No.22442
That’s a new low for Youtube. Really garbage.
I suppose their automatic filtering will only look for covers of human/mainstream songs? How fucked would it be if you couldn’t post an ITAU cover of a Vocaloid song?
No.22444
>>22442What i wonder is if this will affect big artists that already use AI vocals in their songs. For example Kanye West has that Vultures 2 album where half of the songs have an AI filter over them that sounds like shit (vidrel).
Probably not though, it's always the indie artists that get fucked over.
No.22445
>>22444Didn't this guy go independent after his schizo episode that caused him to get dropped off all the major labels and brand deals?
But either way i doubt it's gonna affect any major artists, this shit sucks man
No.22448
This is strange. Didn't Youtube celebrate Hatsune Miku just a few months ago with a special banner, and now they wanna ban Vocaloid music?. It must be a mistake.
No.22449
>>22442Universal is copyright claiming them, at least. Not sure about anyone else yet. If it's just them, we can probably withstand it.
Also, insanely hypocritical move for a company that literally owns multiple voicebanks lmao
No.22450
>>22449I'm willing to bet that this is just a mistake on their end. Otherwise we are facing a potential "second disappearance of Hatsune Miku"
No.22451
The paranoid AI anon on the other thread was right
No.22452
https://x.com/marsmaae/status/2037240651750748238https://nitter.net/marsmaae/status/2037240651750748238>YouTube, at Universal's insistence, notified me via email that [UMG?] now remove any cover with a synthetic voice, regardless of whether it's generative AI or a voice synthesizer. In two weeks, they removed at least eight of my videos and I received two strikes;Doesn't look like this is YouTube policy; just Universal Music Group exercising their intellectual property rights, at the expense of ordinary people who just want to enjoy art.
I think we all should all try to relax until we receive further information. I would be interested in seeing that email, it might clarify if YouTube helped to facilitate the take downs by automatically detecting the voice synthesizer, or if this was done entirely by UMG.
No.22453
>>22452Is this affecting any vocal synths in particular (aside from MAIKA)? Because if it also affects user made ones such as UTAU and DiffSinger it's gonna suck
No.22467
>>22452so it's just for songs with the label umg?
No.22470
>>22467Doesn't seem like it, see
>>22465 No.22474
Can’t wait for the random assholes to walk in and call all vocaloids AIs. Awful situation. Covers from me but not for thee is also pretty rich coming from umg.
No.22482
>>22476They have Arsloid and the private hide voicebank, plus the private Yumi Arai SynthV bank from less than a year ago
No.22484
Just get producers to launch lawsuits.
No.22486
Not the first I've heard of this happening. IIRC, UMG did a big wave of takedowns in early 2024-ish when those AI Spongebob covers were unavoidable. Now you don't really see that kind of thing unless it's someone making their own songs that way, or from some kids show nobody watched or whatever.
"Bu-but Vocaloids are ethical, and those aren't! Why are they targeting us!?"
Music companies are anal. Doesn't matter if you've bought the license for your voicebank, or you're some AI bro cashing in on some barely-changed wavelengths, or you're just making a mashup with an Idolmaster song for shits and giggles. If they perceive any threat to their revenue, including to but not limited to "Hatsune Miku pissed in my cereal", they'll have a meltdown. The good news is they will tire out eventually, so if there's a massive wave of takedowns right now, any manual moderation behind it will relax when they aren't seeing the same amount of "AI-Generated Covers" as they did when they started.
But to be a bit more constructive, it might be a good idea to watch for patterns regarding which songs are getting hit. The chart KAISKE's made is a start, but I'm curious to see whether factors like language (are EN songs getting hit more?) or genre (not only due to the exceptions with the sub-labels, but whether making a cover in a different genre from the original) impacts anything.
No.22487
>>22486Does this mean it could affect human/band covers as well?
No.22489
>>22452If UMG claims copyright infringement, YouTube has to take down the claimed material, full stop, unless the uploader files a counter claim which gets the content restored in two weeks. YouTube has no say and they will never have any say with the way the DMCA's safe harbor is structured.
YouTube's entire free upload structure also depends on satisfying labels like UMG. It's the reason Content ID fingerprinting exists after Viacom gave them the business, and also why anyone people can do malicious things like claim something under the public domain and send out a bunch of false DMCA claims.
