Lentis, AI Music, Creativity, and Intellectual Property

Overview

Introduction

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing creative industries, such as the music industry, by redefining how creative works are composed, performed, and consumed. What began as theoretical musings by pioneers like Alan Turing has grown into a field with sophisticated neural networks capable of composing full-length songs, for example. However, this evolution raises pressing questions about originality, ownership, and the future of human creativity.

Theoretical Foundations: 1950s-1960s

The concept of AI-generated music originated with Alan Turing, who theorized in the 1950s that machines could emulate human cognitive processes, including music composition. His ideas laid the groundwork for computational creativity.[1]

In 1957, Lejaren Hiller and Leonard Isaacson at the University of Illinois created the Illiac Suite[2]. Using the ILLIAC I computer, they developed an algorithmic process to compose a string quartet, marking one of the first successful instances of computer-generated music. It demonstrated the potential of computers to collaborate in creative endeavors, sparking decades of research into AI's role in music.

Rule-Based Systems: 1970s-1980s

During the 1970s and 1980s, AI systems advanced with rule-based algorithms that mimicked specific musical styles. David Cope’s Experiments in Musical Intelligence[3] (EMI) exemplified this approach by analyzing existing compositions and generating new ones in the style of Bach and Mozart. However, EMI heavily relied on predefined human rules, highlighting the imitative, rather than generative, nature of early AI.

A significant technological leap came in 1983 with the introduction of MIDI[4] (Musical Instrument Digital Interface). MIDI standardized communication between computers and electronic instruments, enabling precise control of musical elements and facilitating data collection for future AI systems.

Machine Learning: 1990s-2000s

AI music systems transitioned from rule-based models to data-driven techniques in the 1990s. Machine learning algorithms enabled pattern recognition and predictive modeling, allowing AI to generate more complex and varied compositions. Projects like Accenture’s Symphonologie[5] showcased AI as a collaborative tool, blending human and machine creativity.

Neural Networks: 2010s-Present

The rise of deep learning revolutionized AI in music. Neural networks, trained on vast datasets, now compose intricate, multi-instrumental pieces in seconds. Tools like OpenAI’s MuseNet[6] and AIVA[7] exemplify how AI has expanded its creative capabilities across genres, challenging the boundaries of human artistry.

Relevant Legal Disputes

Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884)

Oscar Wilde No.18 by Napoleon Sarony (1882) (Image: The Library of Congress, No restrictions)

Burrow-Giles Lithography Co v. Sarony was submitted on December 13, 1883 when Sarony filed a copyright suit against Burrow-Giles when the company had marketed lithographs of Sarony's photograph, Oscar Wilde No.18, without Sarony's permission. Burrow-Giles argued that photographs were neither writings nor a production of an author, and thus did not possess copyright protection. The court determined that even though creating a photograph is "merely mechanical, with no place for novelty, invention, or originality", the photograph Sarony created was his "own original mental conception, to which he gave visible form by posing the said Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, . . . suggesting and evoking the desired expression, and from such . . . representation, made entirely by plaintiff, he produced the picture in suit.'" On March 17, 1884, the court established that photography is a copyrightable medium. Furthermore, this case reinforced that an author of a work is "he to whom anything owes its origin."[8]

Naruto v. Slater, No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018)

One of the monkey selfies (Image: Self-portrait by the depicted Macaca nigra female. See article ., Public domain)

Naruto v. Slater, more commonly known as the Monkey Selfie copyright dispute, began on September 22, 2015. PETA, representing the crested macaque Naruto, sued Slater claiming that because the monkey took its own picture, it was entitled to the copyright. David J. Slater, the photographer, argued that he held the copyright as he engineered the situation that led to the monkey taking its selfie. On April 23, 2018, the court determined that "this monkey - and all animals, since they are not human – [lack] statutory standing under the Copyright Act", reinforcing that non-humans cannot own copyright.[9]

Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 22-1564 (BAH)(DDC 2023)

A Recent Entrance to Paradise (Image: Stephen Thaler, Public domain)

