Great to see you all on one video! Big fan of everyone. I just got my payout for Pond5 dataset, won't mind if its regular income but I am worried its just a one off and they have total access to all our songs data from now on.
Another great video guys. I think what creatives don't grasp, in relation to this video, is that although they paid you, you don't know what for - so they paid you to machine learn their tech in specific genres/styles, what then happens when the AI has enough input (Johnny 5) and doesn't require your music anymore, it's been taught how to do it - so how long does this gravy train last for, what's the duration of this opt in/out scheme, does there come a point where you'r music has assisted their tech and then they don't require your music anymore ? are music creators in this scenario digging their own graves ? I suspect, yes. Although Ive been a musician for over 30 yrs, I spent circa 16 years or so in IT Support (client/server) and I can assure, tech does not go backwards. Add this too, imagine this all develops like crazy over the next year or so and all the AI platforms are then bought up by say an investment corporation, say like Hypgnosis, who bought up all the song assets from top, high profile artists over the past few years, imagine all the music provision for online is this one, large, huge warehouse and they keep developing the AI tech by machine learning from it's own compositions - there's no way for human creators to pitch against that machine. I don't think for one minute that music platforms like Spotify and Tik Tok aren't developing their own tech and using the content on their platforms. So why would they pay out to human contributors/artists for their music when they can generate it themselves - their costs would more than half and they'd be raking it in. Think long term with this guys, short term is merely a snapshot of where this is all headed.
PS; Im a photographer and had some 50 odd images on Shutterstock - they do not pay out unless your sales are more than $30, so imagine there's millions of photographers who's images dont sell that well and make less than $30 - Shutterstock keep that money if anyone has downloaded images !! Lets say $20 sales generated for millions of photographers, that is a shitload of money in their account !! I deleted my shutterstock profile, told them to ram it up their arse, I will never use them again. No doubt they've used billions of images too, for their AI (yes they developed their own)
And yes, this is an income stream right now. This is not a monthly thing, it is most likely a one time payment. But the music is being used to learn how to replace your music, so you are literally training your own replacement. All for a few bucks...
I think this is the dilemma: If we enter, we feed the mechanisms that will replace our work. If we don't enter, we become obsolete. If we were a union it would be much easier to draw some legal lines, but we are closer to being scared little animals ready to chew on any bone thrown at us. (me encluded) A sad feature of this situation is the fact that we are going to be fighting amongst colleagues, not maliciously, for survival. Trusting in the transparency of these companies or thinking that in their meetings they spend some of their time thinking about our interests, seems naive to me. Once AI is well trained (by us), how much of our work will still be relevant? Perhaps, and I really wish, new possibilities that we are not aware of will open up, but this is not consoling given the certainty that our work is going to be heavily devalued. This "new possibility" (For now only an assumption) implies losing the structure that we built for years, basically, starting over, and I personally think that it is extremely hard to start over, after the enormous sacrifice that it cost us to get to where we are. I would love someone to share an idea of how to get through this turbulence, without it being just hope, optimism and enthusiasm. And don't get me wrong, I would like to be on the side of optimism, please refute me.
One thing I love about chatgpt is it helps me to create descriptions, song titles and keywords. It's not like I write 1 prompt and all the work is done, I still have to "curate" what the AI does, I have to follow up and think a little bit what to ask for, but it gives me great ideas and it saves me a lot of time.
Did Open AI ask ANYONE before scanning the entire web for Chat GPT's uses? No. Now who believes that companies will do that for AI music creation?... Anyways, it's just too cool to see you three lovely people in one video! So great! And so human. :-) Cheers, Andy
There was one thing in the wedding business that kept bands from being wiped out from dj’s. The human element. The live “thing” that some clients valued. Hopefully that type of ideology will keep human creation at the highest value.
I do both exclusive libraries and stock music libraries. Been doing it for almost 15 years. Been a composer for Pond5 for almost 5 years now. I've currently got around 3,200 tracks on Pond5, and the dataset for me was really good for me. A $600.00 payday last week. A.I. is coming and we can't stop it. So might as well take it while it's here. It's scary, I don't like the A.I. concept of making music, but us composers just have to take it one day at a time.
