They don't. That's
(25:23):
the funny thing. I don't thinkthey do. I think it's like one
or two people and when a likesomething pops up once or twice, then
they put the person into review ifit actually is an infringement. I think
there's I think otherwise they're using algorithms, right, I think it's largely algorithms,
and it's three or four people becausethe algorithms are there to cut back
(25:45):
on that farm, you know whatI mean. Yeah, But you're the
other part of that is like peopleare starting to and are starting to create
with AI more so, like Iremember when the technology first came out a
year or two ago. People arecreating quote unquote new pieces of work of
art, visual musical using AI platforms. There's AI software that you can create
(26:11):
a song. The thing with AI, and I've seen multiple articles released that
on this is that one it's notprotected under copyright law yet as from what
I've read over the last over summertime. But AI has to use It's the
(26:33):
same way we learn music, right. It uses things that already exists.
It scours the Internet, it scoursdatabases and catalogs, and it creates based
off of things that have priorly existed. Well, based on the prompt you'd
give it too, Yeah, basedon the prompt, I want a song
that sounds like Matt Heay from nineteenseventy five mixed with Snoop Dogg. In
(26:57):
that creating this new you know,this new piece that has never existed,
you might run into copyright law becausethe same platforms that are creating these like
they're looking for patterns and they're lookingfor things patterns of music. They're also
(27:17):
they could the same platforms what canalso flag you for finding those same patterns.
So it's kind of a weird dichotomy. It's like we're using these platforms,
corporate corporations are using these softwares tofind copyright infringements, but then creators
are using those same platforms to createnew work. It's weird, man,
(27:41):
and I think we need to doan episode. I think the Four of
Us when it comes to AI,because I think it's such a big topic.
But personally, I think AI isgood to use as a tool and
a starting point. But if youdo release a full song, I think
that's appropriate to exclude AI generated songsfrom copyright protection. Honestly, it's it's
(28:06):
the same anytime when we've talked aboutdisruptive technologies before, like we always mention
Beethoven and the release of the pianoforte any time, or you know,
the the vinyl recordings, the twoinch tape, digital media. Anytime new
technology is thrust upon the population,there's kind of this learning curve. There's
(28:30):
an adoption and then it becomes aplateaus and people it just becomes status quo
everybody starts using it. We haven'thit that plateau yet. I think we're
still in that like adoption curve ofpeople starting to utilize it. But it's
the same thing. It's a tool, like you said, once people and
like that's the beauty of like thehuman element of creativity is like once we
(28:52):
learn, folks start learning. AndI've seen people do it. They start
playing around. There's an account calledthere I ruined it, and they only
technologists love that account and their music. The creator is a musician, like
you know that they're in the boxand then that they know how to compose
and record, and they use AItechnologies to recreate voices like Johnny Cash,
(29:17):
like iconic rock or iconic popular musicvoices, the red Hot Chili version like
Johnny Cash song Wet Ass Pussy byCardi BB. You know, yeah,
there you go even better and he'sand then to his credit too like he
is. Also, his original stuffis really good if you ever check it
out. I have a couple ofsong I downloaded a couple of songs from
(29:38):
him, right, I have acouple of songs a playlist. But you're
right, like it's it's an entertainmentpurpose and he can't copyright that because you're
using someone's I don't know if it'ssomeone's likeness, vocal likeness, you know,
if they do a Johnny Cash thing. But I think it goes back
to intention. Do you want tomake money off this stuff? And if
(30:00):
you do, if you want tomake money off of music, you should
write it. You have to writeit yourself. You have to make it
yourself or you cannot have the publicdomain do it for you. And I
think that's what AI music should beclassified, because it came from you know,
it sourced its material from the public. Any song generated with AI should
(30:26):
be a public domain I think.I mean, I hope the law's going
that way. You get into thepolicing of that though, right, because
who you would almost need a separatebureaucracy, like a government entity to monitor
whether or not things are being createdthe old fashioned way or like was there
(30:49):
an element of this, like,is there is there a digital watermark on
materials that you know you used toLike, it's like chat GPT, Right,
I use chat GPT to prompt anemail and then I send that email
out. There's no way to seeif I copy and pasted that stuff over
(31:10):
from chat GPT. And the samewith music, right, Like, who's
going to monitor whether or not thatwas? So I think I think it's
a matter of disclosure, right,Like I feel like, oh my god,
this goes again. This should betotally total material for a completely separate
episode. But when it comes tolike how do you monitor it? Maybe
maybe it's a matter of labeling it, Like you know, with GMOs,
(31:32):
like GMO produce it by law,if produce is created with GMOs, it
has to be or if it's ifthe produce is a GMO, it needs
to be labeled as such. Right. If you're releasing music or any sort
of creative artwork, it needs tobe labeled somewhere somehow as AI generated.
