Category: artist rights

Science Journal Nature Bars AI Generated Illustrations

Well that was only a matter of time.  Nature, one of the leading scientific journals in the world, has announced that it will not allow the use of generative AI images or video. (Thanks to Cynthia Turner for the catch.). 

I must say that the journal’s rationale for rejecting this latest stop in Silicon Valley’s newest bubble is a pretty concise statement of the criminality of the bubble riders:

Why are we disallowing the use of generative AI in visual content? Ultimately, it is a question of integrity. The process of publishing — as far as both science and art are concerned — is underpinned by a shared commitment to integrity. That includes transparency. As researchers, editors and publishers, we all need to know the sources of data and images, so that these can be verified as accurate and true. Existing generative AI tools do not provide access to their sources so that such verification can happen.

Then there’s attribution: when existing work is used or cited, it must be attributed. This is a core principle of science and art, and generative AI tools do not conform to this expectation. (Not to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 27(2)) among other human rights instruments.)

Consent and permission are also factors. These must be obtained if, for example, people are being identified or the intellectual property of artists and illustrators is involved. Again, common applications of generative AI fail these tests.

Generative AI systems are being trained on images for which no efforts have been made to identify the source. Copyright-protected works are routinely being used to train generative AI without appropriate permissions. In some cases, privacy is also being violated — for example, when generative AI systems create what look like photographs or videos of people without their consent. In addition to privacy concerns, the ease with which these ‘deepfakes’ can be created is accelerating the spread of false information.

So that about sums it up. I would add that what Silicon Valley likes is the free-riding profit that is built in to failing to honor each of Nature’s objections aka what economists and tort lawyers call negative externalities.

by thetrichordist

What would MCA Do? Spotify Shows Censorship for the Money–What Else Are They Doing? #FreeJimmyLai

Also read Associated Press “Former Bytedance executive says Chinese Communist Party tracked Hong Kong protesters via data” (Bytedance is the parent company of TikTok.)

Spotify follows bidding of tyrannical Chinese Communist Party while long time Hong Kong freedom fighter Jimmy Lai rots in prison after show trial.

by Trichordist Editor

When Will the MLC Disclose How they Invest the Black Box Money?

[this post originally appeared in MusicTech.Solutions as “Unrealized Losses and the Black Box Investment Policy” by Chris Castle. We asked him to update it a bit to repost.]

Well, another quarter is rolling around and the MLC is still sitting on 100s of millions of dollars of songwriter money as far as I can tell. Billboard says the MLC has “matched”–maybe different than “paid”–$200 million of the $427 million in black box that it was paid by the services in 2021. This doesn’t count the unmatched that the MLC has itself added to that sum. And Congress still haven’t required them to disclose their investment policy, returns on investment or much of anything else.

Compare the MLC to community banks. There are approximately 1,000 community banks with net assets between $250,00,000 to $500,000,000. There are approximately another 1,200 community banks with net assets between $100,000,000 to $250,000,000. It’s admittedly rough justice, but why should one entity holding hundreds of millions of other peoples’ money have virtually no disclosure requirements and be essentially unregulated while another is the opposite?

Remember that the MLC is supposed to pay interest “at the Federal, short-term rate” “for the benefit of copyright owners entitled to payment of such accrued royalties.” Note that the Federal short-term rate is today a lot higher than it was when the lobbyists wrote the Music Modernization Act, currently 4.21% or thereabouts. And through the power of compound interest, that’s a bunch of cash the MLC is supposed to come up with. I wonder where they’ll get it from. Wouldn’t you like to know?

Anyway, let’s talk about interest rates. The “risk free rate” is often thought of as the rate of interest paid on US government bonds. That interest rate is thought of as risk free because it is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States that you hear so much about these days. Want to know where you can find that full faith and credit? Look in the mirror. 

When you ask around about what collective management organizations do with their “black box” monies while they are waiting to match money with songwriters or at least copyright owners, you often hear that the money is invested in very safe instruments, like U.S. treasury bonds. This might be particularly true of CMOs that are required to pay interest on black box because that interest has to come from somewhere.

