Pretty soon, paying for all the APIs you need to make sure your Midjourney images are palatable will be enough to pay a human artist!
Pretty soon, paying for all the APIs you need to make sure your Midjourney images are palatable will be enough to pay a human artist!
The AI-generated parts of these kind of “covers” generally have exactly two easily identifiable parts - the original singer’s melody and intonation, combined with the voice of an actor playing the cartoon character. While it’s done without the consent of either, I still think it falls under mashup/parody, with the AI magic making the whole thing sound better for relatively less effort. It’s not like using a comittee of uncredited artist to make something entirely new, and then pass it as one’s own.
I agree and don’t think the cover itself is objectionable. Covers and remixes are a valuable and essential part of musical tradition and this is a good piece of art even though it’s derived from the work of Yuzuki Ryōka and SOAD without approval.
The “plagiarism machines” part is about the way machine learning companies use unpaid and underpaid labor of millions and pass that off as the work of a quasi-sentient machine, often with the explicit aim of replacing the countless creative workers whose work was used to build the mashup machine. I think I’m actually pretty anti-copyright but at least the rules should also apply when it’s a tech corp cribbing from masses of proles.
A cartoon cat singing a nu-metal song about ADHD while sounding like Marianne Faithfull with a cold is the least we deserve in return.
I agree with this too, sure the same sort of AI could be used to put someone out of work using their own former creations, which makes the whole business more morally dubious than regular mashups, unfortunately.
Though, it’s still true that people don’t need any fancy new software to profit off uncredited work, like the story of the Amen Break.