Thaler v. Perlmutter emerged after the U.S. Copyright Office denied Dr. Stephen Thaler's copyright application for an AI generated work, "A Recent Entrance to Paradise". The court focused on answering "whether a work generated autonomously by a computer falls under the protection of copyright law upon its creation". Thaler filed a lawsuit, arguing that the copyright of the AI generated work belonged to him as the AI model's creator. He stated that "AI should be ‘acknowledged] . . . as an author where it otherwise meets authorship criteria, with any copyright ownership vesting in the AI’s owner.’" The court reviewed the decision of [Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, finding that the author of any AI generated work would be the AI. However, following the decision of Naruto v. Slater, since AIs are not human, they cannot hold copyright. The case was decided on August 18, 2023, confirming that AIs cannot hold copyright. As such, the work fell under public domain. However, the court explicitly stated that they were not making any decisions on "how much human input is necessary to qualify the user of an AI system as an 'author' of a generated work".[10] The D.C. Circuit unanimously affirmed in March 2025. On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court denied certiorari, making the ruling final and exhausting Thaler's appeals. Thaler now stands as binding precedent that AI systems cannot themselves be authors under U.S. copyright law, and that works generated entirely without human creative contribution are ineligible for registration.

Allen v. Perlmutter, No. 24-2665 (WJM) (D. Colo. 2026)

Théâtre D'opéra Spatial , created by Jason M. Allen using Midjourney, Photoshop, and Gigapixel AI (Image: Left intentionally blank, Public domain)

Allen v. Perlmutter picks up where Thaler left off. In August 2022, Colorado artist Jason Allen used Midjourney to create Théâtre D'opéra Spatial, entering text prompts at least 624 times to specify genre, tone, composition, and style, then refining the chosen output in Photoshop and Gigapixel AI. The image won first place at the Colorado State Fair in September 2022. When Allen applied for copyright registration as the sole human author, the Office offered to register only the portions reflecting his own contributions if he disclaimed the AI-generated material. Allen refused, and after the Review Board issued its final refusal in June 2023, he filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on September 26, 2024. He moved for summary judgment in August 2025, the Copyright Office cross-moved in January 2026, and Allen filed his reply in February 2026. Allen argues that his iterative prompting and creative selection constitute authorship analogous to the photographer's creative choices that made photography copyrightable under Burrow-Giles. The Copyright Office counters that prompts are ideas, not expression, because Midjourney determines the actual visual output regardless of how detailed the instructions are. The case is now fully briefed before Judge William J. Martínez, with a ruling expected in 2026 that will produce the first judicial standard answering the question Thaler left open: when does human input in AI-assisted work rise to the level of copyright authorship?

Zarya of the Dawn

Zarya of the Dawn by Kristina Kashtanova (Image: Kris Kashtanova using Midjourney AI, Public domain)

Zarya of the Dawn, a comic book authored by Kristina Kashtanova and illustrated using the AI generator Midjourney sparked a significant copyright dispute in 2022. When Kashtanova applied for copyright of the comic in September 2022, she failed to disclose that the images were generated by Midjourney. The comic was originally granted copyright by the Copyright Office, but after discovering Midjourney's involvement in illustrating the comic, they reviewed their decision. While the Copyright Office agreed that the text and compilation (the arrangement of images and text) were copyrightable, the art was not, as the "process is not controlled by the user because it is not possible to predict what Midjourney will create ahead of time." Although, Kashtanova claimed "she personally edited some of the images created by Midjourney", the Copyright office could not determine "what expression in the image was contributed through her use of Photoshop as opposed to generated by Midjourney" and thus revoked the copyright. [11]

Relevant Copyright Chapters

Chapter 308: The Originality Requirement[12]

The Originality Requirement has two primary requirements: "The work must be ‘independently created by the author’ and it must possess ‘at least some minimal degree of creativity’"

Chapter 308.1

The Copyright Act defines "independent creation" as a work created "without copying from other works." However, "a work may satisfy the independent creation requirement ‘even though it closely resembles other works so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying.’"

Chapter 308.2

In terms of creativity, the Copyright Act states that "‘the requisite level of creativity is extremely low.’ Even a ‘slight amount’ of creative expression will suffice.’"

Works That Do Not Satisfy the Originality Requirement

313.4(A): Mere Copies

313.4(K): Mere Variations of Colorings

Chapter 306: The Human Authorship Requirement[12]

The Human Authorship Requirement states that only humans may own a copyright. "The U.S. Copyright Office will register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being."

Chapter 313.2

The chapter states that "the U.S. Copyright Office will not register works produced by nature, animals, or plants." Furthermore, "the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author."