But–and here it is–but, as we have learned from the Silicon Valley Bank collapse and the number of federal government officials in the mumble tank about why these banks are failing and why they are getting bailed out by, you know, the full faith and credit of the United States, “risk free” seems to be a relative concept. When you buy US government bonds, there are a number of different maturity dates available to you, kind of like buying a certificate of deposit. A common maturity date is the 10-year bond and the two-year bond, both of which were recently down sharply.

But–there is a connection between the interest rate that the bond pays, the price of the bond, and the maturity date of that bond. When bond interest rates increase, the face price tends to decrease. So if you paid $100 for a bond with a interest rate of say .08% and that rate then increased to say 4.5%, the face price of that bond will no longer be $100, it will be less. If that increase happens fairly quickly, you can have difficulty finding a buyer. The good news is that when the Federal Reserve raises the interest rate, there is about as much news coverage of the event as it is theoretically possible to have, both before during and after the rate increase, not to mention the Federal Reserve chair testifying to Congress. It’s very public. Closely watched doesn’t really capture that level of attention.

When bond prices decline, holders only “realize” the loss or gain if they sell the bond unless the bond is marked to market so the firm has to disclose the amount of what the loss would be if they sold the bond. Hence the concept of “unrealized losses,” “maturity risk,” or “interest rate risk.”  Some think that US banks currently have $620 billion in unrealized losses due to interest rate risk. And don’t forget, these are your betters. These are the smart people. These are the city fellers.

This interest rate risk issue is not limited to banks, however. It is also present anytime that an entity tasked with caring for other people’s money invests that money in treasury bonds, crypto, or whatever. Like the MLC. You don’t have to be Wall Street Bets to end up losing your shirt or something in this environment.

So the point is that the same problem of interest rate risk and unrealized losses could apply to CMOs, such as The MLC, Inc. because of their undisclosed “investment policy” of investing the $424 million of black box they were paid by the services. They don’t disclose what the investment policy is and they don’t disclose their holdings so we don’t really know what has happened, if anything. The money could be perfectly safe.

Or not.

by Trichordist

Copyright Office Authorized a Star Chamber at the MLC to Hold Your Money

We knew this would happen. The Copyright Office has empowered the Mechanical Licensing Collective to decide whether a song (or a sound recording) can be copyrighted all under the guise of AI. If the MLC–not the Copyright Office–decides that your song is not capable of being registered for copyright, the MLC can hold your money essentially forever.

Where’s the regulation on this important subject? Did you get a chance to comment on these crucial regulations and precedent?

Ah…no. You didn’t miss any notices in the Federal Register. No, we know this because of this cozy “guidance letter” to MLC CEO Kris Ahrend from the general counsel of the Copyright Office. That’s right, a letter that we just happened to run across. That letter states:

More specifically, the Office advises that a work that appears to lack sufficient human authorship is appropriately treated by The MLC as an “anomal[y],” consistent with its Guidelines for Adjustments, and The MLC should “place [associated] Royalties in Suspense while it researches and analyzes the issue.” Such research could include corresponding with the individual or entity claiming ownership of the work or [could include] inquiring whether the Office has registered the work and whether there are any disclaimers or notes in the registration record.

If The MLC subsequently concludes that the work qualifies for copyright protection and the section 115 license, it should distribute any royalties and interest in suspense to the copyright owner. Alternatively, if The MLC believes that the work does not qualify for copyright protection following its research and analysis, it should notify the individual or entity claiming ownership of the work of its determination and that associated royalties will be subject to an adjustment. This conclusion and adjustment may be challenged by initiating an “Adjustment Dispute” consistent with The MLC’s policies. If legal proceedings are initiated to challenge The MLC’s actions, the disputed royalties and interest should remain suspended until those proceedings are resolved.

So just in one paragraph, the Copyright Office has effectively delegated its role in the U.S. government to a private corporation controlled by the largest music publishers and financed by the largest tech companies in the world (actually the largest corporations in the history of commerce). If the MLC decides that your song “appears to lack sufficient human authorship” The MLC can hold your money while they research the issue.