(31:53):
And maybe that needs to be somethinglike chat GPT. If something is created
with chat GBT, somewhere in thatimage it may not even have to be
visible some type of watermark that abot can see labels it as hey,
this was made, this was AIgenerated. Maybe that's the answer, you
(32:15):
know, disclosure that the creators can'tsee what the bots do. I mean,
we do it with music, rightwhen when when a song is created
within it you get an I sr C cor a digital watermark inside the
song? Correct, you download it, chat, you get it from has
the I s r C yep?And I think maybe that's the solution to
(32:36):
AI generated music. Whatever engine generatedit has to automatically input that that I
s r C, that that thatyou know unlistenable or is that that inaudible
frequency that labels it as AI generated, you know what I mean. Yeah,
(32:58):
I mean it's the same as likepirated software. There was a DJ
that had you know, a lotof view stream sales on their music and
came to find out that like therewas a digital watermark that that he was
using a cracked version of like logicor something like that. He got a
NFL studio. Yeah, yeah,Well, I think the bottom line,
(33:22):
Leo is, you know, educateyourself, do your homework and know your
rights as a creator so you candefend the work that you've worked so hard
to create. And put up thereand understand that not all copyright claims are
gonna have merit. Some of them, most of them, I would say,
are just the bots doing what they'reprogrammed to do. And if you
(33:44):
just cooperate with the people, oryou not cooperate, but you talk to
the people, you can test theclaims if you have the energy and the
time the first time you do,it's going to be the hardest after that.
If you get more. One,maybe you should consider why you keep
getting these claims. But two,it'll be easier to go forward and move
(34:04):
I mean, copy and paste it, you know, create your own template,
a template I mean, and insome forms of music tend to fall
into the category of, you know, hitting copyright infringement more than others.
Here's my question to you. Doyou do you think the current state of
copyright law uh protects the creator orit protects the corporation more. I think
(34:37):
it pretty Oh that's a that's agood question, and I think it's a
question we should address on another episode. I'm at where I need to be
leo food for thought. Folks,if you listen to this and you like
to participate, do you think thatcopyright law benefits the creator or benefits the
corporation, and maybe we need toget into the legal definition of what what
(35:00):
the creator is. Yeah, that'sa loaded question, and I think it's
one worth exploring. Let's do anothermini episode on this. Let's do a
part two. I'll let you thinkmarinate on that. One. Sounds good,
Yes, sir, I like yourpin, Kurt, you got a
nice shiny just one song pin.It's beautiful. That's right, just one
song pin. We're exploring the ideaof getting some swag. I'll post a
(35:22):
picture of it right now. Ithink based on my own personal budget,
because that's how I pay for thisstuff, is I buy it myself.
But any sort of guests on theshow, I think I want to go
back and start sending some of thisswag out to people we've had on the
show. But there's a neat littlepin. I'll post it to our Instagram,
(35:42):
I'll post it to our Facebook.Whoever uses that anymore? I do.
But yeah, some just one songswag. Maybe we'll start looking into
how we can better get this outto our fans and the people who listen
to some marketing. But in themeantime, let's get some more episodes out
and Leo, I love talking toyou. I love chatting about this stuff.
Let's get another one out soon.I miss your brother. Sounds good,
(36:05):
bro, good talk. Oh.By the way, credit to Wolfgang.
He's a he's a bartender in LaHe's got his own pop up business,
but he also designed all of ourlogos. Terrific bass player, fantastic
bartender, excellent graphic designer, andjust a wonderful friend too. So shout
out to you, Wolfgang. Ifyou listen to this, I'm gonna send
(36:25):
you some swag yourway as well.So anyway, and and thank you for
legitimizing this podcast with an awesome logo. Yeah, I feel like so you
get into the realm of like legitimacywhen you have like a cool identifier.
And Wolfgang, thank you. Ithink we have the coolest. I think
we have one of the coolest logosof any podcast I've ever seen. It's
(36:47):
super sharp, it's really it's reallypleasing to the eyes. You've seen my
business cards. I'm gonna drop someof those more off and I dropped a
ton at nam So oh yeah,Leo, I gotta I gotta make you
some business cards. Beautiful gorgeous senseof ben Away with the U R code
on the bag. Look at thatfancy well. Shout out to Wolfgang,
(37:12):
Shout out to Kurt for doing adue diligence and making sure that our episode
stays up so these fine folks andour listeners can hear it whenever they want.