Works That Lack Human Authorship

• A photograph taken by a monkey.
• A mural painted by an elephant.
• A claim based on the appearance of actual animal skin.
• A claim based on driftwood that has been shaped and smoothed by the ocean.
• A claim based on cut marks, defects, and other qualities found in natural stone.
• An application for a song naming the Holy Spirit as the author of the work.

Chapter 507.1: Derivate Works[12]

As AI generated works are considered to be authored by the AI, and thus public domain, attempts to edit and then copyright the works would most likely fall under derivative works. The Copyright Act defines a derivative work as "a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a . . . art reproduction . . . or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted."

Chapter 311.2

Derivative works follow the same originality requirements as original works. Derivative works may only receive copyright protection "provided that [the work] contains a sufficient amount of original expression, meaning that the derivative work must be independently created and it must possess more than a modicum of creativity" The Copyright Act does reiterate that "[m]iniscule variations do not satisfy this requirement, such as merely changing the size of the preexisting work."

Present Issues

Lack of Creativity

In 2023, an anonymous creator known as "Ghostwriter" released Heart on My Sleeve, featuring AI-generated vocals mimicking Drake and The Weeknd. The song went viral, drawing millions of streams before being removed for copyright infringement. Universal Music Group argued that the AI-generated track exploited the artists’ likenesses without consent, raising ethical and legal concerns[13].

This case highlights AI’s ability to imitate human creativity so convincingly that it blurs the line between originality and replication. Although the creator faced no legal repercussions, the controversy underscored the need for clearer regulations on AI-generated content.

• AI doesn’t create entirely new works; it amplifies patterns derived from training data. While it can replicate styles, it lacks the emotional depth and intentionality of human artistry.
• Tools like MuseNet and Suno allow anyone to compose music in minutes, potentially devaluing human creativity by making artistic production instantaneous and impersonal.

Suno and Udio

The most current case reflecting the debate regarding the originality of AI music is in the RIAA vs. Suno and RIAA vs. Udio. The RIAA, or the Recording Industry Association of America, is a trade organization that represents many record labels, including Sony Music Group, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group (colloquially known as "the big Three" in the industry as they own up to 85% of market share). In June 2024, the RIAA placed a copyright infringement lawsuit on Suno and Udio (two generative AI music startup companies). They had three main goals with this lawsuit: [14]

• To have these companies admit their models use copyrighted music.
• Immediately stop training their AI models using this copyrighted music.
• Seek damages up to $150,000 per song used in the models.

When first discussing the lawsuit with the press, Chairman and CEO of RIAA, Mitch Glazier, stated:

"The music community has embraced AI and we are already partnering and collaborating with responsible developers to build sustainable AI tools centered on human creativity that put artists and songwriters in charge, but we can only succeed if developers are willing to work together with us. Unlicensed services like Suno and Udio that claim it's 'fair' to copy an artist's life's work and exploit it for their own profit without consent or pay set back the promise of genuinely innovative AI for us all."[15]

The RIAA hopes to reflect that the inherent moral value of this statement for pursuing this lawsuit is protecting artists' work and fair pay. However, in any of RIAA's arguments, the percentage of and how the money collected from damages will be distributed to the artists of each respective record label must be clarified.

Suno responded to the copyright lawsuit, "What the major record labels really don't want is competition." While this calls to question the actual motive of the lawsuit and whether the benefactors will include artists, the results of this lawsuit are pertinent as they will set further precedents in how copyright pertains to AI overall.

Initially, in response to the lawsuit, Udio claimed "fair use," which is primarily used for academic or journalistic purposes. However, lawyers dismissed this claim because their training is not used for human-created content. [16]

As the lawsuit proceeded, both companies admitted to using copyrighted music only as "intermediate copies." They sighted a copyright case from 2021 regarding an AI algorithm's use of copyrighted images to create a search algorithm. In that case, using these "intermediate copies was lawful" because these lower-resolution copies did not satisfy the user's desire to see the full images. However, in Suno and Udio's context, their AI models are not search algorithms but are generative.

As the lawsuits progressed into late 2025, the landscape began to shift from purely adversarial to partially collaborative. Major record labels, including Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group, reached settlements with AI companies like Udio and Suno. These agreements introduced a new model centered on licensing and artist consent, allowing musicians to “opt in” to have their work used in training datasets. This marks a significant shift toward a hybrid system where AI developers and record labels may coexist through formal partnerships rather than litigation alone. However, not all disputes have been resolved, as some companies—particularly Sony Music Group—continue to pursue legal action, signaling that consensus across the industry remains incomplete.