Note this doesn’t say who makes that decision, it doesn’t say when they have to notify you, it doesn’t say they have to give you an opportunity to be heard, it places no timeline on how long all this may take. “The MLC” (whoever that is) could sit on your money for years without ever telling you they are doing it and also keep invoicing the DSPs for your royalties while they “research and analyze the issue”.

The only time they have to give you notice if they “believe” (whatever that means) “that the work does not qualify for copyright protection” then “it should” (not the mandatory “shall”, but the permissive “should”) notify you of that determination. You can then file an “adjustment dispute” based on the MLC’s own guidelines which you will not be surprised to learn places no disclosure obligations on them, imposes no timeline and cannot be appealed.

Note that this guidance from the Copyright Office pretty expressly contemplates that the MLC may dispute a work that has already been registered for copyright without qualification–which raises the question of what a copyright registration actually means, and where is it written that the MLC has the authority to challenge a conformed Copyright Office registration.

It also places the MLC in a superior position to the Copyright Office because it allows the MLC to initiate a dispute resolution system outside of the Copyright Office channels. Is this written somewhere besides a burning bush on Mount Horeb?

The letter does seem to suggest that you can always sue the MLC or that the MLC could be prosecuted for state law crimes, perhaps, like conversion, but it would help to know who at the MLC is actually responsible.

This also raises the question of why the MLC is invoicing the DSPs in the first place and what happens to the money every step along the path. Because of the idiotic streaming mechanical royalty calculation, it seems inevitable that the royalty pool will be overstated or understated if the MLC is claiming works that are not subject to copyright (like it would for public domain works it invoiced).

Ever wonder what prompts letters like this to get written?

Play your part, dude. Go back to sleep.

by Trichordist Editor

@musicbizworld: UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP RESPONDS TO ‘FAKE DRAKE’ AI TRACK: STREAMING PLATFORMS HAVE ‘A FUNDAMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY TO PREVENT THE USE OF THEIR SERVICES IN WAYS THAT HARM ARTISTS’

The track, heart on my sleeve, credited to the ‘artist’ ghostwriter, has racked up more than 230,000 plays on YouTube, and more than 625,000 plays on Spotify.

In addition to AI-replicated vocals of Drake, the track – a seemingly original composition – also features AI-replicated vocals of The Weeknd’s voice.

Both Drake and The Weeknd release their (real life) records via UMG and its Republic Records.

Said UMG in a statement to MBW in the wake of today’s news: “UMG’s success has been, in part, due to embracing new technology and putting it to work for our artists–as we have been doing with our own innovation around AI for some time already.

“With that said, however, the training of generative AI using our artists’ music (which represents both a breach of our agreements and a violation of copyright law) as well as the availability of infringing content created with generative AI on DSPs, begs the question as to which side of history all stakeholders in the music ecosystem want to be on: the side of artists, fans and human creative expression, or on the side of deep fakes, fraud and denying artists their due compensation.

Read the post on Music Business Worldwide

@musicbizworld: UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP RESPONDS TO ‘FAKE DRAKE’ AI TRACK: STREAMING PLATFORMS HAVE ‘A FUNDAMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY TO PREVENT THE USE OF THEIR SERVICES IN WAYS THAT HARM ARTISTS’ — Artist Rights Watch–News for the Artist Rights Advocacy Community

by theinvisiblestagehand

Fans and Trust and Trust by Fans Are Essential for AI to Succeed

By Chris Castle

[This post first appeared on MusicTechPolicy]

We are told that artificial intelligence is a powerful tool that may end up being either the end of humanity through automated super soldiers making autonomous decisions regarding their own AI devised rules of engagement, or life saving medical procedures and diagnostic tools like House meets HAL. As usual–both outcomes are probably equally likely if humanity doesn’t keep the deus in the machina. We really don’t want them thinking “Hell is other machines.”

