- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Company makes AI covers of a girl's music, copyright strikes original singer
Posted on 4/12/26 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 4/12/26 at 1:42 pm
Posted on 4/12/26 at 1:45 pm to Roaad
How do I know this isn't an Ai generated video from a Ai generated "news" story?
Posted on 4/12/26 at 1:53 pm to Roaad
Name is Murphy Campbell btw.
And it’s going to be a headache but one thing she has going for her is it’s illegal in the U.S. to have a copyright on AI content.
And it’s going to be a headache but one thing she has going for her is it’s illegal in the U.S. to have a copyright on AI content.
Posted on 4/12/26 at 1:54 pm to Roaad
She’s got quite the head on her shoulders.
Posted on 4/12/26 at 2:15 pm to Turnblad85
Posted on 4/12/26 at 2:20 pm to soccerfüt
She is pretty in the adorable, "she could be my daughter" sort of way

Posted on 4/12/26 at 2:47 pm to Roaad
quote:
It is being covered all over the place
LINK
That's a really good article, well-written with really important details.
Posted on 4/12/26 at 3:24 pm to Roaad
I watched her video.
She says that her videos are singing old folk songs and playing banjo.
The problem is that you can't claim a copyright on songs that you didn't write.
Old folk songs are public domain.
As far as the videos of her, I don't know how that works.
She says that her videos are singing old folk songs and playing banjo.
The problem is that you can't claim a copyright on songs that you didn't write.
Old folk songs are public domain.
As far as the videos of her, I don't know how that works.
Posted on 4/12/26 at 3:29 pm to auggie
quote:Read this, it is worse than you think
I watched her video.
She says that her videos are singing old folk songs and playing banjo.
The problem is that you can't claim a copyright on songs that you didn't write.
Old folk songs are public domain.
As far as the videos of her, I don't know how that works.
LINK
Posted on 4/12/26 at 3:51 pm to Roaad
quote:
Read this, it is worse than you think
IMO this is the problem with using youtube and other platforms to put yourself out there, before you are protected by a publisher, record company with clout.
You also need to be a member of an organization such as BMI or ASCAP. Also songwriting associations that help protect you.
A lot of people try to use music sharing platforms as shortcuts to fame, I've never thought it was a good idea. This is an example of why.
Posted on 4/12/26 at 4:28 pm to auggie
quote:
I've never thought it was a good idea.
Because those music companies put a lot of pressure and debt onto the musicians they sign.
Musicians aren’t exactly the most business savvy people, especially when they’re young. So producers sign them and give them a chunk of change that they have to pay back, but they can use it to make more music using higher end studios. But because it’s financed by the production company, they often want a say in the music being made. So the creative part for the musician is constrained.
That’s why they jumped to social media but guess what? They’re just as parasitic as anyone else.
Now there’s AI.
Let’s be honest: the little guy will ALWAYS get fricked. That’s why Taylor Swift’s dad said screw that noise and purchased the record company.
Posted on 4/12/26 at 4:31 pm to StringedInstruments
quote:
Musicians aren’t exactly the most business savvy people, especially when they’re young. So producers sign them and give them a chunk of change that they have to pay back
Posted on 4/13/26 at 8:22 am to Roaad
quote:
Read this, it is worse than you think
LINK
There are several things going on here, but the root of this is more a problem with YouTube copyright enforcement than AI.
YouTube’s copyright enforcement process is pretty one-sided (in favor of the party claiming infringement). There’s a pretty strict “3 strike” system and content creators who appeal claims can wind up having their entire channel de-monetized if they lose appeals - even though it’s possible to lose an appeal without ever getting a chance to communicate with a real person.
Gamer’s Nexus did a video detailing their experience with YouTube copyright enforcement when they were in a fight with Bloomberg over fair use claims: YouTube link
There’s even a process by which someone claiming ownership of a copyright can leave a video up but simply take over the monetization of that video. This has led to a business model for so-called “copyright troll” companies who search for possible infringement on behalf of copyright owners.
It’s probably a tough spot for YouTube. I would guess that their perceived liability (under the platform’s T&C’s) to content creators for incorrectly striking a video is considerably less than their perceived liability (under the DMCA) to copyright owners for incorrectly leaving a video up.
I don’t think it’s entire clear how much role (if any) AI actually played in this specific YouTube takedown, based on the article you linked. As the article and others in this thread have pointed out, the songs themselves were public domain. Someone managed to file a claim for the actual performance, as if to say that the account uploading the videos (her account) didn’t actually own those specific videos.
It seems like the AI issue in this case is a separate problem - someone made AI copies of her YouTube videos and uploaded them to Spotify. That, in itself, is a systemic problem for the music industry right now. But I doubt the company filing the copyright claim had anything to do with that part. More likely that the same user who created the AI copies effectively tried to steal the performer’s musical identity and used the copyright enforcement company as a means to that end.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 8:32 am to Roaad
This kind of stuff is crazy, especially considering you can be banned, or at least demonetized, on Youtube for just having a copyrighted song playing in the background of a video.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 8:39 am to Roaad
I would sue them, refuse any settlement offer less than $10M, and ask a jury to make an example of them, which they almost certainly would. Sucks that such a process would take at least a couple years, but such is war.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 8:44 am to auggie
quote:
The problem is that you can't claim a copyright on songs that you didn't write.
Sort've, you can still generally copyright your recorded track (your personal voice singing etc.) and you can copyright your arrangement of the original.
I.e. I can't copyright "Rocky Top" but I can arrange it for 4 saxophones & copywrite that arrangement.
This post was edited on 4/13/26 at 8:46 am
Posted on 4/13/26 at 8:47 am to Roaad
All I know is youtube's copyright claims should be shut down, it is abused too much.
I feel for the artist, but the world has changed.
I feel for the artist, but the world has changed.
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:24 am to soccerfüt
"We have Billie Eilish at home."
Posted on 4/13/26 at 9:29 am to FliesByNight
We will very soon be in a world where it will be impossible to tell what is real and what is not and that's kinda terrifying. Imagine how countries and propagandists will use that capability...
In the past having "actual video" was the most obvious way to confirm something, but video now cannot be trusted either. So trust in society in general will degrade exponentially.
In the past having "actual video" was the most obvious way to confirm something, but video now cannot be trusted either. So trust in society in general will degrade exponentially.
This post was edited on 4/13/26 at 9:31 am
Popular
Back to top


7








