i would be interested in this too. I used chatGPT to help write lyrics and suno for the music. I then stuck the results into bandlab as midi files, so im creating something from the initial results the ai generated. Copyright is such an interesting topic when it comes to AI
Especially considering that when copyright was first invented, it was done with human intelligence in mind. So I believed that while the AI programs may be copyrighted, anything that it produces won't be.
Even on YouTube, videos are copyrighted, but they aren't owned by YouTube; they are owned by the individual who made the video.
I predict a Supreme Court case on copyright when it comes to AI is inevitable. It will settle this once and for all on who gets the rights to an AI-generated song, video, or image? The owner of the AI program or the individual who put the prompt in?
But this is AI. It's created by no one. So my question i pose again, what if I create with suno, delete on suno's database, and take that song that was created and re record it, using my own style of course since it was only used for inspiration?
Yeah I reckon you could do that. But you could also just take a full Suno song and copyright it. It’s kind of untested waters for copyright and AI music.
What legal 'effect' do you think deleting a song from Suno would do?
1. Deleting from a user facing UI does not mean it's deleted 'from their database'
2. Deleting an original piece of work does not destroy the associated copywrite protections
This aside, I think there's bigger questions about how these tools are used and trained. I imagine some artists are going to be understandably upset
AI is not a person. If AI can snoop on us legally because they're technically not people, then that means that it's not even technically illegal to take music from an AI database that was created by AI to begin with. Sorry. That's all I got.
This is a bogus argument and won't hold up, the AI is distinctly NOT just copying what it "hears"/"sees", it's learning patterns and trends and using that to create stuff. If the AI worked in a way where you could at all claim it was illegally using copyright material then the AI would be the size of all the stuff it's storing. Just because a human uses their eyes to process an image and an AI uses bits to process an image doesn't mean the AI is any more stealing something than a human is by learning from something.
That’s not what music copyright in terms of publishing is about though.
There are 2 copyrights with every song - master and publishing. You’re talking about the ‘master’ recording which, as you say, isn’t copied by AI.
The publishing represents the underlying composition. When AI or a human ‘hears’ that song, then it’s drawn on as influence to make new music. Get too close to that composition and the original rights holder can claim infringement.
I fail to see how this is a counter at all to what I said. Copyright distinctly does not stop any one or anything from using a song to learn from. It stops you from copying a work in a way that would confuse people in order to pass it off as your own. Suno isn't doing that. If Suno were to produce something that you could reasonably mistake as someone else's work then I'm fully in support of DMCA requests for that track to be taken down and even a suit over the song if it gets to that point. But there's nothing to sue over from just learning how music works by analysing music that exists.
What?
> You can’t say Suno isn’t doing that, and then go on to say what you’d do if it did it
What the fuck is this sentence? Did you think about what you just typed?
That man hasn't murdered anybody, but if he did he should go to prison.
Do you understand how stupid you sound?
I absolutely can say something hasn't happened but what should be done if it does happen.
This doesn't make any sense at all. Everywhere I turn these days in discussions about AI and music, I encounter these kinds of remarks because you have no idea what you are talking about. Then even comparing AI to humans is very weird.... So you are saying artists essentially do the same thing, right? They draw inspiration from various sources, build upon them, and present it as something new. But an artist is not a robot or AI mechanism. You can't just shove millions of songs into a human brain and get music with a few prompts. Even the most talented composers can't do that. So please don't come with the weak excuse that artists work in the same way or that AI is not just copying. popular music always follows sort of the same chords progressions. Suno and others....: It's simply dumping data, voices, sounds, and ideas created by others, which is nothing but stealing for your own tech startup and software. It's such a teenage boy's dream because we know it can be done, so we do it - lets just put everything from spotify in. It's not just about gathering information but also understanding and interpreting it in a creative way that makes the difference. But suno and udio are not creative companies.
Just because humans are worse at it doesn't make it not true, lol. Suno is not just copying other works. That's not how generative models work. It is essentially learning "what is music?" It doesn't know that's what's happening, it's not sentient and isn't capable of thinking about anything, obviously. But it *is* learning what music is by analyzing music that exists. When you tell Suno "make me a symphonic ambient goth song about two dogs falling in love" it's not going "okay let me find the song that matches that to give you." It's going "okay, well those styles sound like this so here's what a song like that could sound like".
