|
Post by galacticgirrrl on May 3, 2023 2:27:59 GMT
Incoming on the AI front - a very interesting approach. Quite brilliant. Grimes says anyone can use her voice for AI-generated songswww.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-65385382Grimes has invited musicians to clone her voice using Artificial Intelligence in order to create new songs. The pop singer, whose real name is Claire Boucher, said she would "split 50% royalties on any successful AI-generated song that uses my voice". "Same deal as I would with any artist I collab[orate] with. Feel free to use my voice without penalty," she tweeted. Her declaration comes as the music industry scrambles to react to a spate of AI songs trained on artist's voices.
|
|
|
Post by BunnyWhit on May 3, 2023 15:35:01 GMT
I'll use Truman Capote as an example. He has an estate owning the rights to his works. Does the will have to state his letters and journals are included or is it a given that those are included as part of his library. If the estate owns the rights how long does it control the rights? Is there a generally accepted time before the writing becomes public domain? If I received a letter from Tru, do I have the right to publish it or is his correspondence to me part of his rights? If I wrote a letter to Tru, can the estate publish my letter or do they need my permission? About getting the rights to music, I read somewhere that when a tv series like FRIENDS bought the rights to play a song on one of those episodes, it does not extend to the streaming service. Therefore the song is removed from the episode on the streaming service. It would seem once you've obtained the rights in that case, you'd have the rights no matter what platform. Can you imagine losing all the Irving Berlin songs in the old movies when shown on tv or streaming services? As complicated as this seems, I wonder if lawyers understand or if they fight case by case? You're right -- it does seem like a one-time purchase of rights for a song should stay with the scene in which it was used, no matter the airing platform.
But I also understand (sort of) why it doesn't.
I worked in textbook publishing for a time, and I can say that a similar thing happened there when the internet came along. Photo permissions can represent quite a large expense for textbooks, and publishers didn't understand why they couldn't simply repurpose that use when they started creating online resources as ancillaries. They believed that if they had purchased the rights for use, it should apply to any format. But with textbooks, there is at least a small amount of "control" by the rights holder because a certain number of textbooks will be printed. With the internet, who knows where or how a thing will be used.
It also is a little bit like a large company purchasing software to use within its business. The Acme Widgets Company cannot purchase a license for one piece of software and deploy it among all 10,000 of their employees. They have to purchase licenses for every user, and "extra" licenses to allow for growth between contract years.
Perhaps this isn't the best way to look at it, but these are things I've experienced, so they help me to understand issues like the one you mention here. While we have laws and protections for these things, I think it is the nuances of every individual circumstance that keeps copyright lawyers so busy.
Though fascinating, this is a dizzying issue.
|
|
|
Post by kims on Aug 5, 2023 13:37:33 GMT
Several times on this board people mentioned TCM could buy the right or rental fee to show a film. What would the fee amount be? Just a ballpark.
TCM at one time owned the rights to MGM, WB and RKO catalogue, yet I see MOVIESTVNETWORK plays some of the same films, are they paying TCM to air those films?
When TCM bought the rights, would some films in the studio catalogue not be included for various reasons?
My interest in this topic again arose from the thread about young people no knowing the classic era pioneers. There are so many nuggets of inspiration in all those interviews TCM did-the bits and pieces of which are fillers on TCM. Example: the interview telling about the opening credits of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. To make the marble roll across the floor or table, a magnet was drilled into the marble and a magnet under the floor/table made the marble move. I think these nuggets could inspire creativity, innovation. Maybe that isn't part of film making now with computer generated scenes.
|
|
|
Post by galacticgirrrl on Jan 28, 2024 4:21:44 GMT
Some very helpful copyright information in the conversation below. Cory takes a very frank look at digital rights management crimes, captured markets, Spotify pricing, Amazon's Project Gazelle, Audible-Gate, IPO & accounting scams.
(I hope copyright laws don't prevent it being viewed outside of Canada!)
Cory Doctorow: How Big Tech Captured Culture The Agenda with Steve Paikin May 24, 2023
Artists, musicians, and writers are getting ripped off, according to Cory Doctorow, co-author of "Chokepoint Capitalism." From Amazon and book publishing and Spotify and music to Google and Facebook and news media, big tech has "captured culture," creating modern day monopolies and "chokepoints." Doctorow explains how these chokepoints work, and the current film and TV writer's strike and their concerns over AI.
|
|
|
Post by galacticgirrrl on Mar 17, 2024 2:27:39 GMT
WHAAM! BLAM! Roy Lichtenstein and the Art of Appropriation (2022) Along with Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein created Pop Art, and his works can fetch more than $150 million. But the comic artists whose work was "appropriated" by Lichtenstein view him as a plagiarist. Was he a great artist, a thief, or both?
An utterly devastating documentary but I am very thankful it was made. Shamefully add me to the list of those who had no realization as to the depth of the theft controversy. I must now throw out this one currently on my wall - the stolen bit on the right. Appropriation may be funny and charming and transformative within the letter of the law but when we are talking hedge funds and $40,000,000 then I'm not laughing. The Lichtenstein estate going after other appropriators is laughable. Artist Russ Heath's situation reminded me of what happened to Rudolph/actress Billie Mae Richards. Surely there is enough money being made to revisit earlier agreements and share the wealth?
|
|
|
Post by kims on Mar 17, 2024 12:17:18 GMT
What a mess! If I'd known about all this copyright and film rights stuff when I went to college, I may have gone to law school. Think of all the billing hours I could have had trying to sort out this stuff. That's where the real money is in the entertainment world?
|
|
|
Post by galacticgirrrl on Mar 18, 2024 0:51:37 GMT
On a much more delightful note: I had no idea some art appropriations could be so enjoyable. The best true tale of an art theft on film, perhaps? The barrister in this case is beyond reproach. The dialogue is fabulous and a cut above.
The Duke (2020) The film is set in 1961 when Kempton Bunton, a 60- year old taxi driver, stole Goya's portrait of The Duke of Wellington from The National Gallery in London. It was the first (and remains the only) theft in the Gallery's history.
Kempton sent ransom notes saying that he would return the painting on the condition that the government agreed to provide television for free to the elderly.
What happened next became the stuff of legend. Only 50 years later did the full story emerge.
|
|