As of 2026 the progress of the three goals of the lawsuit is as follows:

• To have these companies admit their models use copyrighted music.
  The Sudo and Udio never outright admitted they were using copyrighted material, but instead shifted the focus of the lawsuit to whether or not using copyrighted material was legal in the first place.
• Immediately stop training their AI models using this copyrighted music.

The AI models are no longer being trained on the music illegally but this is due to the record labels making deals so that the Sudo and Udio could continue what they were doing but now legally.[17]

• Seek damages up to $150,000 per song used in the models.
  The settlements and partnership deals were never made public so we can't be sure what exactly happened.

The case is less about a definitive win or loss and more about setting an early precedent for how generative AI and intellectual property will coexist. Moving forward, these outcomes will likely influence future cases involving AI training data, reinforcing the importance of consent, compensation, and human authorship in creative industries.

AI Video Animation

AI video generation, though more accurately video animation, became visible to the public during the 2026 Super Bowl, when many brands used and advertised generative AI to create visuals rather than VFX. Svedka actually used generative AI to create their entire ad. The general reception to Svedka's ad, as well as ones created by Kalshi and Coca Cola was generally negative, stating they were cheap and uncanny [18].

In Hollywood, the usage of AI video animation is more subtle, but it has existed for longer. Movies will not have entirely AI generated scenes by in large. However, studios use AI video tools for previsualization, which means generating rough versions of scenes before shooting them in real life. Another use is concept iteration. Instead of waiting days for artists, teams can generate dozens of variations of a scene in minutes. AI is mostly used for background generation, de-aging real actors, and filling minor gaps in VFX shots. Systems like Sora showed the ability to generate clips up to about a half minute long with simulated camera motion, depth, and basic physics. But these clips often break under further constraints and scrutiny. Objects drift, characters change appearance mid shot, and motion is not physically consistent, which makes it largely impractical to produce any meaningfully long scenes. However, companies such as Netflix and Amazon have started partnering with Runway to trained specialized franchise video animation models on their proprietary content. [19]

Steven Spielberg accepts the use of AI, but drew a hard line in that it cannot replace a human creative. He said AI can help with planning and visual development but should not replace real actors and artists [20]. George Lucas has argued that tools like this are inevitable and will lower costs for independent creators. AI was used to create a deep faked face of a young Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker in the Boba Fett series, meaning Lucasfilm under Disney had been using AI as early as 2021 [21]. Paul Schrader warned that full AI-generated films are close and could remove the need for many creative roles. His concern is not just quality but control over authorship and credit, which in part is shared by his audience.

Sora itself ran into some concrete problems. It was expensive to run because each generated video required expensive GPU clusters for diffusion sampling across hundreds of frames. Companies like The Walt Disney Company were cautious about allowing their content or likenesses to be replicated by such systems. Walt Disney entered into a contract with OpenAI that allowed them to generate their characters in Sora clips. Newer systems like Veo improved temporal consistency by modeling motion across frames instead of generating each frame independently. Veo also added better camera controls, longer clip generation, and tighter integration with editing workflows [22]. As of April 26th 2026, Sora was discontinued by OpenAI despite Disney already being involved [23].

Other AI Music Lawsuits

Following this case, different record labels (primarily Universal) have filed a copyright on issues regarding AI music. On October 18, 2023, several record labels, namely Universal, filed a lawsuit alleging that Anthropic's AI chatbot, "Claude," unlawfully copied and disseminated copyrighted works, including lyrics "owned or controlled by the Publishers.

On January 31, 2024, the copyright license agreement between Universal Music Group (UMG), the world's largest music company, and TikTok owner ByteDance Ltd. expired without a renewal agreement. TikTok was forced to turn off the reproduction of all audio content from artists belonging to UMG's catalog, including Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish, Romeo Santos, J Balvin, and Imagine Dragons, among many others. During these negotiations, UMG made AI-generated music a sticking point in their TikTok negotiations, and a group of musicians spoke out against AI-generated music. Groups, including the Recording Academy, the Music Workers Alliance, the National Association of Music Publishers, the American Association of Independent Music, and even SAG-AFTRA, have all made statements supporting the lawsuits.