Oh, this is Leandre Barrientos andmy good friend here. This is
Kurt Pamke with Leo Barrientos. Thankyou for listening to just once onp
Oh boy. Okay, so updateswith the show Man. We got the
we got a copyright infringement. Younotice I looked into it and did you
see the correspondence. Yeah, theysent an email that basically said, oh
are bad, your episodes back up? So it was really weird. So
(00:33):
just some background was when the showwas in its infancy, we used to
just be songwriting, and that justas time went on and I became more
involved as a dad. Now I'vealways been involved as a dad, but
like life, as life got going, it just became more and more difficult
to write and release songs on theshow in a timely manner. So we
(00:56):
kind of had to abandon that modela little bit, a little entirely for
now you intend to get back ontoit. But the way it worked was
there'd be an early episode, wewould write a song, we'd play the
song, and then we would recordthe song separately and release it later,
and that song itself would be liketo Spreaker, it would be the next
(01:19):
episode. But what's been happening isSpreaker has something in their terms of service
where you know, they're not amusic hosting platform, which is fair.
They're a podcasting company. You're notthere to promote music or not. You're
not there to show the song,but you can talk about the song.
So they had been routinely removing thoseepisodes a we reviewed this, this is
(01:42):
a song, this isn't a podcastepisode, which is fair. I take
no issue with them doing that.I understand, if anything, that's a
kike in our but to get thosesongs released properly on Spotify, Apple meanchay
exactly to put the song itself throughthe proper channels. So what they flagged
(02:02):
was the first song we wrote withwith Quinn McCarthy. It's a cool episode,
the very first episode of the show. They flagged the song itself in
the very next episode and they said, this is a claim for copyright infringement,
and I thought that's ridiculous because theepisode right before it shows us writing
(02:23):
the song live, something I andQuinn we can both attest to that this
song is original piece of work.The process happens in the very beginning episode.
I am one of the songwriters.There's no way we're infringing on copyright.
And the document you documented the creationprocess too, so there's it's impossible
to say that you that I willfullyinfringed right that I willfully. It's impossible
(02:49):
to say that I did it onpurpose, because that that happens. People
will be accidentally writing a song thathas the same melody or similar lyrics,
or if God forbid, it hasthe same subjective essence of the song,
and then they get an infringement.Hey, you plagiarized my work. Well,
I didn't mean to. Intent isimportant, but impact, you know,
(03:09):
you basically wrote the same song.It does happen, and it's rare,
and it takes a lot of youknow, to determine that. It
takes some pretty skilled legal minds,I guess sometimes to see if it's truly
infringement. But that's what I askedto see. I reached out to their
(03:29):
legal department and I said, hey, this is an original piece of work.
We didn't willfully infringe on anyone's copyright. Can you please tell me the
details of the claim? And so, Leo, you and I were talking
and we were like, well,maybe Quinn copyrighted the song and his pro
did a sert because what they don'tThey send out like bots and they just
(03:49):
scour the internet for similarities. Yeah, when you got this, When we
got the email, I had immediatelythought because that same situation happened to me
with the song that I wrote inmy last in another band, I got
a copyright. So there's a differencebetween a like and this was on YouTube.
There's a difference between a copyright claimand a strike. A strike you
(04:10):
only get three and a claim islike, hey, they give you the
opportunity, they're gonna keep the songup, but you're not gonna be able
to monetize it. So all theplays are gonna go to the copyright holder,
which is fine. But so Ithought within this case, maybe Quinn
within the time of you guys recordbecause we recorded that episode what three years
(04:32):
ago, Yeah, in the timethat the episode was recorded, you guys
released the song. He said,Hey, I like this song. I'm
gonna publish it through a distributor,you know, district kids, hey,
baby Tuncor or whatever, and putit up on Spotify and then he registered
it with his PR be it BMIor as CAP. And that's what I
(04:55):
thought happened because I have seen they'llgo retroactively in your back catalog, like
of songs that I'll release some likea snippet of a trailer of a song
right, like a little teaser andput it on TikTok YouTube and then I'll
get a copyright flag that basically says, hey, this isn't your song,
(05:15):
which it is my song, butit's just kind of like an automated process
that bots have depending on like whatyou opt in through your distributor and your
p r O and they'll flag it. So I thought that's what happened.
But you told me Quinn had notreleased the song. The only place that
song was. Yeah, you know, It's it's really tricky reaching out to
(05:40):
an artist to ask them if theyare flagging your material, because that could
come off as insulting. And Ididn't want to offend Quinn. Like I
reached out to him and I said, hey, you know, if we
checked we checked in. I justwant to check up Quin. I'm doing
my due diligence. Someone flagged ourepisode or our song for a copyright infringement.
Did you you initiated claim and orI was just kind of bringing it
(06:03):
up. I didn't. I didn'tsay that. I didn't ask him out
right, but he brought it.He asked me, he says, are
you asking if I reported our episodefor copyright? I said, I am,
but only because I'm sure you didn'tand I want to make sure I
can clear you so we can figureout where this's went. So he said
in text right on writing whatever,he was like, I, Quinn McCarthy,
(06:24):
did not, you know, issuea copyright claim on this song?
