22/06/2025
There’s a lot of talk these days about legislation related to AI. And yes, of course people should be compensated if their rights are used in training or analysis for machines that then end up copying. Back in the pre-AI/ML days, the line between copying and inspiration was a bit more fluid. If something sounded similar or looked alike, people would discuss and evaluate whether it was too close.
The thing is, with AI/ML, we can actually train machines not to resemble existing material. And if we’re talking about music, composition is already heavily tied to the 12-tone system we usually work with (there are other systems too, like the 19-tone scale, the 31-tone system, and others).
We just need to be careful that no one suddenly claims to “own” C major, or the title “I love you”, or the color blue, or even an exclamation mark – that would paralyze the entire creative field. Of course there should be consequences for plagiarism, but in the past, artists were inspired – maybe by someone else – and then created their own version. And it was up to the audience to decide if it was too close or just reminiscent of “that guy.”
AI will definitely create hits – no doubt! But in the end, it’s still the audience who decides. It’s all about supply and demand. I know that many in the industry – mostly those who don’t really contribute much beyond paperwork and talk – are worried. And probably for good reason: they’re about to become redundant.
Who really wants to pay a travel agency these days just to book a flight or hotel? We do it ourselves – easily and quickly. And if it works, we keep doing it. If we need help, we pay a bureau or something similar. Music is a bit the same. Turn on the radio or Spotify if you “just want to hear something” – or buy it if you want something special. I don’t think AI will change that.
And I’m not sure we need more laws. You’re not allowed to steal from others – I’m pretty sure that’s already written down somewhere!