Ethical Implications of AI in the Music Industry

As is apparent with the growing number of lawsuits directed at AI music companies, advancements in AI bring new possibilities for creativity and efficiency along with critical ethical concerns regarding economic impact, bias, and data harvesting.

AI’s role in the music industry is a double-edged sword, offering both opportunities and challenges. On the one hand, AI automates many aspects of music creation and production. Tasks like composition, audio mastering, and even lyric writing can now be performed by AI tools. However, this automation has led to concerns about job displacement. Traditional roles in the industry, such as sound engineers and live musicians, face increasing obsolescence as AI tools become more sophisticated and accessible. However, AI also democratizes music production, enabling independent artists and smaller labels to create high-quality music without needing expensive equipment or studio time. So, while jobs are being lost, new roles are emerging, such as AI music curators and prompt engineers. This demonstrates how technological advancements can create fresh opportunities even as they disrupt existing systems.

Another critical issue in the use of AI in music is the presence of bias in the models used to generate content. AI systems are only as good as the data they are trained on, and this dependency can result in significant imbalances. For instance, if an AI model’s training data predominantly features Western music, the system may struggle to generate accurate representations of non-Western genres or cultural styles. Along with racial bias, gender bias in datasets used for AI training can perpetuate existing inequalities in the music industry. If female and non-binary artists are underrepresented in the data, AI-generated music may disproportionately reflect the styles and contributions of male artists. Such biases highlight the need for diverse and inclusive training datasets. Developers must address these issues to ensure that AI tools reflect a broader and more equitable spectrum of musical expression.

As discussed previously, the question of how AI systems source their training data has sparked widespread ethical debates. Many AI models, most notably Suno and Udio, are trained using copyrighted music, often without the consent or compensation of the original artists and have received backlash. This practice raises significant concerns about exploitation. Artists invest considerable time and effort into creating music, yet their work can be appropriated by AI systems without acknowledgment or financial remuneration. This mirrors controversies in other areas of AI, such as the exploitation of the unpaid labor of associated with Remotask workers. If creators cannot safeguard their work against unauthorized use by AI systems, the industry risks devaluing artistic contributions in favor of technological efficiency. The music industry is at a crossroads–do we protect the rights of creators, or do we embrace AI-drive efficiency without clear ethical guidelines?

AI in the Video Game Industry

The intersection of visual art, music, voice, and code make the gaming industry a hot spot for AI usage within creative works. AI has existed within gaming for some time in the form of non-playable characters (NPCs), but the modern implementation of AI within gaming specifically sees increased usage of generative tools for creative purposes.

Nvidia DLSS 5.0

Nvidia is a prolific graphics card producer with extensive ties to the gaming industry. Originally founded for the purpose of innovating computer gaming[24], they have since leveraged their graphics processing unit (GPU) technology for AI usage extensively, while also seeking to implement AI within their gaming technologies.

Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS) is a technology developed by Nvidia to use real-time deep learning AI to upscale video game rendering. The initial versions of DLSS were employed by running games at a lower native resolution, then using AI to upscale to a higher resolution based on the picture generated by the GPU[25]; this implementation did not use AI to directly modify any of the actual contents of games themselves.

DLSS 5.0, however, made use of generative AI to attempt to directly enhance the visual content of games. While the exact details of the implementation have yet to be released as of May 2026, the technology appears to generate new frames from prior training data, using the existing content of a game as the base. This introduces elements of the rendering which may not have been present in the original developer's vision, and poses issues related to artistic vision: Since the AI is able to directly add new content and textures, concerns are raised about whether a game is still the same piece of art/media.

AI Voice Acting and Other Content

AI usage in gaming development can be difficult to discern, leading to the spread of many rumors and allegations of use in voice acting, dialogue generation, textures, among others. Games such as The Finals and Arc Raiders have been accused of using AI tools to generate voice lines, which many perceive to be of lower quality than those generated by human counterparts. For The Finals in particular, the developers at Embark Studios stated that they used AI to extend voice lines created by real voice actors[26]. This can be problematic with respect to intellectual property rights, say for instance a development studio, unbeknown to a voice actor, is using said actor's voice as a baseline for AI generated quips and content.

Reception

Students

While students seem to find AI music fascinating, they emphasize that AI music lacks the emotional depth found in human compositions. They explain that human compositions are capable of conveying authentic human experiences and feelings, which AI cannot replicate.