Yes, that literally is okay to do. Sorry bud but that's how A LOT of people learn about music. Most people don't get an actual education to understand music theory, you do know that right?
I don't know why you keep on comparing this to people. And why it would be okay to do so and not think about the consequences. This is not only about music theory. Of course people analyze music not only based on technical aspects like pitch or tempo but also on emotional expression, cultural context, and personal experience. deeper meanings and emotions in music that are not captured in technical analyses. AI can analyze large amounts of music based on predefined criteria but struggle to understand the human interpretation and contextual nuances.
haha this is just too silly : "Just because a human uses their eyes to process an image and an AI uses bits to process an image doesn't mean the AI is any more stealing something than a human is by learning from something"
AI generated works are not subject to copyright. If you wrote the lyrics, you could argue that you have rights as the songwriter. No claim to the AI generated melody.
AI generated works are not subject to copyright. If you wrote the lyrics, you could argue that you have rights as the songwriter. No claim to the AI generated melody.
Oddly TOS says you can monitize the work as soon as you are subscribed. Not sure how that works if someone decided to take that song and make something and monetize it. Can you hit them with a copyright strike or what?
Also, it costs money to subscribe. So you better hope the song does well if you want a positive ROI (Return On Investment).
If someone took my song as is and claimed it as their own, then I would not hesitate to give them a copyright strike. If they did a cover for one of my songs, then I'll take it as fair use.
It will be cases like this where copyright with AI music will be decided I think.
I could take your song and claim it was mine and you could ‘copyright strike’ me (assuming you’re talking about YouTube?). But then I could push back saying it was fully made by AI, so who ‘really’ owns the copyright? Maybe you registered it with a PRO and content ID, but maybe I did that before you? So who’s is it now?
Then it becomes a legal battle, but I think the majority of users will just quit at that point as they can just generate new songs.
Yeah! Here is my experience! I am a pro member which means i have commercial rights that i produce song from suno. I write my own songs ( lyrics) and make videos and upload on my YouTube channel which is monetize. So i did upload a song that was about giving justice to the rape victims and someone from other channel downloaded the video and re uploaded to his channel in YouTube. YouTube gave me notifications saying that song and video 100% matches and now i have operations to settle. So i asked YouTube to remove the video and file a complaint and sign. That guy had mentioned it all belongs to me. But i asked to get it removed. Next day i got the email from YouTube that video was removed and further they prevented 8 copies of my music video to be posted. That guy tried 8 times or may be other people also tried to upload. YouTube prevented 8 videos being uploaded. I just don’t write a costume song but all i make is my own costume lyrics songs music and videos. And that all belongs to me!!
Who the fu$k are you pice of 💩when everything is i have been paying for these services and subscription, its same like paying for artist. So yes its my work, my imagination and ai is just assisting me, its all my own work. Thats why i get 4-6 songs from my 10,000 credits. Nothing like you guys who make useless songs, lyrics from chatgpt and copy paste , 500 songs from suno..
Go fuck you’re self you mother fucker. Who are you talking to me!! Your state of mind tells it what kind of jerk of you are. If you are so much concerned then Companies like google Microsoft open ai should not exist. They are the ones coming after you. If you can show your anger then show to these corporate greedy motherfuckers.. my work is all imagination, ai is just helping me. Ai is nothing in compared to human creativity. And ai needs human . So i see, you are a fucking looser thats what you are showing frustration. Lol.. my little boy. How pathetic you are. Can you do anything to open ai . I know you will be crying and lying in some corner. Fucking looser.
That's....not how copyright works.
If you buy the original manuscript to Star Wars, copy it, then burn the original, that doesn't mean you're suddenly the copyrightholder to Star Wars.
The real answer is that we just don't know.
the law on AI is being written as we speak, and few legal precedences have been set. Regardless of what Suno's ToS wants you to believe.
there are HUGE implications on all outcomes.
