As usual, when faced with technology it can’t control, the record industry shoots first and asks questions later
We’ve all seen it: the little drawing that YouTube uses to replace a video that it’s removed due to a copyright claim, the vast majority of which come from the record industry.
Lately, record labels have been busy taking down videos created using generative assistants trained with the voices of musicians to perform new material, often in combination with other artists they may or may not have worked with before.
As it turns out, the legal basis for removing this kind of material is dubious to say the least. Once again, record companies are shooting first and asking questions later. The argument that artists control what is done with a robotic version of their voice is not so straightforward, in the same way that someone can imitate them or copy the style of a painter.
Creation has always been based on inspiration, and if one artist is inspired by another, that is not necessarily grounds for a copyright claim, regardless of what Marvin Gaye’s money-grabbin’ heirs say. In short, what’s to stop me from creating a clone of Marvin Gaye’s voice, in the same way someone can manipulate a guitar to sound like Eddie Van Halen’s, and make it sing whatever I want?
