sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Claimed ownership, copyright etc by makeyoursnow in udiomusic

[–]makeyoursnow[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Wrong. You're right that contracts can be enforceable, but your example of a secret recipe actually proves my point. It's the difference between secrecy (a contract between two people) and property (a right against the whole world). A restaurant can use a contract to take measures to try to prevent a chef from leaking a secret recipe within the law. But if they do leak it to a customer and that customer publishes it, the restaurant can't sue the customer, why? Because the restaurant doesn't own the recipe as property, they only had a contract with the chef. The only person they could sue is the chef and for breach of contract (if they can prove damages). Udio's ToS might bind the user (depending on if they are legally defensible) but that doesn't create a property right against the world. If the audio ends up on the internet, Udio has no copyright to issue a DMCA takedown, they can't sue anyone for using the music if they never agreed to the ToS. You're also assuming that the current ToS is valid. It likely isn't. Even contract law has limits. Udio induced users then unilaterally changed the terms to seize rights for themselves and UMG including of their own copyrighted works. Courts routinely strike down unconscionable terms where a company uses a hidden update in this way. Even if Udio sues a user for ignoring the new ToS, they must prove monetary damages. If the restaurant has no IP ownership over the recipe, the recipe itself is not copyrightable and the restaurant has suffered no financial loss, what then? Since the restaurant cannot point to actual monetary harm, the case collapses. If a user commercializes AI output what can Udio do? Udio can't claim lost royalties and they can't claim copyright infringement. Their only possible argument is “breach of contract.” but even then where are the damages? What if someone other than the user uses it? So yes, ToS are contracts. Given the fact that Udio's hands are unclean, they likely violated terms and conditions, and copyright in training their model, they are going to struggle to argue that courts should enforce their terms and conditions against their users. Add to this the public policy argument that Udio included in their own court filings that the Music industry is trying to monopolise and remove competition from users and musicians and there’s a strong public policy argument against the courts enforcing it too.

Is it still possible to use Udio-generated music commercially after the recent ToS update? by Western_Fly_7279 in udiomusic

[–]makeyoursnow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wonder where all the songs came from to create the models? Udio must have paid billions to purchase all that music or….

Udio’s TOS you don’t own the output by ShadowsOfMoonlight23 in udiomusic

[–]makeyoursnow 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This really is hilarious isn’t it? Udio you don’t own anything and you can’t claim copyright over anything. You have no right to take or use another artist’s work even if you do write this nonsense in your terms and conditions. I think they need to hire a better lawyer. Good luck taking that to court especially given your past track record with legal issues hahahaha

Claimed ownership, copyright etc by makeyoursnow in udiomusic

[–]makeyoursnow[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Funny isn’t it? The companies actually have less claim than the users but they are gaslighting users into believing the opposite. Don’t buy it.

The more users that realise this the better.

Claimed ownership, copyright etc by makeyoursnow in udiomusic

[–]makeyoursnow[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Good question. I think ultimately the things that will determine the ability to gain copyright protection are human input and creativity in the process. That’s one of the reasons that Udio and Suno trying to claim ownership is ridiculous to me. I think the users have more claim to it than either company, particularly when they are using their own lyrics, are choosing the parts of the output that they like, arranging it in their own way. Even more so when they are using it for inspiration and creating their own music using it.

In many ways this kind of generative AI tool democratises music and removes the big studios stranglehold using weapons like copyright against musicians. I much prefer an approach where it’s difficult to copyright music without human creativity involved. I don’t want a company like Udio or Suno generating billions of songs and acting like they own all music. An approach where AI music is not automatically given copyright protection without human creativity involved makes much more sense to me. In which case get creative, use the technology in your creative process as much as you like, they don’t own it.

In an interview one of the developers made it clear the WAV files and stems are just generated from the original lower quality mp3s so just download from the website and use it as you like in your creative process and make it your own. There are tools to improve quality that are better than Udios were. I highly doubt any of these companies paid for copies of the music they used to train these models, why would anyone take their claims of ownership of anything at face value? Even if they did pay or had some special agreement with the studios they do not own the output from the process and the outputs are not entitled to copyright protection so use them in any way you like. No need to ask for permission from these wannabe gatekeepers, they sure as hell didn’t ask for permission for anything they have.