The question I have is how will we keep humanity around when companies like Google are hell-bent on achieving the Singularity ASAP. This is particularly true of creators–let’s not kid ourselves that the Google Books project was some altruistic motivation to build the digital library of Alexandria rather than a massive digitization project to build a large language model to train artificial intelligence through corpus machine translation.  And still is. As Kurt Sutter (show runner for Sons of Anarchy) taught us about Google, “[t]he truth is, they don’t give a shit about free speech, and are the antithesis of their own mantra, ‘Don’t be evil.’” That was 2014 and boy was he right. And he still is. It’s not just Google, but Google is emblematic of Silicon Valley.

One of the lessons we learned from the 1990s is the calvary is not coming. We have to take our own steps to work both cooperatively and defensively against a tech threat. The Human Artistry Campaign and its AI Principles effort is a hopeful indicator that the creative community and its partners are coming together to get ahead of both the threat and the promise of AI.

Let’s not forget that it’s not just about us, it’s also about the fan, our “consumers” if you will. The biggest threat to creators in my view is destroying the relationship of trust that exists between fans and creators. If AI can allow a machine to impersonate a creator, that deception harms the creator, surely. But it also harms the fan. 

One of the AI principles from the Human Artistry Campaign jumped out at me as addressing this vital issue:

  • Trustworthiness and transparency are essential to the success of AI and protection of creators. 

Complete recordkeeping of copyrighted works, performances, and likenesses, including the way in which they were used to develop and train any AI system, is essential. Algorithmic transparency and clear identification of a work’s provenance are foundational to AI trustworthiness. Stakeholders should work collaboratively to develop standards for technologies that identify the input used to create AI-generated output. In addition to obtaining appropriate licenses, content generated solely by AI should be labeled describing all inputs and methodology used to create it — informing consumer choices, and protecting creators and rightsholders. 

Informing consumer choices. For a moment forget the artistic integrity, forget the human intervention, forget the free riding, just for a moment because these are all vital issues, too. At the core of the AI problem is deception and that issue is as old as time. You can’t essentially deceive fans about the origin of a work and you certainly can’t build a machine that does this all the livelong day and pretend you didn’t.

In Book 2 of Plato’s Republic, he uses the legend of a magic ring that turns the bearer invisible to illustrate a dialog on the nature of justice. The ring turns the wearer invisible so that they are capable of doing all manner of things while invisible–or anonymous–that would clearly be both unjust and punishable without the ring. Plato asks if an act is unjust solely because you get caught or is it unjust regardless of whether you are hidden from sight or apprehension. Yep, those Greeks were onto this early.

Deception is not genius. At the core of our concerns about AI is keeping them honest to protect our fans and the bedrock of the creator-fan relationship. Consumers should be able to rely on the reality of what appears to be an artist’s work that it actually does come from that artist. 

We do this with almost any other product or service that is placed into commerce, so why not with creative works? After all, artist rights are human rights.

We were happy to endorse the AI principles and encourage you to find out more about it at the Human Artistry Campaign or Artist Rights Watch and sign the petition.

by Trichordist Editor

Press Release: Human Artistry Campaign Launches, Announces Artificial Intelligence Principles to Sustain Artists

40+ groups representing artists, performers, writers, athletes & more launch campaign for AI that supports human creativity and accomplishment

WASHINGTON, DC / AUSTIN, TX (March 16, 2023) – A broad coalition announced the launch of the Human Artistry Campaign to ensure artificial intelligence technologies are developed and used in ways that support human culture and artistry – and not ways that replace or erode it. With more than 40 members including major unions, trade associations, and policy experts representing individual creators and rightsholders from across the entire tapestry of creative endeavor, the Human Artistry Campaign is positioned to be a leading voice in the rapidly unfolding debate over the costs and benefits of different forms of AI.

The group outlined principles advocating AI best practices, emphasizing respect for artists, their work, and their personas; transparency; and adherence to existing law including copyright and intellectual property. 

The campaign urges supporters to sign a petition to advance these fundamental principles.

The launch was announced at SXSW in Austin today at an event featuring voice actor and prolific songwriter Dan Navarro, GRAMMY-nominated singer-songwriter Jessy Wilson and UT Austin professor and immersive technology expert Erin Reilly – and moderated by Rob Levine, Billboard’s Deputy Editorial Director.

