[kuschku]

Every single person who had rights on the sources for audio you used.

For the same reason, Google training neural networks with userdata is very legally doubtful – they changed the ToS, but also used data collected before the ToS change for that.

[feral]

>Every single person who had rights on the sources for audio you used.

What if my 'AI' was a human who learned to speak by being trained with the voices of hundreds of people from dozens of other sources? What's the difference?

Those waters seem muddy. I think that'd be an interesting copyright case, don't think it's self evident.

[kuschku]

So if I remix just 200 songs together, the result is not copyright protected anymore?

[noonespecial]

No its not like remixing. Its more like listening to 200 songs and then writing one that sounds just like them.

More like turning the songs into series of numbers (say 44100 of these numbers per second) and then using an AI to predict which number comes next to make a song that sounds something like the 200. The result is not possible without ingesting the 200 songs but the 200 songs are not "contained" in the net and then sampled to produce the result like stitching together a recoding from other recordings by copying little bits.

The hairs split too fine at the bottom for our current legal system to really handle. That's why its interesting.

[kuschku]

In the US legal system, that’d still be a derived work.

This might be an interesting read for you: http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23