To the point: YouTube will always be "facilitating" false claims like this as long as Content ID exists. YouTube wouldn't exist otherwise.
No.22490
What would happen if someone DDoSed the servers of UMG ? Wouldnt that prevent their crawler bots from operating a while and reduce their revenue? Not that I am saying to do that but...
No.22492
We're gonna be fine imo
Things are gonna suck balls for a bit as usual, but eventually things will even out.
It's not like it's the first time there was issues with youtube and copyright before.
No.22496
>>22493History repeats itself
No.22497
>>22493But back then it was just Hatsune Miku, right? Does she want revenge on all Vocaloids now?
No.22500
>>22489Thank you for clarifying it for those unfamiliar with how it works.
>YouTube will always be "facilitating" false claims like this as long as Content ID exists.I am aware. In this case, it is not a false claim, because unauthorized covers are copyright infringement (I'm not saying it's fair).
What I was wondering is if YouTube has implemented a system, in addition to Content ID, that is designed to automatically detect AI generated content, and if that information is being made available to UMG; UMG may also be using an AI detector independent of YouTube. If Vocaloid is being falsely identified as AI, by an automated system with little human oversight, leading to take down requests, that would be a problem.
No.22501
>>22500There is the fair use exemption though but often that is more for reporting and parody. The laws are actually stricter than they are executed in reality most the time. Technically even the "Happy Birthday" song is copyrighted but in reality nothing is done about someone singing it. Corporations care more about law on paper than actual laws and tend to go far beyond what is actually required of them.
No.22502
>>22501actually happy birthday is public domain now
No.22503
>>22502Oh yeah I forgot relatively recently it became public domain. The time period for copyright is really long in the US like 50 years. I think in countries like China it is just 3 years. Im not sure what Japan's copyright laws are like.
No.22504
>>22503>3 yearsOk that explains why so much bootleg stuff comes from there
No.22505
>>22500>if YouTube has implemented a system, in addition to Content ID, that is designed to automatically detect AI generated contentIt's all part of Content ID. Content ID hasn't actually been strictly 1:1 copy detection for some time, since it also matches against covers and remixes. See the first line item under "Tools we're building":
https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/responsible-ai-tools/I wouldn't be surprised if UMG does experiment with growing their own solutions, but they really don't need to when YouTube offers them, which is why labels like UMG are cozy with it. Scanning the web for claims is generally grunt work farmed out to contracted third parties. X/Twitter is a lesson in what happens when you don't proactively work with labels, which is now being sued by ever major player, including UMG, because it doesn't offer similar solutions or safeguards:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/15/tech/twitter-music-publishers-lawsuit-copyrightIt's entirely possible UMG is abusing Content ID. It's also tremendously unlikely that "all synthetic voice content is subject to takedown" is an admission that this uploader got and is probably them reading a pattern based on the takedowns they received. It doesn't really pass the sniff test to begin with how much shorts content relies on generated voices now.
No.22506
>>22503>>22504No. Intellectual properly law is mandated by international treaties. That's why it's so difficult to reform, besides moneyed interests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_copyright_duration_by_countryThe reason that in China, there's so much copyright infringement of US-aligned foreign intellectual property, is because the Chinese government does not prioritize prosecuting it.
No.22507
>>22501>There is the fair use exemption though but often that is more for reporting and parody.Yeah, but even Weird Al got permission to commercially release his parodies, and his stuff is transformative in a way that most Vocaloid covers are not. Embedded is a Vocaloid cover that is fair use; it does not use the original instrumental, thus not infringing on the recording copyright, and it is a parody, so using the composition is protected under fair use. YouTube Content ID is a separate thing that can siphon your channel revenue, or get your videos removed, even if you follow the law.
>>22505Thank you for the correction. It makes sense that it would not be a separate system. I agree that YouTube is not likely to take down Vocaloid songs, for now this problem mostly seems to affect cover artists and people who use samples. I am still concerned about the possibly of Content ID incorrectly labeling Vocaloid as AI.
No.22514
>>22507>get your videos removedOr blocked, maybe even age restricted. If Content ID is being used to detect synthesized vocals, the "automated flagging" that enforces "YouTube Community Guidelines" might not even be a separate system from Content ID. The more I try to learn about this, the more frustrated I become at how deliberately obfuscated the whole thing is.