And I said, have you publishedthis song since the time of its writing
with any performance rights organization or anyentity with publishing power and he said no,
I did not publish this song,so it wasn't Quinn and he didn't
(06:44):
issue it. So I included himin the correspondence as well. So I'm
like, well, why, whythe heck would they issue a copyright infringement.
So I reached back out to Speaker'slegal team and it took them about
two hours to like get They acknowledgedmy message. It was like a chat
message, right, they acknowledged it, and they said, let me look
into this, and they came backwith just paragraphs and paragraphs of like intellectual
(07:09):
property law and like all this intellectualproperty policy and we take this very seriously
and copyright claims aren't to be youknow whatever. Yeah, I got,
and I responded with like, hey, yeah, So in essence, they
stonewalled you. They're just throwing thebook at you. Yeah, so they
tried. They tried that. SoI responded with, I'm a paralegal and
my own specialty. My area thatI pursue is an intellectual property and copyright
(07:32):
law, so I'm very familiar withthe laws surrounding IP and I responded with
that. I said, I knowthese laws, I know what's limiting,
what's prohibited, and I understand,but this is not copyright infringement. I
didn't infringe on anyone's property unless youcan prove that I did, and if
you're not showing me that information,then this claim is baseless. This is
(07:56):
what I pretty much said, like, there's no validity if you are moving
my episode because it violates your ruleon having music on the platform. That
I can get behind. That Iunderstand, but do not accuse me of
infringing copyright when you don't have theproof to back it up. And that
was Leo. That was when theyresponded with, We're very sorry. We've
(08:18):
reinstated the episode and we've wiped anysort of claims made against you, So
it would I feel like they're botflagged it. What I'm guessing is their
bot was going through our episodes,found us performing it the first time in
our show, found the similarities betweenthe next episode, and was like,
(08:41):
oh, this is in another podcastepisode, and it didn't connect the two
that it was the same people doingit, and so we got the infringement
flag. Yeah, even that isweird, Like if they're going through retroactively
going through old episodes, what ifthe podcast that uses the same song as
their introduction and you know what Imean, that's a weird way of like
(09:03):
flagging material for copyright and there's noway for them to prove whether or not
that song was an original piece thatyou can signed, or that you wrote
yourself and that you produced and youput it on the podcast, which in
this case you did. So Yeah, just I've never seen it happen like
that before on a podcast, no, in which that brings up a larger
(09:24):
concern because in their the law thebook that they threw at me, right,
they were saying, if you're usingsomeone else's music on your podcast for
an intro or something like, youneed to independently obtain their permission to use
it. But here's what bothers meis they didn't notify me of the claim
(09:46):
before they took down the episode.They took it down and then notified me.
And that's something that I think isfrustrating because you don't have the chance
to prove yourself, you know,like you'd think it'd be like you have
thirty days to address this claim oror we remove the episode, you know
what I mean, like there shouldbe a litit. And well, they're
(10:07):
they're doing that to protect themselves.I mean, that's a monetary thing,
right because if you you compound thatover a bunch of copyright infractions over every
single episode on their on their platform, you know, that's saving them the
legal retribution of like, oh wehave So they're they're they're pro act first,
(10:28):
find out later, shoot first,ask questions later. I understand.
I understand that approach, but theproblem is I can't even access the episode
as it's posted, right, I, as the creator, can't even go
in and try to find where ifit was a different episode where the claim
is they're saying, they don't provideany context. They remove the whole thing
(10:50):
and you can't even go in tosee what's contested. And so where I'm
like nervous, is okay, theydid this to an episode where I was
one of the original songwriters. Butwith our listening episodes, we have permission
from the songwriter. Like Donnie Hart, we have his song in the episode
itself because we listen to it andwe review it. But I also use
(11:13):
portions of the song as our introand outro. I obtain permission from the
songwriter to do so. That's partof the agreement when they have the song
on there. But like, whatif they remove the episodes? Does it
matter that I have agreement? Isthere any way for me I need to
find if there's a way for meto submit the you know, the uh,
(11:37):
what is the term? What's theword? Submit the proof that I
have their permission. You have acontract with the songwriter giving you explicit permission.
This is an issue. Then thisis a bigger issue that I've come
across with like songs that I fuckingwrote and I'm getting flagged like I have.
I've had multiple videos that I usedold songs that I wrote and I
(11:58):
published in a TikTok or you knowso media platform and they got taken down
or the sound got muted and theywere like, oh, you don't have
the copyright to it. I'm likeI kind of do because I wrote the
song, but there's no really there'sthe recourse for that, like the the
the actual process to you, foryou is like so convoluted and and you'll
(12:18):
get the same kind of thing thatspeaker did. I think that's just the
just the way they handle these thingsthat they throw the book at you of
like hey, these are these arethe things that you're you know, and
they don't really take into consideration like, oh, well, maybe I'm talking
to the person that actually composed andwrote this song. And that's a bigger
topic with like our consumption of likemusic, copyright law, social media,
(12:41):
and like the way in the mediumswe're actually using these things and like they're
they're going, they're they're kind ofdoing an over bearing blanket of protection on
themselves from a financial standpoint, whichis mind boggling to me because TikTok,
even Instagram, like some people thatare actually posting their own music will get
(13:05):
it like a copy like hey,we're taking this down this copyright. And
then you see another profile and they'rethey're using like back and Black by a
CDC and it has like two pointfive million views, and you're like,
yeah, how does that work.It's it's like random, It's like it
doesn't. They're not. It's Ijust think the I think it shocked.