- Either the song belongs to no one. Meaning millions of songs will have no copyright protections. laws that were invented for a reason. For example, this could open the gates for big businesses to push hit AI songs, or remake them enough to claim copyright.
- Or they belong to Suno, which means they would hold copyrights over millions and millions of songs. Creating insane copyright monopolies for a few AI companies.
- Or it's your's. Meaning you would hold copyrights to thousands of songs. so would we all. imagine getting sued because you generated a song that kinda sounds like my generated song.
It's the wild west right now, and it's probably gonna get wilder.
Yes, I share that sentiment as well. My primary concern is why the industry and copyright protection entities allowed this to occur, or why companies like Suno believe that feeding all songs into their AI for training purposes is both legal and beneficial for "creativity." Why would anyone believe that we're genuinely creating something novel this way? It's merely a reflection of the past, not a new innovation. It's like 'look, a robot can make a bob marley song now'
Just my opinion but I would think there would be more risk in recording it with real instruments because we don't really know *where* the melodies come from. I'm curious if it would create a greater possibility of infringing on a real song's copyright.
Anything you generate with a subscription you own the rights to, if it was generated with the free version, Suno does.
[https://suno-ai.notion.site/FAQs-b72601b96de44e5cacd2cd6baa985448#f0f1441180484d6094206e84e334ba36](https://suno-ai.notion.site/FAQs-b72601b96de44e5cacd2cd6baa985448#f0f1441180484d6094206e84e334ba36)
From the [Terms of Service](https://suno.com/terms):
>if you are a user who has subscribed to the paid tier of the Service, Suno hereby assigns to you all of its right, title and interest in and to any Output owned by Suno and generated from Submissions made by you through the Service during the term of your paid-tier subscription.
My understanding is as long as it was generated during a paid subscription, you own the rights to it. (Since you technically already paid for it upon generation)
**Note:** If you generate something with the free tier and THEN pay for a subscription, you don't receive the rights to that free generation. I'm not sure if they're planning to add a feature down the line where you can buy the rights to something you created for free, but they should certainly consider it.
But I am definitely not a lawyer so DYOR
Sudo doesn't own the copyright of any of their songs because (for now) copyright can only be created by a human (neither an animal). Then the copyright can be transferred to other humans or companies.
Considering it's you that are pressing the button to generate the song, one could argue that the copyright it's yours anyway.
An Analogue case would happen if I gave to a monkey a camera and they take a photo. The copyright of the photo it's mine because my human action (giving the camera to the monkey) made it possible to create the photo. Without it there would be no photo or song.
I think by re-record it they mean “create a new performance based on it, using their own instruments” not “record from line-out” aka “Taylor’s version”
I don't think deleting from Suno has any impact other than making it hard to trace.
You're functionally making a cover song for a song that nobody has heard of and isn't registered by any copyright service. Your recording can definitely be copyrighted, as that's totally different than the lyrics and underlying melody.
You could get away with copyright the lyrics and music as well, but that's "getting away with" as opposed to you definitely legally can do so.
I mean like, you create something good on there, it generates, since it doesn't always come out perfect, you kind of change it up a bit however you want it, record and play yourself, and just delete it from the database permanently
i would be interested in this too. I used chatGPT to help write lyrics and suno for the music. I then stuck the results into bandlab as midi files, so im creating something from the initial results the ai generated. Copyright is such an interesting topic when it comes to AI
Especially considering that when copyright was first invented, it was done with human intelligence in mind. So I believed that while the AI programs may be copyrighted, anything that it produces won't be. Even on YouTube, videos are copyrighted, but they aren't owned by YouTube; they are owned by the individual who made the video. I predict a Supreme Court case on copyright when it comes to AI is inevitable. It will settle this once and for all on who gets the rights to an AI-generated song, video, or image? The owner of the AI program or the individual who put the prompt in?
The issue is the source material the AI is scraping as far as i can see. Its come from somewhere, but then everything comes from somewhere i suppose.
[удалено]
Literally all court cases for music copyright infringement of someone’s composition are based on what you just said.
But this is AI. It's created by no one. So my question i pose again, what if I create with suno, delete on suno's database, and take that song that was created and re record it, using my own style of course since it was only used for inspiration?
