2. Copyright Law Perspective
3. Engineering Praxis Perspective
4. Implications of Copyright Law and Engineering Praxis for folkrnn
4.1. Legal Perspectives of folkrnn
4.2. Engineering Praxis Perspectives of folkrnn
Conflicts of Interest
- Agres, Kat, Jamie Forth, and Geraint A. Wiggins. 2016. Evaluation of musical creativity and musical metacreation systems. Computers in Entertainment 14: 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aguiar, Luis, and Joel Waldfogel. 2018. Platforms, Promotion, and Product Discovery: Evidence from Spotify Playlists. NBER Working Paper No. 24713. Cambridge: NBER. [Google Scholar]
- Barocas, Solon, and Andrew D. Selbst. 2016. Big data’s disparate impact. California Law Review 104: 671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benthall, Sebastian, and Bruce D. Haynes. 2019. Racial categories in machine learning. Paper presented at Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Atlanta, GA, USA, January 29–31; pp. 289–98. [Google Scholar]
- Biles, John A. 1999. Life with GenJam: Interacting with a musical IGA. Paper presented at 1999 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Tokyo, Japan, October 12–15; vol. 3, pp. 652–56. [Google Scholar]
- Bostrom, Nick, and Eliezer Yudkowsky. 2014. Chapter The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. In Cambridge Handbook of Artificial Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Bryson, Joanna, and Alan Winfield. 2017. Standardizing ethical design for artificial intelligence and autonomous systems. Computer 50: 116–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buning, Madeleine de Cock. 2018. Chapter Artificial Intelligence and the Creative Industry: New Challenges for the EU Paradigm for Art and Technology. In Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- Cope, David. 1991. Computers and Musical Style. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Craglia, M., ed. 2018. Artificial Intelligence: A European Perspective. Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union. [Google Scholar]
- Dannenberg, Roger B., Belinda Thom, and David Watson. 1997. A machine learning approach to musical style recognition. Paper presented at International Computer Music Conference, Thessaloniki, Greece, September 25–30; pp. 344–47. [Google Scholar]
- Deliège, Irène, and Geraint A. Wiggins, eds. 2006. Musical Creativity: Multidisciplinary Research in Theory and Practice. Abingdon: Psychology Press. [Google Scholar]
- Deltorn, Jean-Marc, and Franck Macrez. 2019. Chapter Authorship in the Age of Machine learning and Artificial Intelligence. In The Oxford Handbook of Music Law and Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Doshi-Velez, Finale, and Been Kim. 2017. Chapter Towards a Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning. In Springer Series on Challenges in Machine Learning. Switzerland: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Drott, Eric. 2019. Music AI: Copyright, compensation, commons. Paper presented at Music & AI AIAS Conference, Aarhus, Denmark, May 28; Washington, DC: AIAS. [Google Scholar]
- Dusek, Val. 2006. Philosophy of Technology: An Introduction. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. [Google Scholar]
- Ebcioğlu, Kemal. 1988. An expert system for harmonizing four-part chorales. Computer Music Journal 12: 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Economics, Oxford. 2019. How Robots Change the World: What Automation Really Means for Jobs and Productivity. Oxford: Oxford Economics. [Google Scholar]
- Eriksson, Maria, Rasmus Fleischer, Anna Johansson, Pelle Snickars, and Patrick Vonderau. 2018. Spotify Teardown: Inside the Black Box of Streaming Music. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
- Fairbairn, Hazel. 1993. Group Playing in Traditional Irish Music: Interaction and Heterophony in the Session. Ph.D. Thesis, Cambirdge University, Cambirdge, UK. [Google Scholar]
- Fernández, Jose D., and Francisco Vico. 2013. AI methods in algorithmic composition: A comprehensive survey. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 48: 513–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glymour, Bruce, and Jonathan Herington. 2019. Measuring the biases that matter: The ethical and casual foundations for measures of fairness in algorithms. Paper presented at Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Atlanta, GA, USA, January 29–31; pp. 269–78. [Google Scholar]
- Goodfellow, Ian, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. 2018. Deep Learning. Cambirdge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
- Guadamuz, Andrés. 2017. Do androids dream of electric copyright? Comparative analysis of originality in artificial intelligence generated works. Intellectual Property Quarterly 2: 169–86. [Google Scholar]
- Hand, David J. 2018. Aspects of data ethics in a changing world: Where are we now? Big Data 6: 176–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hiller, Lejaren A., and Leonard M. Isaacson. 1959. Experimental Music: Composition with an Electronic Computer. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. [Google Scholar]
- Holzapfel, André, Bob L. Sturm, and Mark Coeckelbergh. 2018. Ethical dimensions of music information retrieval technology. Transactions of the International Society for Music Information Retrieval 1: 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kilbertus, Niki, Mateo Rojas Carulla, Giambattista Parascandolo, Moritz Hardt, Dominik Janzing, and Bernhard Schölkopf. 2017. Avoiding discrimination through causal reasoning. Paper presented at Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, CA, USA, December 5–9; pp. 656–66. [Google Scholar]
