The computer proved to be extremely helpful from the early stages on its inception. It was widely used. AI for the arts and music in general is a fad.
No, it is not easier.
The problem we are facing isn’t at the bottom end of the scale it is where the money is where we stand a chance of getting paid for the work we do. That’s where the risk lies.
Your argument seems to be that only at the lower end of the spectrum will people use AI because AI can’t contribute to a successful movie at the higher levels.
That really just boils down to “This is the way it is now, and therefore it will be so in the future” as if AI never will improve. But look at AI created “art” five years ago and compare that to today, then extrapolate that to where we’ll be in 2030.
Not only do you seem to think progress is not exponential but linear, you don’t even seem to think there will be progress at all. That is a very ‘dangerous’ mindset.
You saying it is a fad does not make it a fad.
AI is already extremely helpful, just like the computer was early on. The only question is at which point in time it reaches any given profession and task.
In your reasoning I see no argument that points to the (assumed) limits of technology itself to do what some of us are afraid of, just ‘your word’.
If we go back a decade do you think artists would have thought AI could win a photo competition?
Red Lobster Drops Cheddar Bay-A Soundtrack for Biscuits (digitalmusicnews.com)
Lionsgate Inks AI Deal With Runway to Train Model on Films and Shows (hollywoodreporter.com)
From that second article:
"The deal will see Runway train a new AI model on Lionsgate’s film and TV library as the entertainment company uses the tech “to develop cutting-edge, capital-efficient content creation opportunities.”
Imagine having all of Lionsgate’s movies and TV content and just running an AI on all of that. You don’t think they’ll eventually will have figured out just what is commercially successful in terms of music? And you think they won’t then use AI to create new content eventually?
And this is just Lionsgate.
Hi, I was talking about library music that film companies use to avoid hiring composers. I wasn’t talking about AI.
Image-based work in all its forms is a completely defenseless industry and has been decimated because of this fact.
Music is the complete opposite. It has strict copyright rules, and music copyright societies worldwide make hundreds of millions every year in intellectual property.
I have zero concerns about the use of AI in music because I deal with this industry daily, there is no chance AI-based music will take over and will be a danger to composers.
Fair enough.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but copyrights are protecting copyrighted works in order to make it possible to profit from the material that is actually copyrighted, right? So the whole point of copyrighting music is to profit from the music.
That is not the goal of movie and TV content owners though. Their goal is to make money from the movie or TV show one way or another. Granted, if they actually make a profit off of the music specifically then I can see how it matters, but that would entail revenue from what, streaming soundtracks on Spotify? How much is that going to be?
In other words unless there is legislation against not using a human composer it will be a simple calculation of what is more profitable;
AI composer (lowers music revenue to zero, but also lowers costs) or
Human composer (guaranteed cost for only potential revenue).
Risk vs. Reward
Famous last words.
I’ll bet you $100 the industry will see the low-end through the middle hollowed out and replaced by AI in 6 years time.
Bookmark this post.
Yes, many, but not all producers are like that.
Yes, and this is exactly what I am doing, if you read my other posts earlier in this thread. I am also working a lot more in theatre now, where, at least so far, there is little interest in AI composers.
A click on my profile pic will tell you that I am in Norway. 
The Musician’s Union is surely to protect the interests of performing musicians, yes? Don’t you have a separate union or association for composers and songwriters? Some countries like Denmark even have their own association for film composers. I have only good things to say about these associations. In my experience they are easy to get in touch with, talk to, and actually make something happen. Maybe the nordic countries are more transparent in that way, I would not know. But have you tried contacting them, getting together with some other composers, ask for a meeting with your association, voice your opinion, give some suggestions and try to get things done? It might work.
I’m afraid you are right of course, but I’m still not giving up. 
I wish you were right, but it is already taking over, and is already a danger, just like library music before it. I have composer friends who have already lost composing gigs in favour of AI music.
EDIT: These are not big motion picture gigs like you are talking about in your next comment. I hope you are right that will remain a safer area.
Hey, no bets. If this happens, I will happily leave the industry and do something else. I am fulfilled with the career and opportunities I had so far.
Regarding how things work and why I know that using AI in film scores, as such eliminating the composer is an impossibility, this is a very long explanation, and forgive me for not elaborating 100% but I will do my best to summarise.
The issue starts with Film Production Companies. They simply cannot be open to any possibility of lawsuits coming from any third parties.
The scores they use for their films will have to be original so that they will receive 100% of their publishing, or whatever deal they make with the composer they have commissioned, and their originality will also keep them indemnified against any lawsuits against copyrights.
The composer is liable for such lawsuits, but the companies are not 100% immune, and this makes them nervous.
As such, agreements are heavy, in some cases suffocating, robust, and watertight.
In addition, all streaming services demand to know that the soundtracks of said films have 100% ownership agreements, that the composer has been paid, and that there is no chance that a 3rd party will sue said distribution company or the composer will have the right to remove the film in question from streaming services, and to take a court order to remove the film from cinemas.
I have come across a situation, whereby a zero-budget film was to be streamed by a tiny streaming service, and the only thing left to give them was my teeth and fingerprints as proof that the music was original. And that was a tiny streaming service, for a zero-budget film…
In short, this is an extremely guarded area of filmmaking. The score will HAVE to be original. Not only for the reasons I mentioned above, but also because publishing is extremely profitable.
The company will HAVE to own the soundtrack in order to exploit its publishing, phonographic, and any other exploitations in connection to the film.