It goes up to chance, right, Like the bots aren't going through they're
(13:28):
just it's like a shotgun blast you. They just scatter and they go in
all directions and they hit wherever hereor wherever they're It's not a focused approach
because honestly, why would it bethe man power it would take to comb
through all of that data all ofthese videos. You have to use the
bots, but it's impossible. Yeah, but it's it's it's artificial intelligence,
(13:52):
I mean, and that's the largerconversation too. AI is stupid just inherently
it's dumb. It's it's machine learning, and it's learning from all this whatever
exists already. But we're con findingpatterns and waveforms than if they're you know,
identical or similar. That's the It'san issue with covers too, right,
(14:15):
I mean YouTube has some blanket licensesfor covers. Well, it's it's
but it's funny you bring up YouTubebecause YouTube is like one of the biggest
villains in this whole thing. Youknow for sure, there's no we talk
about we've talked about before. Wetalked before about like educational YouTube channels where
(14:39):
they're not turning a profit except throughdonations. And it's not illegal to solicit
donations for something educational, right,so long as you're not requiring people to
pay for it. But then youknow, under copyright law, intellectual property
law, if you're using you know, intellectual property for educational purposes, you
don't need to pay a mechanical fee. You don't need to pay royal on
(15:00):
it. And so we've brought uplike Adam Neely, for instance, where
he's a jazz bass player, buthe's YouTube channel. I don't think he
has a YouTube channel anymore. He'sgot a he's on Nebula, but YouTube.
He's like, I'm an educator.My videos are educational, they're free,
No one has to pay to useit. I don't turn a profit
(15:22):
from the videos themselves, only frompeople who donate to me to keep this
going. But YouTube will regularly flaghim for using songs to demonstrate some educational,
some musical whatever. I'm driving homefrom work, I'm not in that
mindset, so words are coming hardto me. But he's trying to demonstrate
(15:43):
some musical properties, some technique orwhatever, and he gets flagged. So
he moved to Nebula, which isa different platform. You have to pay
to use Nebula, but Nebula isfor educational informative of creators. So Adam
Neely is on there. I followa bunch of I subscribe to Nebula in
(16:04):
certain channels. And what they areis if if a creator on Nebula gets
flagged, Nebula doesn't remove the material, but they investigate the copyright flag.
They look into it themselves, andthat's like a big deal with them.
That was one of their main focuses. So it's it's doable. It's possible
(16:26):
to be creative creator friendly as opposedto copyright friendly. But also Nebula is
a paid service, so you kindof paid and it's not as bloated as
YouTube. YouTube is owned by Googleand they know where their profit margins and
like their their income is coming from. And they're not making money when they
(16:48):
go and they put a team ofyou know, a legal team together to
investigate U copyright infringement, right theythey it's it's it's small potatoes for them.
Nebula, their entire business model ispredicated on the educational piece, so
they will have the infrastructure and thebandwidth to investigate that. That's true.
It's it's it's weird because we're inthis kind of limbo stage of the mediums
(17:12):
in which people are and education isa perfect example because most I would say
ninety nine point nine percent of allmusic education is passed down from prior material.
Like you're not improv jazz fusion ingto teach a kid, you know,
(17:32):
the doray Me scale, you're showinghim Twinkle Twinkle, Little Star,
bah Bah Black Sheep. Those mightbe in public domain, but I'm right,
are educational pieces. If you're like, hey, i want to investigate
Harry styles and I'm going to showyou the I'm going to show you the
chord changes and the melody and howthey work together, and you're using that
(17:56):
educationally, but there's no there's there'sno bias as far as like, uh,
like, you're gonna get flagged regardlessbecause the standards in which YouTube and
these bigger platforms. That's the otherthing too, It is like the sheer
magnitude of the reach of the heavyhitters like YouTube and TikTok is exponentially bigger
than a platform like Nebula, sonot allowing creators to uh to put to
(18:23):
make these completely legal educational pieces,not infringing copyright, but flagging them for
copyright, and then you have togo through this huge kind of dialogue of
like why it's not copyright, whichis it's hilarious to me because the ball
is in the court of these legaldepartments, you know, and they just
(18:45):
kind of throw this blanket statement oflike, oh, well, this is
copyright law, and then they comeacross someone like you who's like, actually,
I know copyright law, and I'malso the creator of this content.
