[berkeleymalagon]

I’m one of the co-founders of Audialab, the company behind this tech. We packaged it up into a plug-in called “Emergent Drums”.

If you’re curious, our original generative models used GANs, and we’re incorporating diffusion approaches now.

Drums are the start - we’re currently training models for instruments, synths, vox, foley, etc.

[CrypticShift]

As a Musician, I'll be more interested in style transfer: You give it a snare (or a multitrack drum loop !), and you tell it to generate a related hit-hat (or a complete kit !)

There is no shortage of samples and sample packs (millions), and most pros are picky : context in king, and style transfer is more contextual.

For instruments/synths/vox, "playability" is important, so the best approach IMO is cloning a sample to playable Midi instrument like midi-ddsp, midi2params or Mawf

[thewebcount]

Have you tried out Logic’s drummers? They aren’t style transfer per se, but they are AI that drums in a particular style, and you can control how it works.

[CrypticShift]

Only seen it on YouTube. Yes This is still generation, but I like the level of control. If Emergent Drums have this degree of parametric adjustment (I did not test it) it could be useful (to me).

[sowbug]

It's unusual to use the term "royalty-free" for a music-creation tool. That term is usually used for purchases of sample libraries, where the seller retains the copyright. It's a given that you own the things you create with a tool, so saying they're royalty-free is superfluous.

I couldn't find a license or terms of service on the website, so I must ask: who owns the copyright on the generated samples?

[leereeves]

This is all so new the law hasn't caught up yet. No one knows who (if anyone) will end up with copyright on AI generated art.

Perhaps "royalty-free" are the terms they're offering if the law does eventually allow an AI (or its creators) to own a copyright.

[sowbug]

I see where you're going, but I don't see the legal issue as relevant to my question. The answer I was hoping for was that the company makes no claim toward any rights that may exist in the work the tool generates. That way, regardless of how the law treats generated art, the company won't end up with rights in stuff that their customers made. Compare "royalty-free," which implies the company retains everything except a claim for royalties.

It's too bad the cofounder hasn't answered.