- Kleinberg, Jon, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan. 2017. Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. Paper presented at Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science, Bologna, Italy, July 3–5. [Google Scholar]
- Lauber-Rönsberg, Anne, and Sven Hetmank. 2019. The concept of authorship and inventorship under pressure: Does artificial intelligence shift paradigms? Journal Intellectual Property Law & Practice 14: 570–79. [Google Scholar]
- Lewis, George E. 2000. Too many notes: Computers, complexity and culture in Voyager. Leonardo Music Journal 10: 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacMahon, Tony. 1996. The language of passion. Paper presented at Crossroads Conference, Temple Bar, Dublin, Ireland, April 19. [Google Scholar]
- Metcalf, Jacob. 2018. Engineering for Fairness: How a Firm Conceptual Distinction between Unfairness and Bias Makes It Easier to Address Un/fairness. Tutorial presented at ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, New York, NY, USA, February 23–24. [Google Scholar]
- Michaux, Benoit. 2018. Chapter Singularité technologique, singularité humaine et droit d’auteur. In Droits, Norms et Libertés Dans le Cybermonde. New York: Kluwer, pp. 401–16. [Google Scholar]
- Mittelstadt, Brent, Chris Russell, and Sandra Wachter. 2019. Explaining explanations in AI. Paper presented at Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Atlanta, GA, USA, January 29–31. [Google Scholar]
- Pachet, François. 2003. The continuator: Musical interaction with style. Journal of New Music Research 32: 333–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramalho, Anna. 2017. Will Robots Rule the (Artistic) World? A Proposed Model for the Legal Status of Creations by Artificial Intelligence Systems. Journal of Internet Law 21: 12–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruiz, David, Rafael Corchuelo, José A Pérez, and Miguel Toro. 2002. An algorithm for ensuring fairness and liveness in non-deterministic systems based on multiparty interactions. Paper presented at European Conference on Parallel Processing, Paderborn, Germany, August 27–30; pp. 563–72. [Google Scholar]
- Russell, Stuart, and Peter Norvig. 1995. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Egnlewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. [Google Scholar]
- Sánchez-Quintana, Carlos, Francisco Moreno-Arcas, David Albarracín-Molina, José D. Fernández, and Francisco Vico. 2013. Melomics: A case-study of AI in spain. AI Magazine 34: 99–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schedl, Markus, Arthur Flexer, and Julián Urbano. 2013. The neglected user in music information retrieval research. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems 41: 523–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schedl, Markus, Emilia Gomez, and Julian Urbano. 2014. Music information retrieval: Recent developments and applications. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 8: 127–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sturm, Bob L. 2016. Revisiting priorities: Improving MIR evaluation practices. Paper presented at International Symposium on Music Information Retrieval, New York, NY, USA, August 7–11. [Google Scholar]
- Sturm, Bob L. 2018. What do these 5,599,881 parameters mean? An analysis of a specific LSTM music transcription model, starting with the 70,281 parameters of its softmax layer. Paper presented at Music Metacreation Workshop of International Conference on Computational Creativity, Salamanca, Spain, June 25–26. [Google Scholar]
- Sturm, Bob L., and Oded Ben-Tal. 2017. Taking the models back to music practice: Evaluating generative transcription models built using deep learning. Journal Creative Music Systems 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sturm, Bob L., and Oded Ben-Tal. 2018. Let’s Have Another Gan Ainm: An Experimental Album of Irish Traditional Music and Computer-Generated Tunes. Technical Report. Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology. [Google Scholar]
- Sturm, Bob L., Oded Ben-Tal,Úna Monaghan, Nick Collins, Dorien Herremans, Elaine Chew, Gaëtan Hadjeres, Emmanuel Deruty, and François Pachet. 2018. Machine learning research that matters for music creation: A case study. Journal New Music Research 48: 36–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sturm, Bob L., João F. Santos, Oded Ben-Tal, and Iryna Korshunova. 2016. Music transcription modelling and composition using deep learning. Paper presented at Computer Simulation of Musical Creativity, Huddersfield, UK, June 17–19. [Google Scholar]
- Templier, Pierre-Daniel. 1969. Erik Satie. Translated by Elena L. French, and David S. French. Cambridge: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
- The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. 2017. Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-Being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, 2nd ed. Piscataway: IEEE. [Google Scholar]
- Zeng, Jiaming, Berk Ustun, and Cynthia Rudin. 2017. Interpretable classification models for recidivism prediction. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 180: 689–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
For instance, see the number of articles appearing like A. Moore’s “When AI Becomes an Everyday Technology”, Harvard Business Review, 7 June 2019, https://hbr.org/2019/06/when-ai-becomes-an-everyday-technology.