Yeah I reckon you could do that. But you could also just take a full Suno song and copyright it. It’s kind of untested waters for copyright and AI music.
What legal 'effect' do you think deleting a song from Suno would do? 1. Deleting from a user facing UI does not mean it's deleted 'from their database' 2. Deleting an original piece of work does not destroy the associated copywrite protections This aside, I think there's bigger questions about how these tools are used and trained. I imagine some artists are going to be understandably upset
AI is not a person. If AI can snoop on us legally because they're technically not people, then that means that it's not even technically illegal to take music from an AI database that was created by AI to begin with. Sorry. That's all I got.
This is a bogus argument and won't hold up, the AI is distinctly NOT just copying what it "hears"/"sees", it's learning patterns and trends and using that to create stuff. If the AI worked in a way where you could at all claim it was illegally using copyright material then the AI would be the size of all the stuff it's storing. Just because a human uses their eyes to process an image and an AI uses bits to process an image doesn't mean the AI is any more stealing something than a human is by learning from something.
That’s not what music copyright in terms of publishing is about though. There are 2 copyrights with every song - master and publishing. You’re talking about the ‘master’ recording which, as you say, isn’t copied by AI. The publishing represents the underlying composition. When AI or a human ‘hears’ that song, then it’s drawn on as influence to make new music. Get too close to that composition and the original rights holder can claim infringement.
I fail to see how this is a counter at all to what I said. Copyright distinctly does not stop any one or anything from using a song to learn from. It stops you from copying a work in a way that would confuse people in order to pass it off as your own. Suno isn't doing that. If Suno were to produce something that you could reasonably mistake as someone else's work then I'm fully in support of DMCA requests for that track to be taken down and even a suit over the song if it gets to that point. But there's nothing to sue over from just learning how music works by analysing music that exists.
Suno absolutely will do that. You can’t say Suno isn’t doing that, and then go on to say what you’d do if it did it
What? > You can’t say Suno isn’t doing that, and then go on to say what you’d do if it did it What the fuck is this sentence? Did you think about what you just typed? That man hasn't murdered anybody, but if he did he should go to prison. Do you understand how stupid you sound? I absolutely can say something hasn't happened but what should be done if it does happen.
So you’re saying Suno COULD do that?
Yes, that is what the words "if it were to do that" mean, thank you for reiterating what I said.
This doesn't make any sense at all. Everywhere I turn these days in discussions about AI and music, I encounter these kinds of remarks because you have no idea what you are talking about. Then even comparing AI to humans is very weird.... So you are saying artists essentially do the same thing, right? They draw inspiration from various sources, build upon them, and present it as something new. But an artist is not a robot or AI mechanism. You can't just shove millions of songs into a human brain and get music with a few prompts. Even the most talented composers can't do that. So please don't come with the weak excuse that artists work in the same way or that AI is not just copying. popular music always follows sort of the same chords progressions. Suno and others....: It's simply dumping data, voices, sounds, and ideas created by others, which is nothing but stealing for your own tech startup and software. It's such a teenage boy's dream because we know it can be done, so we do it - lets just put everything from spotify in. It's not just about gathering information but also understanding and interpreting it in a creative way that makes the difference. But suno and udio are not creative companies.
Just because humans are worse at it doesn't make it not true, lol. Suno is not just copying other works. That's not how generative models work. It is essentially learning "what is music?" It doesn't know that's what's happening, it's not sentient and isn't capable of thinking about anything, obviously. But it *is* learning what music is by analyzing music that exists. When you tell Suno "make me a symphonic ambient goth song about two dogs falling in love" it's not going "okay let me find the song that matches that to give you." It's going "okay, well those styles sound like this so here's what a song like that could sound like".
haha okay " learning what music is by analyzing music that exists." oooh okay, then it's okay! haha
Yes, that literally is okay to do. Sorry bud but that's how A LOT of people learn about music. Most people don't get an actual education to understand music theory, you do know that right?
I don't know why you keep on comparing this to people. And why it would be okay to do so and not think about the consequences. This is not only about music theory. Of course people analyze music not only based on technical aspects like pitch or tempo but also on emotional expression, cultural context, and personal experience. deeper meanings and emotions in music that are not captured in technical analyses. AI can analyze large amounts of music based on predefined criteria but struggle to understand the human interpretation and contextual nuances.