I think it's important for creators toknow and I mean not to be pair
leegals in them, but have tobe a little bit educated in the subject
(19:06):
matter because it's important. No,you're right as creators. Yeah, and
personally too, Leo. And I'mnot trying to like be like this is
I'm like this guy. But that'slike my goal to work in the legals,
eventually work in the legal side withintellectual properties. I want artists to
know their rights. I want youto know the powers that you have,
(19:26):
because inevitably, whether or not it'sright, you will get flagged for copyright
like at some point it could probablycome across that. And the thing is
my experience with Spreaker and the reasonwhy I'm not pulling our content from Spriaker
and moving it elsewhere. On principle, hey, that's a huge pain in
the ass. But b is,like I presented my issue, I reached
(19:52):
out to their team and they responded, and they did their due diligence right.
They threw the book at me andsaid, this is law, and
it's your duty as a creator.If you believe in your material and you
think it was wrong, engage withthem. Talk to them. They're doing
their jobs. But they were veryreasonable when I explained, no, no,
(20:15):
no, I know this, I'veread this, this doesn't match.
They assessed and they listened, andthey complied with what I said because I
fought for my stuff. Whether ornot the song is worth fighting for a
subjective right, but it is amatter of principle. I suppose. I
don't want to be accused of infringingcopyright ever, because that goes against who
(20:40):
I am as a creator and amusician. But if you're an artist and
this happens, do your due diligence, educate yourself and engage with the people,
and you don't even need to behostile about it. You do collect
more flies with honey than you dovinegar. Right, Yeah, And I
think that's the important thing. Igot frustrated. I got a little you
know, like what the hell.But if you maintain a good dialogue and
(21:04):
you have this conversation, things likelywill go your way unless you actually infringe
copyright, in which case, like, don't do that. Man. So
there's two things. There's two thingsI feel like artists can do right now.
Something that I've changed in the differencebetween how I used to publish my
music, you know, five yearsago, as to how I publish now.
(21:25):
One thing is I opt out specificallyfor YouTube music. I don't publish
to YouTube music. And the reasonwhy is because you can publish your own
stuff through YouTube music without using adistributor. When you go through a distributor
to publish your music on these majorplatforms, you are automatically in their system
(21:45):
and their bot algorithm will Like ifyou were to publish like say you have
a music video and then you publishanother little small snippet of your saying video,
your your video is going to getflagged so opting out and kind of
looking at where you're putting your musicand having the control of like, Okay,
I'm gonna I'm gonna publish it througha distributor on these platforms, but
(22:06):
I'm gonna do with my own onmy own on you know, TikTok or
YouTube whatever. That's one thing artistscan do to prevent it. The other
thing is what I what I whatyou? What you mentioned is like do
your not do your homework, butlike escalate and you know, if you
do get copyright flagged and like I'venever done that just because I don't have
(22:26):
the time. I've never had avideo pulled down. But I have gotten
a copyright claim on music that Ihad released. And I know exactly where
it's coming from. It's because Iused a distribution platform, whether it's song
Trader. By the way, aband camp got purchased by song Trader.
Oh really yeah recently, I thinkwithin the last week. So change is
(22:48):
coming to band camp, which isfunny because band camp predicate, you know,
their entire business model was like fourthrough and by indie musicians and they're
getting kind of the corporate model.But whatever pop up, Yeah, and
it's so arduous. And that's thepoint, like they make these processes so
(23:12):
painful, arduous and annoying, sothat you just kind of like, oh,
I give up. But when youare the composer and the writer of
a song, and this is theperfect situation, like you're in your example
of the of this episode, likeyou literally have a recorded podcast of you
creating the song on the spot andthey're throwing copy at it. You One,
(23:33):
that's that's erroneous, and two that'slike, that's it's insulting. Right,
So it was the thing I needto I need to clarify though it
wasn't the podcast where we made thesong. It was the song itself.
But yeah, either way, itwas like obviously there wasn't a person reviewing
it. It was a bot andthat's but I just I think that's such
(23:56):
a strong indictment infringement versus I don't. I don't even know. I think,
yeah, it did scan the episodebefore and then it scanned ours,
and it wasn't like, oh,it's the same account, same song.