https://www.spotify.com is a music streaming service.
https://www.shazam.com is a music identification service.
https://www.amazon.com is an online retail service.
See for example these articles: https://www.motherjones.com/media/2019/03/what-will-happen-when-machines-write-songs-just-as-well-as-your-favorite-musician/; https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/17/18299563/ai-algorithm-music-law-copyright-human; https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/31/17777008/artificial-intelligence-taryn-southern-amper-music.
One source of data is https://thesession.org/.
See the Bottomless Tunebox YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7wzmG64y2IbTUeWji_qKhA/videos.
Art. 2 of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) defines phonogram as “the fixation of the sounds of a performance or of other sounds, or of a representation of sounds, other than in the form of a fixation incorporated in a cinematographic or other audiovisual work”.
S. 178 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Infopaq: C-5/08 Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 July 2009; BSA: C-393/09, Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010; Painer: C-145/10, Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 December 2011; Dataco: Case 604/10, Judgment of the Court, (Third Chamber) of 1 March 2012.
See also presentations delivered at the European Copyright Society 2018 conference, “EU copyright, quo vadis? From the EU copyright package to the challenges of Artificial intelligence”: https://europeancopyrightsociety.org/ecs-conferences-2018-brussels. To our knowledge, there is no European case law yet dealing with AI-generated works. In China, a recent decision by Beijing Internet Court refused copyright protection for a report generated by AI. Under Chinese law, only works created by humans are eligible for protection. See Ming Chen, Beijing Internet Court denies copyright to works created solely by artificial intelligence, Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2019, Vol. 14, No. 8.
In any case, humans would be needed, of course, for creating the technology. This does not mean that the generated music necessarily reflects the personality of those developers.
The European Commission has recently published a call for a study that will assess whether the current IPR framework is fit-for-purpose for AI-generated works/inventions: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/trends-and-developments-artificial-intelligence-challenges-intellectual-property-rights.
In Europe copyright lasts for 70 years from the death of the author. The duration of neighbouring rights is shorter (50 years) except for published phonograms. The use of works in the public domain is free.
Directive (EU) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market and amending Directives 96/9/EC and 2001/29/EC, OJ L 130, 17.5.2019, pp. 92–125.
Data mining is defined in Article 2 of the directive as “any automated analytical technique aimed at analysing text and data in digital form in order to generate information which includes but is not limited to patterns, trends and correlations”.
ibid., Article 3.
ibid., Article 4.
A rightholder can restrict use, e.g., explicitly using methods to block data mining is a way to opt out from the exception in case of material made publicly available online.
Judgment of 29 July 2019, Pelham, C-476/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:624.
See the FAT/ML workshop: https://www.fatml.org.
“Intended” discrimination is commonly known in ML as disparate treatment, while “unintended” as disparate impact.
See Kate Crawford (2017), “Artificial intelligence with very real biases” https://www.wsj.com/articles/artificial-intelligencewith-very-real-biases-1508252717.
See, Fabien Gouyon (2018). “Overview and new challenges of music information research” https://www.slideshare.net/FabienGouyon/music-recommendation-2018-116102609.
Also see the tutorial, “Fairness, Accountability and Transparency in Music Information Research (FAT-MIR)” at the 2019 International Symposium on Music Information Retrieval, https://ismir2019.ewi.tudelft.nl/?q=node/41.
For example, see A. K. Raymond, “The Streaming Problem: How Spammers, Superstars, and Tech Giants Gamed the Music Industry”, Vulture, 5 July 2017, https://www.vulture.com/2017/07/streaming-music-cheat-codes.html.
The data is archived about once a week online: http://github.com/adactio/TheSession-data.
See footnote 21.
The first Gan Ainm on track 3, Gan Ainm, Gan Ainm, Gan Ainm.
See this discussion: https://thesession.org/discussions/39604.
See footnote 21.
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).