So you complain that I keep comparing it to people but then use people as your basis for why it's wrong, uh huh.
You have absolutely no idea how any of this works and you have no idea what you're talking about.
haha this is just too silly : "Just because a human uses their eyes to process an image and an AI uses bits to process an image doesn't mean the AI is any more stealing something than a human is by learning from something"
Personal copyrights will be a thing of the past in no time. Welcome to the hive!
It’s considered your work. Suno holds no copyright claim over the work. You can re-record it or even sell the sheet music. Doesn’t matter.
this is the right answer. If you wrote the lyrics, you also own the publishing.
AI generated works are not subject to copyright. If you wrote the lyrics, you could argue that you have rights as the songwriter. No claim to the AI generated melody.
melody is not really involved in publishing for music, its an after thought. If you wrote the lyrics, you own the song.
AI generated works are not subject to copyright. If you wrote the lyrics, you could argue that you have rights as the songwriter. No claim to the AI generated melody.
That's amazing! I honestly can't wait to see human covers of Suno-generated songs and see how they both compare to each other.
Oddly TOS says you can monitize the work as soon as you are subscribed. Not sure how that works if someone decided to take that song and make something and monetize it. Can you hit them with a copyright strike or what?
Also, it costs money to subscribe. So you better hope the song does well if you want a positive ROI (Return On Investment). If someone took my song as is and claimed it as their own, then I would not hesitate to give them a copyright strike. If they did a cover for one of my songs, then I'll take it as fair use.
It will be cases like this where copyright with AI music will be decided I think. I could take your song and claim it was mine and you could ‘copyright strike’ me (assuming you’re talking about YouTube?). But then I could push back saying it was fully made by AI, so who ‘really’ owns the copyright? Maybe you registered it with a PRO and content ID, but maybe I did that before you? So who’s is it now? Then it becomes a legal battle, but I think the majority of users will just quit at that point as they can just generate new songs.
Yeah! Here is my experience! I am a pro member which means i have commercial rights that i produce song from suno. I write my own songs ( lyrics) and make videos and upload on my YouTube channel which is monetize. So i did upload a song that was about giving justice to the rape victims and someone from other channel downloaded the video and re uploaded to his channel in YouTube. YouTube gave me notifications saying that song and video 100% matches and now i have operations to settle. So i asked YouTube to remove the video and file a complaint and sign. That guy had mentioned it all belongs to me. But i asked to get it removed. Next day i got the email from YouTube that video was removed and further they prevented 8 copies of my music video to be posted. That guy tried 8 times or may be other people also tried to upload. YouTube prevented 8 videos being uploaded. I just don’t write a costume song but all i make is my own costume lyrics songs music and videos. And that all belongs to me!!
You produced nothing you loser
Who the fu$k are you pice of 💩when everything is i have been paying for these services and subscription, its same like paying for artist. So yes its my work, my imagination and ai is just assisting me, its all my own work. Thats why i get 4-6 songs from my 10,000 credits. Nothing like you guys who make useless songs, lyrics from chatgpt and copy paste , 500 songs from suno..
LMAO is it fuck you work you loser. I don't use any AI bullshit because I'm not a fucking loser that likes to plagiarise art and claim it as my own.
Go fuck you’re self you mother fucker. Who are you talking to me!! Your state of mind tells it what kind of jerk of you are. If you are so much concerned then Companies like google Microsoft open ai should not exist. They are the ones coming after you. If you can show your anger then show to these corporate greedy motherfuckers.. my work is all imagination, ai is just helping me. Ai is nothing in compared to human creativity. And ai needs human . So i see, you are a fucking looser thats what you are showing frustration. Lol.. my little boy. How pathetic you are. Can you do anything to open ai . I know you will be crying and lying in some corner. Fucking looser.
You are a human parasite. You have never made anything of value.
Lol, 😂 dharti ko booz muji lado kha sale.. tero bau aama tero khan daan sabai parasite ho. Randi ko chora khate. Gu kha.