Core Principles for Artificial Intelligence Applications in Support of Human Creativity and Accomplishments

  1. Technology has long empowered human expression, and AI will be no different.

For generations, various technologies have been used successfully to support human creativity. Take music, for example… From piano rolls to amplification to guitar pedals to synthesizers to drum machines to digital audio workstations, beat libraries and stems and beyond, musical creators have long used technology to express their visions through different voices, instruments, and devices. AI already is and will increasingly play that role as a tool to assist the creative process, allowing for a wider range of people to express themselves creatively. 

Moreover, AI has many valuable uses outside of the creative process itself, including those that amplify fan connections, hone personalized recommendations, identify content quickly and accurately, assist with scheduling, automate and enhance efficient payment systems – and more. We embrace these technological advances. 

  • Human-created works will continue to play an essential role in our lives. 

Creative works shape our identity, values, and worldview. People relate most deeply to works that embody the lived experience, perceptions, and attitudes of others. Only humans can create and fully realize works written, recorded, created, or performed with such specific meaning. Art cannot exist independent of human culture.

  • Use of copyrighted works, and use of the voices and likenesses of professional performers, requires authorization, licensing, and compliance with all relevant state and federal laws.

We fully recognize the immense potential of AI to push the boundaries for knowledge and scientific progress. However, as with predecessor technologies, the use of copyrighted works requires permission from the copyright owner. AI must be subject to free-market licensing for the use of works in the development and training of AI models. Creators and copyright owners must retain exclusive control over determining how their content is used. AI developers must ensure any content used for training purposes is approved and licensed from the copyright owner, including content previously used by any pre-trained AIs they may adopt. Additionally, performers’ and athletes’ voices and likenesses must only be used with their consent and fair market compensation for specific uses.

  • Governments should not create new copyright or other IP exemptions that allow AI developers to exploit creators without permission or compensation.

AI must not receive exemptions from copyright law or other intellectual property laws and must comply with core principles of fair market competition and compensation. Creating special shortcuts or legal loopholes for AI would harm creative livelihoods, damage creators’ brands, and limit incentives to create and invest in new works.

  • Copyright should only protect the unique value of human intellectual creativity.

Copyright protection exists to help incentivize and reward human creativity, skill, labor, and judgment -not output solely created and generated by machines. Human creators, whether they use traditional tools or express their creativity using computers, are the foundation of the creative industries and we must ensure that human creators are paid for their work.  

  • Trustworthiness and transparency are essential to the success of AI and protection of creators. 

Complete recordkeeping of copyrighted works, performances, and likenesses, including the way in which they were used to develop and train any AI system, is essential. Algorithmic transparency and clear identification of a work’s provenance are foundational to AI trustworthiness. Stakeholders should work collaboratively to develop standards for technologies that identify the input used to create AI-generated output. In addition to obtaining appropriate licenses, content generated solely by AI should be labeled describing all inputs and methodology used to create it — informing consumer choices, and protecting creators and rightsholders. 

  • Creators’ interests must be represented in policymaking. 

Policymakers must consider the interests of human creators when crafting policy around AI. Creators live on the forefront of, and are building and inspiring, evolutions in technology and as such need a seat at the table in any conversations regarding legislation, regulation, or government priorities regarding AI that would impact their creativity and the way it affects their industry and livelihood.

About the Human Artistry Campaign: The Human Artistry Campaign was launched at SXSW 2023 for open dialogue and guidance from the united creative community in shaping the AI debate. Visit HumanArtistryCampaign.com to join.

Members include: AFL-CIO; American Association of Independent Music; American Federation of Musicians; Americana Music Association; American Photographic Artists; Artist Rights Alliance; Artist Rights Watch; ASCAP; Association of American Publishers; Authors Guild; Black Music Action Coalition; BPI; Christian Music Trade Association; Church Music Publishers Association; Concept Art Association; Department of Professional Employees, AFL-CIO; European Composer and Songwriter Alliance; Folk Alliance International; Future of Music Coalition; Georgia Music Partners; Global Music Rights; Gospel Music Association; Graphic Artists Guild; IFPI; International Federation of Actors; #IRespectMusic; Living Legends Foundation; MLB Players Association; Music Artists Coalition; Music Managers Forum – US; Music Tech Policy; Music Workers Alliance; National Music Publishers’ Association; News Media Alliance; NFL Players Association; NHL Players’ Association; Professional Photographers of America; Recording Academy; Recording Industry Association of America; Rhythm & Blues Foundation; SAG-AFTRA; SESAC, Songwriters of North America; SoundExchange and The Trichordist.