Fine, So that's just the disconnectunless someone maliciously put in a copyright claim,
(24:19):
which I don't I don't know whoI hurt. I mean to know
to have them know how to dothat and to know that you're like to
go through the channels I wanted sucha waste of time. And I don't
think that that is a like Aukham'srazor Man. It's the easiest explanation,
is the most simple one, likethere is the answer, like they they
(24:41):
And it's not like Spreaker is goingout and searching other catalogs. They're searching
their catalog and they found a match. They found a pattern like, oh,
this song sounds like this song fromthe previous episode, and they slapped
a you know it. It's thesimplest and most logical explan The the other
(25:03):
part of this too, because weare using these AI technologies to I mean,
corporations are using AI technologies now morethan ever to uh to do this
work. Because they I mean toan extent they I'm pretty sure they still
have farms of people, you know, working circles of twelve hour shifts where
they're just sitting and looking for copyrightyou know what. They don't. That's
(25:23):
the funny thing. I don't thinkthey do. I think it's like one
or two people and when a likesomething pops up once or twice, then
they put the person into review ifit actually is an infringement. I think
there's I think otherwise they're using algorithms, right, I think it's largely algorithms,
and it's three or four people becausethe algorithms are there to cut back
(25:45):
on that farm, you know whatI mean. Yeah, But you're the
other part of that is like peopleare starting to and are starting to create
with AI more so, like Iremember when the technology first came out a
year or two ago. People arecreating quote unquote new pieces of work of
art, visual musical using AI platforms. There's AI software that you can create
(26:11):
a song. The thing with AI, and I've seen multiple articles released that
on this is that one it's notprotected under copyright law yet as from what
I've read over the last over summertime. But AI has to use It's the
(26:33):
same way we learn music, right. It uses things that already exists.
It scours the Internet, it scoursdatabases and catalogs, and it creates based
off of things that have priorly existed. Well, based on the prompt you'd
give it too, Yeah, basedon the prompt, I want a song
that sounds like Matt Heay from nineteenseventy five mixed with Snoop Dogg. In
(26:57):
that creating this new you know,this new piece that has never existed,
you might run into copyright law becausethe same platforms that are creating these like
they're looking for patterns and they're lookingfor things patterns of music. They're also
(27:17):
they could the same platforms what canalso flag you for finding those same patterns.
So it's kind of a weird dichotomy. It's like we're using these platforms,
corporate corporations are using these softwares tofind copyright infringements, but then creators
are using those same platforms to createnew work. It's weird, man,
(27:41):
and I think we need to doan episode. I think the Four of
Us when it comes to AI,because I think it's such a big topic.
But personally, I think AI isgood to use as a tool and
a starting point. But if youdo release a full song, I think
that's appropriate to exclude AI generated songsfrom copyright protection. Honestly, it's it's
(28:06):
the same anytime when we've talked aboutdisruptive technologies before, like we always mention
Beethoven and the release of the pianoforte any time, or you know,
the the vinyl recordings, the twoinch tape, digital media. Anytime new
technology is thrust upon the population,there's kind of this learning curve. There's
(28:30):
an adoption and then it becomes aplateaus and people it just becomes status quo
everybody starts using it. We haven'thit that plateau yet. I think we're
still in that like adoption curve ofpeople starting to utilize it. But it's
the same thing. It's a tool, like you said, once people and
like that's the beauty of like thehuman element of creativity is like once we
(28:52):
learn, folks start learning. AndI've seen people do it. They start
playing around. There's an account calledthere I ruined it, and they only
technologists love that account and their music. The creator is a musician, like
you know that they're in the boxand then that they know how to compose
and record, and they use AItechnologies to recreate voices like Johnny Cash,
(29:17):
like iconic rock or iconic popular musicvoices, the red Hot Chili version like
Johnny Cash song Wet Ass Pussy byCardi BB. You know, yeah,
there you go even better and he'sand then to his credit too like he
is. Also, his original stuffis really good if you ever check it
out. I have a couple ofsong I downloaded a couple of songs from
(29:38):
him, right, I have acouple of songs a playlist. But you're
right, like it's it's an entertainmentpurpose and he can't copyright that because you're
using someone's I don't know if it'ssomeone's likeness, vocal likeness, you know,
if they do a Johnny Cash thing. But I think it goes back
to intention. Do you want tomake money off this stuff? And if
(30:00):
you do, if you want tomake money off of music, you should
write it. You have to writeit yourself. You have to make it
yourself or you cannot have the publicdomain do it for you. And I
think that's what AI music should beclassified, because it came from you know,
it sourced its material from the public. Any song generated with AI should
(30:26):
be a public domain I think.I mean, I hope the law's going
that way. You get into thepolicing of that though, right, because
who you would almost need a separatebureaucracy, like a government entity to monitor
whether or not things are being createdthe old fashioned way or like was there
(30:49):
an element of this, like,is there is there a digital watermark on
materials that you know you used toLike, it's like chat GPT, Right,
I use chat GPT to prompt anemail and then I send that email
out. There's no way to seeif I copy and pasted that stuff over
(31:10):
from chat GPT. And the samewith music, right, Like, who's
going to monitor whether or not thatwas? So I think I think it's
a matter of disclosure, right,Like I feel like, oh my god,
this goes again. This should betotally total material for a completely separate
episode. But when it comes tolike how do you monitor it? Maybe
maybe it's a matter of labeling it, Like you know, with GMOs,
(31:32):
like GMO produce it by law,if produce is created with GMOs, it
has to be or if it's ifthe produce is a GMO, it needs
to be labeled as such. Right. If you're releasing music or any sort
of creative artwork, it needs tobe labeled somewhere somehow as AI generated.