@@LesPaul2006 one can hope, as this has been the best pay out for my husband on pond five. With that being said, we have learned all this together from the ground up on our own, with what we could glean for free from little tidbits being dropped on videos, without purchasing how to's, to learn. As well as researching stuff ourselves. There's been plenty we have done wrong for sure such as, he only had his on streams and pond 5. When he added to pond 5, he dumped a majority of his stuff in there all to once, which we now know was a mistake. Because when you upload there, it kinda keeps you up front, instead of being pushed to the back like he first did it. So now he's adding stuff to other libraries slowly. He got one of two approved for Audio jungle, just going to slowly add more here n there now to see what if anything more comes of it. He knew nothing of a DAW until 2016. Prior to that he played out live for a total of 14 years. He plays two instruments mostly, but can pick up almost any instrument and play it, or at least make it sound good for not ever playing the instrument before. The DAW opened up a whole new world for him, and he only did it to create. It was my idea to try to sell some for use in others artistic works. I guess we'll just have to see what happens and adjust as humanity has always had to throughout time.
just noticed that i had a sale of $4,75 at pond5, which was "dataset earning". The documentation doesn't specify anything about what song(s) or what else is going on with that sale. That's not really fair deal imo so i'm opting out from that for now.
@@Bittamin The part where they messed up is definitely the automatic opt-in for that. It would've been way better if they put some kind of pop-up window to notify about it when you log in to the site, i only noticed that sale bc of this video got me to check my store
@@morokolli313 yeah that was a pretty sneaky thing to do to your community, it’s always shoot first ask questions later anymore ☹️ even a community poll about the topic being sent out to everyone to just get an idea on the reception of doing this change ahead of time would’ve been great for communication and showing that respect/common courtesy even would have been great
From what I understand having looked a bit into it - photos and art were easier to train AI on due to the fact that images are well tagged online. Music isn't well tagged, hence it is behind images in AI training.....step in stock music, which is well tagged. So the AI will be matching your tags to your music, and learning what those tags mean in the context of sound. Therefore it will eventually be able to create audio from text instructions such as 'happy rock' etc. I'm no expert, but this is from a podcast I listened to on music and AI.
The dataset will be closed at a certain points.. they will not pay "forever" for that and there it will start the real competition, especially for the ones that have sell it! Good luck 🤞
Great video Jesse! Something to think about... What about sample library developers? Since everyone is trying to get in now, what's to stop them from licensing their high-quality sample sets to Machine Learning algorithms? How do we know that's not happening now? It is... Also, we know that Pond5 is a dataset contributor... what about the larger libraries when they start adding theirs in? They are... TV production companies have their own internal libraries + composers... what about when they add theirs in? They are... Not a doomsayer, but we should consider what happens after all of this is done. When everyone can have AI Generated music, lyrics, synth rappers and vocalists that will sound amazing at their fingertips and a glut of new music is out there, more than anyone could ever listen to - what then? No one has this answer yet, but we should start thinking more about what our contribution means - which is why I appreciate your focus on this subject matter. We don't even know where we are on the Sigmoid curve yet, but it's most likely somewhere in the beginning. That means we've yet to experience explosive exponential growth! Finally, perhaps what we can do is add in our own personal, musical DNA to the world dataset just to have the potential of having our musical voice heard? That may be enough for some people...
I've had a few more thoughts about this. The way I see it, the need AI has of our music will inevitably force websites that offer AI made music in exchange for money to have legal access to (our) copyrighted music, for a fee of course, and every website that doesn't comply will get taken down in a milisecond, just like Napster was taken down without mercy. Which means that these AI websites won't be able to compete with us PRICE WISE. Yes, they might be able to make music the way the customer wants it, with a soft violin on top of heavy guitars and stupid crap like that, but if they can't work CHEAPER than us (which they legally can't), WE'RE STILL GAME. Now, will we collect royalties from anything AI comes up with based on OUR music? That's for the judges to decide. But we DO have copyrights. Machines don't. So, what will happen? We'll end up coexisting with AI, just like Ubers and taxicabs coexist. But we'll have a fighting chance as we're not as over regulated as cabs.