Nobody knows how AI works and no company worth its weight will sign an agreement with some company that nobody knows how it works under the bonnet. A company will want to own its copyrights in a 100% capacity, for that, and many, many other reasons, it is impossible to get rid of composers and have an AI program or company to create an original score for film production companies.
1 Like
No , it’s all under one umbrella. PRS/MCPS is the society for publishing. Musician’s Union is for all musicians.
The film your friend lost to “AI” will enjoy $1.60 in returns. Tell your mate to not sweat it.
Hey, I am not talking about blockbusters here. These are low to mid-budget movies I am talking about here…
For high-budget films? Forget it, you can’t even use ANYTHING slightly pre-recorded.
For film studios publishing music rights is extremely profitable? Do you have examples of this?
I should have been clearer, it was not a feature film at all. I believe it was a series of TV commercials, or something in that regard. Not really an artistic statement, but exactly the kind of gig that used to provide decent pay, which we therefore needed in addition to the “artistic statement” gigs (like feature film and theatre scores).
1 Like
I am a middle-sized composer and I am making a comfortable living from publishing. Would you like a printout of my bank account?
Do you think WB and the lot don’t make a killing with publishing? If this wasn’t the case, publishing companies and music publishing organizations that are in connection to film music would have shut down, a very long time ago.
Good God man, don’t get me started with commercials…I left that industry a long time ago.
A total joke. I wish I could share some of the musical directions I used to get, we could all do with a good laugh…
I believe it is fairly common for film production companies now to share the PRO publishing rights with the composer. Myself in my nordic mindset, I find this horrendous, as this is a vital part of the composer’s own income. It’s our money! In Norway we are not having any of it!
(Although, if this can actually be a way to turn the producers against AI music, maybe it’s not such a bad idea after all… 
)
Hahaha, I know. I once delivered a sketch and got the feedback from the client that it was a bit “too much minor keys”. Spoiler alert: Every chord was a major chord. You have to read minds. Sometimes you just have to say “uh huh”, and do whatever. These people just have to feel like they are making an important contribution, when in reality they are just obstacles and nothing they say make any kind of sense.
Another composer friend got a feedback on a TV commercial that was a real letdown, like “no no no, this doesn’t work at all”. He took the exact same master stereo WAV file, turned it up 3 dB, sent it back, and the response? “YES!!! NOW IT’S PERFECT!!!”
Joking aside, my point is that for many of us, at least here, we can’t live off the “artistic statement” gigs alone. Sometimes the rare TV commercial or reality TV jingle is what makes the wheels go round. That where AI could be a real threat.
1 Like
The best one I received was " NOT TOO PLINCKY PLONCKY!!!"
I’m sorry to hear that… Commercial companies are notorious for trying to not hire a composer. I have a mate that worked in the industry for years. I have heard horror stories, he too had to leave that side of the industry.
1 Like
This is one of the issues, I did my best to explain. If you would like to insist and defend this thing, be my guest, but I am personally really bored with AI.
You’re the creator so obviously under the current system you make money. That’s not the point. The question is where your money is coming from.
You already made the point that music needs to be copyrighted and that is true historically. Since music has historically been created by humans it follows that obviously some sort of business entity will exist to manage that.
What I am saying however is that if you have for example a WB title with a revenue of $200m then where is that money coming from and how is it apportioned? Seems to me most likely it’ll come from box office and streaming of the movie. Most people aren’t going to stream that music (or yours) on Spotify unless they’re literally “songs” which is a slightly different matter and point.
Pretend for a second that I watch two movies that I like, both made by WB, one with AI music and one with music made by you:
The movie with your music gets the same share of revenue from me as does the movie with AI music. The revenue stream to the owner of the movie/IP has not changed because of AI. For the movie that you scored there is now a slice that has to be taken out of what I pay that goes to you. For the movie that has AI music that is no longer true, but I still pay the same.
Where would that money go?
1 Like
The AI music will be licensed because it is not original. It will not be owned by the company.
Publishing will not be where the company wants it to be. And it is not only coming from streaming and Spotify.
Film companies need to own the music in its entirety for exploitation purposes.
I explained all that. In any case, publishing is only one of the issues, there are many more.
Why are you defending AI?
1: It doesn’t matter if the company owns the music as long as
a) nobody else can profit from it, and
b) nobody else can prevent its use
2: You keep talking about owning the music, but on that second point above there is also the future in which the studios themselves have access to AI to create the music. Nobody owns it, but they created it, can anyone else prevent them from using it?
Where else is movie music revenue coming from?
Where did you get that from? You’re not thinking clearly.
I’m against AI.
I believe @somecomposer is talking about royalty income from performing rights, and/or synchronisation rights. In Norway this is all a part of the royalty from the PRO. At least here, these are royalties that belong to the composer only, and a vital part of our income (in my case they are maybe half my income).
If the composer has a publishing deal with an actual publisher, then the publisher gets a share of these royalties. But, importantly, that is because the publisher actually is doing a job getting this money in the first place. Therefore, when film production companies suddenly start claiming a 33% or even a 50% percentage of the publishing rights in their contracts, without actually doing any publishing work to get it, we are protesting that. As long as they are not doing actual publishing work that benefits the composer, they should not be able to claim these rights.
In other countries I know this differs, and the work-for-hire fee is probably higher, making the production companies justify this claim more easily. I guess their argument would also be that without their production, there would not be any publishing rights in the first place, so that they have a right to claim it. In my nordic mindset this all feels strange, and is closer to a “buy-out” policy that we in the nordic countries are strictly against.
1 Like
Buy Outs are prohibited in the UK as per the agreements with the Performance Rights Society. Performance rights are heavily defended.
Good to hear.
1 Like