***

www.HumanArtistryCampaign.com

contact@humanartistrycampaign.com

by Trichordist Editor

StubHub Backed Astroturf Posing as Fans Deceive GA Legislators in Attempt to Draft Bill That Would Cement StubHub’s Dominance in Ticket Resale.

Georgia’s music advocacy coalition GMP along with artists and independent venues have been raising the alarm about a draft bill in the Georgia State Legislature that would seemingly limit ticketing fees. In reality the language of the bill makes it clear that this is simply a Trojan horse bill that seems to limit artist fan clubs, indie venues and others to sell face value non-transferable tickets to fans.

Despite what Washington DC lobbyists posing as fans might claim, I can tell you that in my experience what music fans want is face value tickets directly purchased from venues and artists. Out of necessity these tickets must be non-transferable to keep them from being scooped up by shady organized groups apparently working in concert with StubHub and others who scalp or make a market for scalpers.

The biggest contributing factor to outrageous ticket prices is not the ticketing fees, but the StubHub markup. StubHub knows that artists and venues are sick of StubHub making it impossible for fans to buy tickets at face value, that’s why they have been going from state to state, getting legislators to pass laws that block venues, promoters and especially artists from selling non-transferable tickets. In the case of Georgia draft legislation mandates that resold tickets be sold only through a “licensed broker.”

You know, like StubHub. This is lawfare.

It is not widely understood, but those pre-sales of tickets at face value by artists directly to their fans are technically resales, because artists generally buy them upfront from the concert promoters. This extraordinarily cynical bill would essentially end this long standing part of the artist-fan social contract. It is simply designed to make the state of Georgia safe for StubHub’s exploitative free-riding business model.

So how did Georgia legislators find themselves in the business of making the world safe for StubHub? Well perhaps because they thought they were doing the bidding of a grassroots organization supposedly representing fans frustrated by high ticket prices. In particular a group called Fan Freedom. (www.fanfreedom.org) has been all over the capitol pretending to speak for fans.

And this group is not limiting its efforts to Georgia. We know of four states where this “grassroots organization representing fans” is simultaneously pushing similar bills. How does a grassroots organization simultaneously push bills in Washington, Florida, California, Maryland and Georgia?

Maybe it’s not a grassroots organization.

According to publicly available sources. Fan Freedom was launched by StubHub’s then owner eBay in 2011. The stated goal was to convince lawmakers that primary sellers like Live Nation and Ticketmaster should not be allowed to place limits on ticket transferability. The astroturf group partnered with the National Consumers League to mask ticket resellers’ objections to the anti-scalping measures as “consumer opposition.”

https://www.ebaymainstreet.com/pl/news-events/ebay-stubhub-celebrate-launch-fan-freedom-project https://www.ticketnews.com/2011/02/fan-freedom-project-launches-to-curtail-ticketmasters-restrictive-paperless-ticketing-system/ https://web.archive.org/web/20110808123624/http://www.fanfreedom.org/ https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/business/media/scalping-battle-putting-fans-in-the-middle.html

Fan Freedom Project was initially managed by Jon Potter, a long-term political consultant who has been involved with other industry-funded astroturf efforts and founded the Digital Media Association, the trade association for Big Tech against artists and songwriters–which has been on the wrong side of every creator issue known to man or beast.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jonpotterdc/

In 2019, the Tech Transparency Project reported that one group he was behind, the Connected Commerce Council (3C), was not the organic collection of small businesses it presented itself as, but effectively a front for his DiMA pals Google, Amazon, and Facebook.