I'm interested to see if these algorithms would down the line replace supervisors/editors.... this shit is wild. In a few years steven spielberg would be able to create another interstellar with chat GPT.... (actually not sure it's spielberg, but whoever directed interstellar)
Hello everybody. My music distributor added my music to some social media platforms, and people are using my music in their videos now. When I did research I saw that on the bottom of their videos my name shows up as the composer of that track. What I feel is that I'm very happy that I'm being recognized as the composer. They also have the option for anyone to use my music compositions as well. If this happens where they don't change the name of the composer then I'm very happy about this. I want to be known as the composer of my music. I'm also on pond5, and streaming services too. Enjoy your day.😊
This is a good one; now, the dataset earnings from last week, are called just 'Additional Revenue from' and the explanation you get is the following: 'Sometimes buyers upgrade their licenses after completing a purchase - this is the additional license revenue from one or more upgraded licenses'. No mention to AI whatsoever. Please guys check your Pond5 account, to see if it's the same for you. Does this mean that so many people opted out to have their track used to train AI's, that Pond5 just took a step back on their 'transparency policy'??
I've sold one song on pond 5. Was never accepted anywhere else but I was just beginning at the time. Imposter syndrome had me really depressed. All that money on sample libraries, thousands of hours and years honing my skill. Suddenly, 211 dollars from dataset earnings. Not sure if I should be happy that anyone paid for the music I worked on or creeper out at where this going.
Hello Jessie, what’s the main difference between sync edge and the yearly Music Directory? are the companies recommended in sync edge also listed in the 2023 music directory?
Sync Edge gives you my top 60 boutique recommended Libraries to work with - along with detailed instructional videos doing a deep dive on each company. The Directory is simply the contact into for those companies plus about 200 more - you have to do your own research with that PDF download.
I am wondering how big these datasets are? I figure pretty much everyone on pond5 made a dataset sale even myself that is a lot of money by my estimation. I can see a situation where artists are making AI or generative music and selling it as original music The iterative effect might be like watering down the vodka every time someone steals a bit
I don't want to sound too pessimistic, but I'm not getting too excited about the money I saw in my Pond5 account from this "dataset". I feel like it will be a one-time thing. Once they've done their big download of everyone's music, they will have gotten what they needed / paid for, enough to train their AI models. The "additional revenue" will be diminishing returns, at best and most likely nothing much for us, down the road. I hope I'm wrong...
Computer Vision is not listening to music. It is a visual technology where you can give AI a picture or video and it can identify what is in the video. Computer Vision does not ingest audio, but that technology is near. However, I've seen a video showing a 3D rendering of an audio file (versus the usual bar chart we see on Soundcloud, etc). Computer Vision can be used to identify patterns in 3D .wav files. But, at the end of the day, being opted in to AI learning models is literally allowing your music to be used to teach AI models how music works so that AI can create new music. Your music is being used to teach AI concept in melody, harmony, tempo, tone, orchestration, etc. It looks for the many obvious patterns in each genre and learns to tell the difference between an orchestral trailer versus a trap beat. Over time, Ai will be able to generate this music, instantly. Why deal with whiny composers that question royalty splits and complain about not getting paid for nine months, when you as a music producer/editor can fire up an AI tool and say, "give me 37 seconds of an orchestral trailer that starts with just strings, adds percussion after 11 seconds, has an edit point at 30 seconds, and builds to an epic style finish with a stinger ending on the beat, with a 1.5 second reverb tail." OK, regenerate this music but three semitones lower, and make the beginning less busy."
I just don’t see how , you get a return revenue once ai has done it’s thing. It’ll compute millions of tracks in the time you get to say royalty? The percentage pay off? Hans Zimmer, John Williams, Jesse?
