AI MUSIC
全文共2192字，阅读约需7分钟
最近，一首名为"Heart on My Sleeve "的歌曲火遍了各大流媒体和社交媒体平台。乐迷们难以置信：它用AI模拟流行歌手Drake和The Weeknd的嗓音，甚至超过了真人艺术家的水准。
Music fans responded with disbelief these days to the release on streaming and social media platforms of the viral song "Heart on My Sleeve." The track, which uses artificial intelligence to simulate the music of pop stars Drake and The Weeknd, even surpasses the real pop stars' talents.
想听AI唱歌吗？
点击聆听AI版"Heart on My Sleeve "👇
Q1
#AI作曲侵犯著作权？#
##在这首AI版的"Heart on My Sleeve "一炮走红之后，Drake和The Weeknd的经纪公司环球音乐集团(Universal Music Group)紧急援引版权法，要求各平台下架相关作品。下图一为说唱歌手Drake（外号“公鸭”）在演出（图源：CNN）下图二为The Weeknd（原名Abęl Makkonen Tesfaye，外号“盆栽哥”）（图源：Entertainment Weekly）
该公司认为，使用Drake和The Weeknd的声音训练生成型人工智能(generative AI) "违反了版权法。" 并且，流媒体平台有 "法律和道德责任来阻止其服务对艺术家造成伤害"。
The label argued the training of a generative AI using the voices of Drake and The Weeknd was “a violation of copyright law." The company added that streaming platforms had a "legal and ethical responsibility to prevent the use of their services in ways that harm artists."
##在接到投诉后，Apple Music、Spotify、YouTube和TikTok等平台相继撤下了这首歌曲。
在被下架之前，AI版"Heart on My Sleeve "的播放量超过60万次，做到了真正意义上的大火。在创作者Ghostwriter977首次上传这首歌的地方——TikTok上，用户收听的次数超过了1500万。
Before it was removed from Spotify, “Heart on My Sleeve” was a bonafide hit. People streamed the track more than 600,000 times. On TikTok, where the creator of the song, the aptly named Ghostwriter977, first uploaded it, users listened to “Heart on My Sleeve” more than 15 million times.
views
YouTube评论区截图，有人称AI版“比真人Drake唱得更好(better than real drake)”
Q2
#AI的创作版权归谁#
##如果说仅仅让AI模拟某个人类歌手的声音不足以获得版权保护，那么，怎样才能让AI生成的作品享有版权呢？
（AI作曲，图源：www.electronicbeats.net）
美国版权局(the U.S. Copyright Office)已经就AI相关的作品做出了决定。"法律规定，作者必须是人类，"娱乐业律师Craig Averill说。"不能完全由计算机生成。"
The U.S. Copyright Office has issued decisions around AI-related works. “The author has to be a human as the law stands," entertainment lawyer Craig Averill said. "It can't be completely computer-generated."
Averill说，人类究竟需要参与到什么程度，才能让AI生成的音乐作品具有版权？这个问题尚无清晰答案。而且，如果版权拥有者不是人类，那又是谁呢？
But Averill said dizzying questions remain about the amount of human intervention needed to make AI-generated musical works copyrightable. And if the face of the work isn't a human, then who's the copyright holder?
美国法院尚未明确对此做出回应，但版权局已经界定了一些基本准则。人工智能倡导者Steven Thaler申请获得AI生成艺术品的版权，但被三次驳回。当局认为该作品不是 "在人类作者的帮助下创作的"，因此不满足必须有人类作者的要求。
U.S. courts have yet to answer this question decisively. The Copyright Office has drawn some basic boundary lines. AI-advocate Steven Thaler filed a copyright application for AI-generated artwork. The Board rejected his applications three times, finding that the artwork was not “created with contribution from a human author” and thus failed to meet the human authorship requirement.
然而，David Cope 1997年的作品” Classical Music Composed by Computer”（以及他2010年的专辑” From Darkness, Light”）则获得了版权保护。这是因为Cope成功地证明了他的作品只是部分运用了人工智能，本质上仍是充分的人类创意投入的产物。
Conversely, copyright protection was afforded to David Cope’s 1997 work Classical Music Composed by Computer (and, again, to his 2010 album From Darkness, Light). Cope successfully demonstrated that his works only partially used AI and were the result of sufficient human creative input and intervention.