(31:53):
And maybe that needs to be somethinglike chat GPT. If something is created
with chat GBT, somewhere in thatimage it may not even have to be
visible some type of watermark that abot can see labels it as hey,
this was made, this was AIgenerated. Maybe that's the answer, you
(32:15):
know, disclosure that the creators can'tsee what the bots do. I mean,
we do it with music, rightwhen when when a song is created
within it you get an I sr C cor a digital watermark inside the
song? Correct, you download it, chat, you get it from has
the I s r C yep?And I think maybe that's the solution to
(32:36):
AI generated music. Whatever engine generatedit has to automatically input that that I
s r C, that that thatyou know unlistenable or is that that inaudible
frequency that labels it as AI generated, you know what I mean. Yeah,
(32:58):
I mean it's the same as likepirated software. There was a DJ
that had you know, a lotof view stream sales on their music and
came to find out that like therewas a digital watermark that that he was
using a cracked version of like logicor something like that. He got a
NFL studio. Yeah, yeah,Well, I think the bottom line,
(33:22):
Leo is, you know, educateyourself, do your homework and know your
rights as a creator so you candefend the work that you've worked so hard
to create. And put up thereand understand that not all copyright claims are
gonna have merit. Some of them, most of them, I would say,
are just the bots doing what they'reprogrammed to do. And if you
(33:44):
just cooperate with the people, oryou not cooperate, but you talk to
the people, you can test theclaims if you have the energy and the
time the first time you do,it's going to be the hardest after that.
If you get more. One,maybe you should consider why you keep
getting these claims. But two,it'll be easier to go forward and move
(34:04):
I mean, copy and paste it, you know, create your own template,
a template I mean, and insome forms of music tend to fall
into the category of, you know, hitting copyright infringement more than others.
Here's my question to you. Doyou do you think the current state of
copyright law uh protects the creator orit protects the corporation more. I think
(34:37):
it pretty Oh that's a that's agood question, and I think it's a
question we should address on another episode. I'm at where I need to be
leo food for thought. Folks,if you listen to this and you like
to participate, do you think thatcopyright law benefits the creator or benefits the
corporation, and maybe we need toget into the legal definition of what what
(35:00):
the creator is. Yeah, that'sa loaded question, and I think it's
one worth exploring. Let's do anothermini episode on this. Let's do a
part two. I'll let you thinkmarinate on that. One. Sounds good,
Yes, sir, I like yourpin, Kurt, you got a
nice shiny just one song pin.It's beautiful. That's right, just one
song pin. We're exploring the ideaof getting some swag. I'll post a
(35:22):
picture of it right now. Ithink based on my own personal budget,
because that's how I pay for thisstuff, is I buy it myself.
But any sort of guests on theshow, I think I want to go
back and start sending some of thisswag out to people we've had on the
show. But there's a neat littlepin. I'll post it to our Instagram,
(35:42):
I'll post it to our Facebook.Whoever uses that anymore? I do.
But yeah, some just one songswag. Maybe we'll start looking into
how we can better get this outto our fans and the people who listen
to some marketing. But in themeantime, let's get some more episodes out
and Leo, I love talking toyou. I love chatting about this stuff.
Let's get another one out soon.I miss your brother. Sounds good,
(36:05):
bro, good talk. Oh.By the way, credit to Wolfgang.
He's a he's a bartender in LaHe's got his own pop up business,
but he also designed all of ourlogos. Terrific bass player, fantastic
bartender, excellent graphic designer, andjust a wonderful friend too. So shout
out to you, Wolfgang. Ifyou listen to this, I'm gonna send
(36:25):
you some swag yourway as well.So anyway, and and thank you for
legitimizing this podcast with an awesome logo. Yeah, I feel like so you
get into the realm of like legitimacywhen you have like a cool identifier.
And Wolfgang, thank you. Ithink we have the coolest. I think
we have one of the coolest logosof any podcast I've ever seen. It's
(36:47):
super sharp, it's really it's reallypleasing to the eyes. You've seen my
business cards. I'm gonna drop someof those more off and I dropped a
ton at nam So oh yeah,Leo, I gotta I gotta make you
some business cards. Beautiful gorgeous senseof ben Away with the U R code
on the bag. Look at thatfancy well. Shout out to Wolfgang,
(37:12):
Shout out to Kurt for doing adue diligence and making sure that our episode
stays up so these fine folks andour listeners can hear it whenever they want.
Oh, this is Leandre Barrientos andmy good friend here. This is
Kurt Pamke with Leo Barrientos. Thankyou for listening to just once onp
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!