I should point out that the thumbnail does contain copyrighted characters, so it is copyright infringement in the US in the same way that most fan art is, but in practice no one cares about that.
Anyway, Content ID incorrectly labeling Vocaloid as AI would likely only be a major problem if YouTube did an automated purge of AI generated content. But like
>>22505 said, that's highly unlikely given how common generated voices are in short-form videos.
No.22526
FWIW, Japan has notoriously draconian copyright enforcement, and Vocaloid covers are no exception. Over there, it's common advice to avoid using the original instrumental, since that drastically reduces the chance you'll be claimed. It sort of forces Japanese cover artists to pick up a DAW and learn how to MIDI entire tracks, which can be a good or bad thing depending on your point of view.
No.22530
>>22526>notoriously draconian copyright enforcementIt's more nuanced that I think, when doujinshi is a permissive structure that exists without much intervention, but yeah. Japan does copyright enforcement criminally at an individual scale while it's pretty much civil enforcement only in the states (except if you're running a Mega Conspiracy™ like Kim Dotcom).
Copyright really is an entanglement of cultural norms in the worst way. Japan doesn't have fair use (compare an English and Japanese article on Wikipedia), they preserve the moral rights of creators, but they also explicitly allow massive AI training carte blanche in ways that even the US hasn't settled yet. It's no surprise people like the OP letter try to make their own conclusions about how it works.
No.22532
>>22507I think it depends if someone is part of a record label or not since record labels are often trying to avoid liability just in case. I am not sure though since I just ignore these things. Look on WhoSampled and see how many songs exist that are covers or sample other songs. I doubt every one got permission so a lot of things go unnoticed.
No.22541
>>22530Technically, a lot of rightsholders will give permission for full instrumental covers for the same reason as doujinshi - it's not directly "stealing" any official content. In practice, this interacts weirdly with the whole precedent of distributing karaoke tracks for hobbyist use. Using those tracks for non-profit Vocaloid covers is one of those things that seems obviously fine until a corporation takes issue with it, so (IME) copyright enforcement creates some pretty drastic differences in people's creative processes.
That being said, I suppose the nice thing is that we're not going to have to deal with this forever. Major labels are getting less relevant every year.
No.22565
A lot of people are making it sound like its the end of Vocaloid but we've gotten through way worse. WGBO in the end.
No.22570
>>22497Who said she has to be exclusively anti-Miku
No.22591
>>22567Well that explains a lot
No.23345
WGBO
No.25394
Its been months, any clue of they're still doing this?
No.25398
>>25394Don't believe so but i could be wrong. I haven't heard anything about this topic since this thread was posted.
No.25400
>>25394>they're still doing thisIf "they" is music labels and "this" is issuing takedowns for cover songs, they are. The claims about synthetic voice covers that were made by the OP letter are pretty obviously overembellished, but the enforcement will always be scattered by different attitudes of the moment and how countries start to regulate voice clones (Japan is moving to regulate voices similarly to portrait rights). Basically, how copyright has always been treated online. How that all applies to vocal synths is likely to be a side effect.
No.25420
>>22440lowkey just download all of your music, its easier than ever and outside of the downloading part far more convenient than streaming.
No.25421
>>25420This is mostly about covers but i agree. SLSK and MusicBee and your problem's solved.
No.25423
>>25421Unrelated but MikuDB has been dying of link rot for years now. Anyone know if the staff have acknowledged this at all?.
No.25427
>>25423well what can they even do about it?
No.25429
>>25421soulseek my beloved
>>25427i assume they could just upload an mp3 of the song that you can play on the site or something but thats probably a gigantic amount of work
No.25436
>>25429>i assume they could just upload an mp3 of the song that you can play on the site or something but thats probably a gigantic amount of workthat would genuinely tank their website
No.25437
>>25427Literally use any other service other than Mega. Even fucking Google Drive is less strict with copyright than Mega is.
>>25429I don't think it's worth it to have them hosted on their site.
No.25455
>>25436lol yea
>>25437
>I don't think it's worth it to have them hosted on their site.true but outside of using an external hosting service i dont really see how this dead link issue can be solved without just reuploading stuff on youtube and just swapping the links