（David Cope是一位美国作家、作曲家、科学家兼音乐教授。他主要研究人工智能和音乐，通过作曲家创造力和计算机算法之间的协同，生成音乐作品。图源：维基百科）
在没有明确规范来界定用户需要介入多少的情况下，每个作品都必须得到单独评估——这是一个关于具体程度的问题。就惯例而言，人类参与越多，人工智能作为工具（而不是作为创作者）被使用的越多，申请版权保护的理由就越充分。仅仅向AI输入 "创作一首听起来像The Weeknd的歌曲 "是不够的。
In the absence of bright line rules for ascertaining how much input or intervention by an AI’s user is needed, each work must be individually evaluated. It is a question of degree. Under traditional principles, the more human involvement, and the more AI is used as a tool (and not as the creator), the stronger the case for copyright protection. A song created with the prompt: “create a song that sounds like The Weeknd” will not suffice.
（David Cope 作品mv）
但是，如果一项版权申请：①能够证明其中的人工智能由人类控制，②记录了人类在创作过程中的具体投入，则它更有可能通过。
But a copyright application which both: (i) demonstrates that a human controlled the AI and (ii) memorializes the specific human input in the creative process is more likely to succeed.
Q3
#AI作品能被称为艺术吗#
##除了版权问题，AI创作还引发了人们对艺术本质的思考。很多人指出AI只能机械性地解析并模拟某位歌手的声音，所谓的AI作曲也常常显得诚意有余、惊喜不足。至少就当下而言，AI还是很难像人类历史上那些伟大的艺术家一样，在作品中融入灵感迸发、酣畅淋漓的激情与想象。
创作歌手兼配音演员Dan Navarro说："（AI创作可能带来的）危险其一是艺术标准的降低——直至真假不分、中庸万岁。"那时商业音乐就会像“黑色食物”*一样；可以维持生命，但永远不能令人真正满足。"
"One danger is the lowering of artistic standards to a point where fake becomes real and mediocrity rules," said singer-songwriter and voice actor Dan Navarro. "Then commercial music becomes like brown-food-product*; able to sustain life, but never truly satisfy."
译注：brown-food-product，指“黑色食物”，如木耳，黑豆，紫菜等，它们往往热量低且不饱腹，只能维持营养。
最近，为跟上技术进步的步伐，多位娱乐业人士联合起来，发起了“人类艺术运动(Human Artistry Campaign)”。Navarro正是该组织的一员。
（“人类艺术运动”在举行会谈，图源：npr）
Navarro说："‘人类艺术运动’的既定目标是强调人类艺术才能和创意的独特价值，特别是在技术和机会主义*创造了一种冲突、误用甚至滥用的风气时。我希望看到一套具有法律效力的、人人同意的准则，以便艺术家、音乐产业、流媒体服务和观众能够了解什么是可以做的、什么是不被允许的。”
"The Human Artistry Campaign's stated goal is to underscore the unique value of human artistry and human creation, especially as technology and opportunism create a culture for conflict and misuse and even abuse," Navarro said. "I'd like to see a set of agreed principles with legal teeth so that artists, the music industry, streaming services, and audiences can understand what is — and is not — allowed."
译注：opportunism，即机会主义。指利用不公平的情形为自己谋利，而不考虑是否影响他人的行为。
思考：你认为AI生成的音乐作品是艺术吗？为什么呢？在评论区分享一下吧！
重点词汇
1.aptly
adv.恰当地，贴切地
He was aptly described as 'tall, dark, and handsome'.
他被恰如其分地描述为“高大黝黑、相貌堂堂”。
2.prompt
n.（给演员的）提词；（计算机屏幕上显示准备接受指令的）提示； 鼓励，催促；（付款通知单上的）付款期限
3.mediocrity
n.平庸之才；平常
•His acting career started brilliantly, then sank into mediocrity. 他的演艺生涯开场时轰轰烈烈，然后就变得庸庸碌碌。
原文链接：
https://www.billboard.com/pro/ai-generated-music-songs-copyright-legal-questions-ownership/
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/21/1171032649/ai-music-heart-on-my-sleeve-drake-the-weeknd
https://www.engadget.com/copyright-in-spotlight-after-streaming-platforms-pull-ai-generated-drake-song-183513972.html
——END——