https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/big-techs-new-disguise https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/30/connected-commerce-council-amazon-google-lobbying-00021801

Fan Freedom Project’s president since 2016 has been Chris VanDeHoef, the former the director of government relations for TicketNetwork who now runs a government relations firm called Penn Lincoln Strategies. Yet he is apparently running around the capitol intimating he represents “fans.”


https://www.pennlincoln.com/about-us/chris-vandehoef

In Georgia the “grassroots” Fan Freedom Project is paying big money to Cornerstone Government Affairs which is headed by Chris Carpenter who was legislative counsel to Gov Roy Barnes. I say big money because GA only requires noting of expenditures that exceed $10k and based on what they were paid by other clients its likely to be a lot more than 10k. Plus they have registered five lobbyists. Five lobbyists in a single state for a grassroots organization? That’s 1970s tobacco industry level of lobbying! And they are doing this in fives separate states simultaneously.

This year, Fan Freedom Project hired a firm called Johnson & Blanton to lobby on its behalf in Florida, where legislation was recently introduced that would require primary sellers to offer transferable tickets. While StubHub is also actively lobbying in Florida. It has retained the firm Metz, Husband & Daughton as lobbyists in Florida since 2021. This is not a grassroots operation, its industrial scale mega-corporate lobbying operation.

https://floridapolitics.com/archives/528216-lobbying-compensation-mid-major-firms-fared-well-during-first-quarter-2/ https://www.floridalobbyist.gov/LobbyistInformation/GetLobbyistPrincipal
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1316
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1316/BillText/Filed/PDF
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/969
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/969/BillText/Filed/PDF
2https://floridapolitics.com/archives/528216-lobbying-compensation-mid-major-firms-fared-well-during-first-quarter-2/ https://www.floridalobbyist.gov/LobbyistInformation/GetLobbyistPrincipal


Artist have no problem with The State of Georgia helping fans by limiting high ticket pries and add on fees. Further most artists would be willing to accept a compromise where they offer both transferrable and non-transferable tickets at different prices. If that’s really what consumers really want. Indeed other industries, like hotels, rental cars companies and airlines offer both refundable and non refundable tickets. There is some good legislation to be made here, but first we have to be clear, the way the bill is currently written it gives StubHub a free-ride on efforts and investments of Georgia artists, venues, promoters and fans.

Let’s fix this bill.

by Dr. David C Lowery

National Association of Voice Actors: AI/Synthetic Voice Rider–Don’t lose your voice forever

[Chris Castle says: It’s like the antichrist without the morals. Voice over actors are being attacked by purveyors of artificial intelligence so that the actor’s voices can be re-used without consent or compensation even if they didn’t consent or at least didn’t object. Not only that, but voices can be used to train AI to speak in a completely different context. This is way worse that Netflix composer buyouts.

Check your name/image/likeness clauses folks–voice actors will not be the only ones caught up in the AI hellscape.]

AN OPEN LETTER FROM NAVA AND THE VOCAL VARIANTS TO THE VOICE OVER COMMUNITY

AI or Synthetic Voices are on the rise. We’re a group of concerned voiceactors working with union and non-union performers alike to make sure we don’t lose our voices forever by signing away our rights to various companies. Long story short, any contract that allows a producer to use your voice forever in all known media (and any new media developed in the future) across the universe is one we want to avoid. 

So we have put together some things we can all do to avoid the decimation of our industry.

Read the post on NAVA Voices site and stay in touch with your unions.

by Trichordist Editor

@alliecanal8193: Spotify CEO admits he got ‘carried away’ investing, will rein in spending this year

[From ArtistRightsWatch: Editor Charlie sez: There are no words for the arrogance.]

Speaking on the company’s fourth quarter earnings call, Ek said certain mistakes were made after the company heavily invested in high-growth areas like podcasts, telling investors: “I probably got a little carried away and over-invested.”

Ek, who called out a shaky macroeconomic environment, emphasized the company will be tightening investments in 2023 across the board as the music streaming giant doubles down on streamlining efficiencies “with greater intensity.”

Read the post on Yahoo! Finance

by Trichordist Editor