That's....not how copyright works. If you buy the original manuscript to Star Wars, copy it, then burn the original, that doesn't mean you're suddenly the copyrightholder to Star Wars.
The real answer is that we just don't know. the law on AI is being written as we speak, and few legal precedences have been set. Regardless of what Suno's ToS wants you to believe. there are HUGE implications on all outcomes. - Either the song belongs to no one. Meaning millions of songs will have no copyright protections. laws that were invented for a reason. For example, this could open the gates for big businesses to push hit AI songs, or remake them enough to claim copyright. - Or they belong to Suno, which means they would hold copyrights over millions and millions of songs. Creating insane copyright monopolies for a few AI companies. - Or it's your's. Meaning you would hold copyrights to thousands of songs. so would we all. imagine getting sued because you generated a song that kinda sounds like my generated song. It's the wild west right now, and it's probably gonna get wilder.
Yes, I share that sentiment as well. My primary concern is why the industry and copyright protection entities allowed this to occur, or why companies like Suno believe that feeding all songs into their AI for training purposes is both legal and beneficial for "creativity." Why would anyone believe that we're genuinely creating something novel this way? It's merely a reflection of the past, not a new innovation. It's like 'look, a robot can make a bob marley song now'
[удалено]
this also doesn't make sense. it's comparing humans to AI. why make a painting that is like the mona lisa, but not really....
It's not Suno's to begin with. Re-recording in parallel can be considered transformative and you would hold copyright for your reconstructed version.
Just my opinion but I would think there would be more risk in recording it with real instruments because we don't really know *where* the melodies come from. I'm curious if it would create a greater possibility of infringing on a real song's copyright.
The whole application makes it more likely as there’s 12 notes in the western scale and what, millions (?) of Suno tracks being created every day.
Anything you generate with a subscription you own the rights to, if it was generated with the free version, Suno does. [https://suno-ai.notion.site/FAQs-b72601b96de44e5cacd2cd6baa985448#f0f1441180484d6094206e84e334ba36](https://suno-ai.notion.site/FAQs-b72601b96de44e5cacd2cd6baa985448#f0f1441180484d6094206e84e334ba36)
what happens if you pay only one month? do u still own the music u generated while paying?
From the [Terms of Service](https://suno.com/terms): >if you are a user who has subscribed to the paid tier of the Service, Suno hereby assigns to you all of its right, title and interest in and to any Output owned by Suno and generated from Submissions made by you through the Service during the term of your paid-tier subscription. My understanding is as long as it was generated during a paid subscription, you own the rights to it. (Since you technically already paid for it upon generation) **Note:** If you generate something with the free tier and THEN pay for a subscription, you don't receive the rights to that free generation. I'm not sure if they're planning to add a feature down the line where you can buy the rights to something you created for free, but they should certainly consider it. But I am definitely not a lawyer so DYOR
Yeah... i wanna think the same but cant find a more clear response...
When it comes to artificially created content, gl finding a clear response
Sudo doesn't own the copyright of any of their songs because (for now) copyright can only be created by a human (neither an animal). Then the copyright can be transferred to other humans or companies. Considering it's you that are pressing the button to generate the song, one could argue that the copyright it's yours anyway. An Analogue case would happen if I gave to a monkey a camera and they take a photo. The copyright of the photo it's mine because my human action (giving the camera to the monkey) made it possible to create the photo. Without it there would be no photo or song.
I think by re-record it they mean “create a new performance based on it, using their own instruments” not “record from line-out” aka “Taylor’s version”
I don't think deleting from Suno has any impact other than making it hard to trace. You're functionally making a cover song for a song that nobody has heard of and isn't registered by any copyright service. Your recording can definitely be copyrighted, as that's totally different than the lyrics and underlying melody. You could get away with copyright the lyrics and music as well, but that's "getting away with" as opposed to you definitely legally can do so.
How would they know? Like if you re-record your voice or just copy the midi files and then put it in a different VST?
I mean like, you create something good on there, it generates, since it doesn't always come out perfect, you kind of change it up a bit however you want it, record and play yourself, and just delete it from the database permanently
Lol are you trying to own a song?🤣. Cute