Quotes are pulled directly from a New York Times article[27]:

"Human singers have the ability to convey a wide range of emotions and add their own unique style to their music. They have the creativity and experience to interpret lyrics and to give them their own style. Music made with A.I. may be good, but it will never be the same as music sung by a good pop star. While A.I. can be a helpful tool for composers and producers to experiment with new sounds and styles, it will never replace the raw talent and artistry of human vocalists." - Sergi, Sant Gregori

"In my personal opinion, the main allure of music lies in the emotional connection that it establishes with the listener. It’s not only about the melody or the lyrics, but also the sentiments and reminiscences that the music evokes. If I became aware that a song was completely generated by an artificial intelligence system, I would feel intrigued to listen to it, driven by my fascination with the underlying technology. Nevertheless, I might not feel as connected to the song on an emotional level as I would if it was composed by a human artist." - Aleena, Julia R. Masterman, Philadelphia, PA

"Even if the lyrics emulate a real pop star’s lyrics, whether it talks about heartbreak, love, or family, it would never have the same impact like one created by a real pop star because the listeners know it is all just to sound good and appeal to the listeners. It would have nothing to do with the artist themselves … Music is supposed to be relatable. When I listen to music, I like to listen to artists I know have gone through similar things or have the same feelings as me." - Sophia, Hinsdale Central High School

Composers

The evolution of composers attitudes towards AI music is reflected in Daniel James, a composer on YouTube, perspective over time. While he acknowledged that AI generated music was inevitable, it would never allow a total newbie to suddenly become a professional.[28] He suggested if AI became proficient in replicating professionals, composers would need to come up with their own style away from the AI. James had a positive view on AIs potential as a tool, comparing it to a ghost composer that could handle much of the monotonous work that an assistant might do. He predicted that AI would primarily impact the lower-skilled composers, widening the gap between low and high skilled composers.

By 2023, James' perspective has become more nuanced.[29] He discussed the limitations of AI, explaining that it can't really create something new, and can only make variations. While acknowledging AIs capability to blend styles, like reimagining Beethoven as hip-hop, he emphasizes that music exists within the context of the time it is created. James considers that although AI can accurately replicate music, it still struggles with emotional nuance. He also notes that skilled AI use would still require musical expertise to properly guide the AI. James also discusses the significant impacts AI might have. Formulaic music like EDM and trailer music seem particularly vulnerable to AI as there is a "correct" way to write those styles of music. He also believes that AI music will severely damage the lower end of the creative field. He worries that if newer generations of artists are trained to use AI, they may forget how to develop their own original styles, stunting their growth.

The broader composer community has similar views. On Reddit, many composers advocate for limiting AI's role to reference and placeholder work that bridge the gap between the client and the composer.[30] The consensus among professional composers, including James, is that AI needs much better regulation. They argue for protecting artists' unique, copyrightable styles from unauthorized AI replication and advocate that AI companies should compensate the artists whos works train the AI models. These composers are working to convince the Copyright Office that training AI on artists' work without compensation devalues artists.

Players

Players of video games tend towards a negative reception of generative AI usage in game development. Games will often receive negative reviews or discussions on forum pages when AI use is apparent: for instance, Steam (a platform used to distribute and discuss games) has entire community-driven pages dedicated towards identifying and shaming AI employment in games[31].

Executives/Industry

Nvidia met extensive backlash following their announce and demonstration of DLSS 5.0. Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, retorted by dismissing the critiques as ill founded: "They're completely wrong", he said, when asked about the idea that DLSS 5 may make games appear artistically altered and potentially worse.[32]

