Copyright In AI-Generated Vietnamese Instrumental Tracks
I. Key Legal Questions
For AI-generated instrumental tracks, the main legal issues are:
Is the AI-generated music eligible for copyright?
Who is considered the author?
Does AI-generated music based on existing works infringe copyright?
Does sampling or stylistic imitation of Vietnamese music create separate rights issues?
What is the role of human creative input in AI music?
II. Human Authorship Requirement in Copyright
Copyright requires a work to be created by a human and fixed in a tangible medium.
1. Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1991)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Principle: Copyright protects only original creative expression.
Relevance to AI-generated music:
Facts or purely mechanical reproductions are not protected.
Minimal creativity is required.
AI-generated instrumental tracks that are entirely autonomous may lack human authorship, risking non-protection.
2. Naruto v. Slater (2018) – The “Monkey Selfie” Case
Court: Ninth Circuit
Principle: Non-human authors cannot claim copyright.
Application to AI music:
If AI autonomously generates a Vietnamese instrumental track with no meaningful human creative input, it is likely not copyrightable.
Human direction, selection of AI output, and editing may establish copyright.
3. Thaler v. Perlmutter (2023)
Court: U.S. District Court, D.C.
Principle: AI-only works are not eligible for copyright.
Analysis:
Stephen Thaler tried to register AI-generated art. Court confirmed no copyright without human authorship.
Applied to AI music: If a track is generated fully autonomously without human creative direction, copyright registration may be denied.
Implication:
A Vietnamese instrumental generated by AI with no human creative input would not have copyright protection in the U.S.
III. Copyright in Derivative and Transformative Works
Even if the underlying music is public domain, derivative works may raise issues if based on copyrighted sources.
4. Stewart v. Abend (1990)
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Principle: Creating a derivative work requires permission if the underlying work is protected.
Application:
If AI uses samples from copyrighted Vietnamese instrumental works or modern compositions, this could constitute infringement.
Using public domain traditional Vietnamese music (e.g., folk songs) is generally safe, but using copyrighted arrangements or recordings without permission risks liability.
5. Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota (2008)
Court: Tenth Circuit
Principle: Purely mechanical reproductions of existing works lack originality.
Relevance:
If AI generates music that mechanically imitates an existing track without adding original creative elements, the result may not be copyrightable.
For Vietnamese instrumental AI tracks: mere reproduction of a folk melody or style is insufficient for protection; human creative input is required.
IV. Fixation Requirement
Copyright requires that the work be fixed in a tangible medium.
6. MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer (1993)
Court: Ninth Circuit
Principle: Works fixed in RAM or digital storage are “fixed.”
Application:
AI-generated music, once exported as an audio file (mp3, WAV, FLAC), satisfies fixation.
Fixation is necessary but not sufficient; human authorship is also required.
V. Originality in Performance and Arrangement
Even AI-generated music can be protected if human authorship contributes to its performance or arrangement.
7. Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n (1986)
Court: Seventh Circuit
Principle: Recorded performances are copyrightable.
Application:
A human-guided AI track where the user determines tempo, dynamics, and instrumentation may create a copyrightable performance.
Human input in arranging Vietnamese instruments (e.g., đàn bầu, đàn tranh) or guiding AI in stylistic choices increases originality.
VI. Sampling and Style Imitation
AI often mimics existing musical styles or instruments. This can implicate neighboring rights and publicity rights, though copyright is still the primary issue.
8. Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films (2005)
Court: Sixth Circuit
Principle: Any unauthorized sampling of a copyrighted recording can constitute infringement, even a few seconds.
Application:
If AI samples or replicates recordings of copyrighted Vietnamese music without permission, it could constitute infringement.
Using synthetic instruments or fully public domain melodies avoids this issue.
VII. Minimal Creativity Requirement
9. Satava v. Lowry (2003)
Court: Ninth Circuit
Principle: Only original elements in a work are protected.
Application:
AI-generated tracks based on traditional Vietnamese music may only be copyrightable for the original creative elements added by humans.
Mere reproduction of traditional melodies or styles without added creative input is not protected.
VIII. Human-Directed AI Music
If a human provides detailed input, selects outputs, or edits AI-generated tracks, courts may recognize copyright.
Examples of Protectable Contributions:
Choosing specific rhythms, tempos, or keys
Designing AI instrument articulations for Vietnamese instruments
Layering AI-generated melodies with human-arranged harmonies
This aligns with the principle from Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony (1884): works involving human creative choices are protectable.
IX. Summary Table: AI-Generated Vietnamese Instrumental Music
| Scenario | Copyright Status |
|---|---|
| Fully autonomous AI track, no human input | Likely NO |
| AI track with human-selected instruments, arrangement, and editing | Possibly YES |
| AI uses copyrighted Vietnamese recordings as source | Likely INFRINGEMENT |
| AI imitates style of traditional Vietnamese music (public domain) | Minimal protection unless human adds creative input |
| AI samples copyrighted modern Vietnamese compositions | Infringement risk (Bridgeport precedent) |
X. Key Takeaways
Human authorship is critical for copyright in AI music.
Fixation is met when the track is saved as an audio file.
Derivative works based on copyrighted music require permission.
Public domain Vietnamese music is safe to use, but mere reproduction without human creativity may not be protectable.
Sampling copyrighted recordings can trigger infringement even with AI.
Style imitation alone does not create copyright, but using a recognizable artist’s performance may implicate publicity rights.
RELATED Blog
comments