jasrys
Joined 5 years ago
Karma
36
Submissions
23
Member since
Oct 1
Recent submissions
Comment · 16 days ago
Sharing in case useful for someone. Started getting into this subject in 2015, and full disclosure: I'm no physicist by any means. Without the formal background, the math and concepts were really hard to conjure and comprehend purely from the page, so I built an interactive self-study guide to "feel" the equations from Newton to holography. https://apples-to-entanglement.jasonrys.com/
Comment · 1 year ago
NASA tested one at Marshall about a year ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UShD03eG9IU
Comment · 1 year ago
No one. At least in the US, copyright requires human authorship.[1]
There are several ongoing cases, probably most prominently the Thaler v. Perlmutter case. [2]
[1] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf
[2] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/docs/us-brief-for-appellees.pdf
Comment · 2 years ago
AI generated music is not protected by copyright, at least in the US, since copyright can only affix to works created by humans (the "human authorship requirement").[1][2] Without copyright protection, there is no "economic value" -- at least directly tied to the songs themselves. AI generated songs are not paid royalties at e.g. The Mechanical Licensing Collective for US streaming use.[3]
[1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-03-16/pdf/2023-0... (Copyright Registration Guidance section)
[2] https://ipwatchdog.com/2022/02/23/thaler-loses-ai-authorship...
[3] https://www.copyright.gov/ai/USCO-Guidance-Letter-to-The-MLC...
Comment · 2 years ago
You can read more about what that deal covered — and didn’t cover — here on NMPA’s site:
https://www.nmpa.org/twitch-makes-deal-with-nmpa-but-streame...
Comment · 2 years ago
They haven't licensed publishing (at least not yet). Source: am publisher
Comment · 3 years ago
1. lots of established law and case law (at least in the US), this is already a well-settled problem and folks have the tools and proper venue to bring infringement claims. Yes, federal copyright infringement litigation is prohibitively expensive for many issues. There is a now a "small claims court" for smaller issues. [1]
2. Those works cannot be copyrighted (at least in the US). [2]. And hey, someone already tried copyrighting every song melody [3]
[1]: https://copyright.gov/about/small-claims/
[2]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...
Comment · 3 years ago
This is probably a somewhat unpopular opinion on HN, but it is where many of the artists I work with are generally trying to get to. Consent, compensation, and credit.
Comment · 3 years ago
Couldn't go to a better home. Thanks for making this field approachable.
Comment · 3 years ago
It depends, but yes, usually. Post-1978, the author of a work is also the copyright owner as soon as the work is fixed in a "tangible medium of expression" (written down, recorded, dictated, etc.). The exception to this is when the work was created as a "work for hire" (WFH) [1] for an employer. The rules around what constitutes a bonafide WFH are governed by agency law in the US. The primary court case in this area is The Community For Creative Non-Violence v. Reid which outlines a fairly high bar for a work to be considered a true WFH (it asks questions like: did you go to an office where the employer told you what to do and how to create it, did the employer provide you materials, did the employer pay you as a salaried employee rather than a contractor, how were you treated tax-wise and benefits-wise, etc.). That said, as the copyright owner at the moment of fixation, you can absolutely assign that copyright in writing to anyone you'd like. So functionally, there is usually a backup clause saying something like: "this is a work for hire for us, but, in the event it's deemed not a work for hire, you hereby assign the copyright to us anyway."
[1] https://copyright.gov/circs/circ30.pdf [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_for_Creative_Non-Vio...
Comment · 3 years ago
Royalty rate increased to $0.12/copy as of January 1, 2023 for songs under five minutes in length (the rate increases from there for longer songs). [1][2]
[1] Case docs for CRB Phonorecords IV (see subpart B): https://app.crb.gov/case/detail/21-CRB-0001-PR%20%282023-202...
[2] Summarizing article: https://variety.com/2022/music/news/songwriters-win-copyrigh...
Comment · 3 years ago
further discussion/illustration https://ciechanow.ski/naval-architecture/#free-surface
Comment · 3 years ago
Subscriber here. Just a note to say this is a beautiful, helpful, and well thought out in-depth tool for planning (particularly love the scenario modeling). While my financial updates tend to only be on a ~monthly schedule, I often pop in more frequently simply for design inspiration. Thank you Kyle.
Comment · 3 years ago
> Spotify also does nothing to promote and pay independent artists, they actually charge most independent musicians (even the ones not making profit) to be displayed on their platform rather than paying royalties, which is a pretty much giant ponzi scheme.
This is false.