References

• ↑ Copeland, B. Jack; Long, Jason (2017), Floyd, Juliet; Bokulich, Alisa (eds.), "Turing and the History of Computer Music", Philosophical Explorations of the Legacy of Alan Turing: Turing 100, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 189–218, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-53280-6_8, ISBN 978-3-319-53280-6, retrieved 2024-12-02{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link)
• ↑ "ILLIAC Suite – Illinois Distributed Museum". distributedmuseum.illinois.edu. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
• ↑ tluong (2015-04-29). "Algorithmic Music – David Cope and EMI". CHM. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
• ↑ "MIDI", Wikipedia, 2024-11-25, retrieved 2024-12-02
• ↑ "Accenture | Symphonologie". www.oneclub.org. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
• ↑ "MuseNet". openai.com. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
• ↑ "AIVA, the AI Music Generation Assistant". www.aiva.ai. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
• ↑ Burrow-Giles Lithographic Company v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884)
• ↑ Naruto v. Slater, No. 16-15469 (9th Cir. 2018)
• ↑ Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 22-1564 (BAH)(DDC 2023)
• ↑ Kasunic, Robert J. (February 21, 2023). "2023.02.21 Zarya of the Dawn Letter" (PDF). Copyright Office (.gov). Retrieved December 9, 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• ↑ a b c U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 101 (3d ed. 2021).
• ↑ Reed, Rachel. "AI created a song mimicking the work of Drake and The Weeknd. What does that mean for copyright law?". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
• ↑ Curto, Justin (2024-08-01). "All 3 Major Labels Are Suing AI Start-ups for Copyright Infringement". Vulture. Retrieved 2024-12-10.
• ↑ Connelly, Rose (2024-06-24). "Record Companies Bring Landmark Cases for Responsible AI Against Suno and Udio in Boston and New York Federal Courts, Respectively". RIAA. Retrieved 2024-12-10.
• ↑ Curto, Justin (2024-08-01). "All 3 Major Labels Are Suing AI Start-ups for Copyright Infringement". Vulture. Retrieved 2024-12-10.
• ↑ "AI song generator startups Suno and Udio angered the music industry. Now they're hoping to join it". Los Angeles Times. 2026-02-26. Retrieved 2026-05-04.
• ↑ Monllos, ByKristina. "About that AI Bowl: Reception of AI ads 'sharply negative' as brand beefs, misinformation brewed". Marketing Brew. Retrieved 2026-05-04.
• ↑ Metz, Rachel (2025-07-22). "Netflix using startup Runway AI's video tools for production". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2026-05-04.
• ↑ Perez, Sarah (2026-03-13). "Steven Spielberg says he's 'never used AI' in any of his films". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2026-05-04.
• ↑ King, Jack (2022-02-10). "Deepfake Luke Skywalker is another step down a ghoulish CGI path". British GQ. Retrieved 2026-05-04.
• ↑ Abitbul, Hanna (2025-06-25). "Veo 3 vs. Sora by OpenAI: 2026 Comparison". Powtoon Blog. Retrieved 2026-05-04.
• ↑ "What to know about the Sora discontinuation". OpenAI Help Center. Retrieved 2026-05-04.
• ↑ "NVIDIA Corporation: History". NVIDIA. Retrieved 2026-05-04.
• ↑ Martindale, Jon (2020-02-14). "Nvidia RTX DLSS: everything you need to know". Digital Trends. Retrieved 2026-05-04.
• ↑ Notis, Ari (2025-10-31). "Arc Raiders' use of AI voices is The Finals controversy all over again". Polygon.com. Retrieved 2026-05-04.
• ↑ The Learning Network (May 11, 2023). "What Students Are Saying About A.I.-Generated Music". The New York Times. Retrieved December 9, 2024.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• ↑ Daniel James (2019-06-29), TADay #4 - Composer Talk Radio - Is AI a threat or is it the future of composition., retrieved 2024-12-09
• ↑ Daniel James (2022-12-11), AI In The Music Industry - Tool Or Threat - A Professional Composers View., retrieved 2024-12-09
• ↑ ArgamaWitch (2024-04-15). "Composers that take commissions, what's your thoughts on AI music being used as reference?". r/composer. Retrieved 2024-12-09.
• ↑ "Steam Curator: Games That Use AI Generation". store.steampowered.com. Retrieved 2026-05-04.
• ↑ published, Andrew E. Freedman Contributions from Paul Alcorn (2026-03-17). "Jensen Huang says gamers are 'completely wrong' about DLSS 5 — Nvidia CEO responds to DLSS 5 backlash". Tom's Hardware. Retrieved 2026-05-04.

Where this page came from

This page was imported from Wikibooks. From “Lentis” on Wikibooks, by its contributors, under CC BY-SA 4.0. Changed here: set as a page; navigation and edit links left out; each image under its own licence, credited in its caption.

Nobody has written it yet — it is the source material at a new address, which is why search engines are asked to skip it and why no one earns from it. It is up for grabs: take it on, and it is yours to rewrite and to earn from.