I’m neither excited or hopeful about all of this. The simple end game is to sell high volume, cheap, and cutting out the need for composers and musicians. The pie continues to shrink.
Husband noticed yesterday on pond five they changed data sets to....this was what he copied from pond 5 and e mailed to me copy and pasted below. Anybody else notice that? Not sure what to think about data sets except transparency would've been nice with a proper explanation, and a choice right off the bat. See below for that message he saw there yesterday replacing data sets. Message from Pond 5 changed from Data Sets to: This is the current description: Sometimes buyers upgrade their licenses after completing a purchase - this is the additional license revenue from one or more upgraded licenses. Also from the research I did about data sets is.. music is used as a way to help the computer see??? Whatever that's supposed to mean??
I don't think that sweet vision of making tracks and getting payouts for whenever they're at least partially used to generate AI output will happen. They've got all our content already and paid us off. PROs would've had to move on this 5 years ago for this to have been a reality. It's too late. I think the move for composers will be to make less generic tracks (ditch the "corporate" style and all the uke-and-stomp-type beats) from now on, and guard your copyright against AI use
The fact they basically made it opt-in by default, trained their AI, then announced it, is suspicious. They should have been more transparent, and this move concerns me. I worry that that they're trying to pay as many contributors as possible and at once in hopes that most people will believe it is an ongoing and new form of payment, when it isn't, so they don't rush to opt-out. I doubt it will be ongoing, and certainty not at such high amounts. If they pay at all, it will probably be pennies.
Nah this is the worst thing and it's gonna change lifes.. for few bucks your dataset... Think about it. They was be able to pay thousand of composer few dollars and it cost them millions on world wide scale... So do you think they didn't made the double or even the triple of that cash "payed"?? Where is the transparency? How much of a cut you pay? How much money do you make ? That's it.. and remember that AI don't need all the data perpetually once the got your piano or whatever they will combine it and creates new ones like layerings.
It’s different in the use of your music from training a plagiarist to make your musical ideas. It’s short money. Once they dont need you they WONT NEED you. HOW DO YOU NOT see that??? DJ’a replacing bands, playback tracks replacing bands, software replacing orchestras, now…no humans necessary?? Like…at all?? Wow
Honestly, as much as I would like to share this 'WinWinWin' Situation view here.... , sorry, I dont see it. The view of everytime an AI will create something in the future with our datasets we will earn something from it ???? As much as I always like to be optimistic about something, this sounds rather naive to me. This could only work, as somebody pointed out here in the comments, in a pretty closed and transparent (!!!!!) environment. And this is my next point, the level of sneakyness and instransparency with which Pond5/Shutterstock are operating here makes me highly suspicious. If living long enough in a western neoliberal capitalistic society with a so called "free market" tought me anything ....... need I go on ?! 🤑😂 So at the moment, I am thinking of getting my stuff out there as fast as I can, at the same time thinking, the damage is probably already done, since I received my firtst "Dataset earnings" a few days ago. What ARE they anyway?! As far as I understand them now, their simply one time fees to get our music into the 'datasets' of some AI companies, right?! That brings me to my main concern: ►► IF this would be a huge opportunity for us authors, would not Pond5 have presented it as such to us in numerous emails instead of secretly sneaking our data to these companies?!?? What do you guys think?
@@SyncMyMusic what is also not clear for me: do we get this monthly now? Can i expect to monthly become this amount of money? Or was is an one time scan of my tracks?
As someone who has worked with a music library on their marketing and on their technology advisory board, I would NOT be optimistic about this. I think you’re being “sold out”. The only way it’s going to be a “win” for us is to tell the AI companies that they have to deal with the musicans directly with upfront payments. That way, the music we write for them will be specifically for the purpose intended and separate from your library music. Plus, you’re keeping all of what is being paid and you have control Allow this and trust me, we will all be sorry. Do they really need millions of tracks for training AI? Of course not and Soundraw is proving that. Composer collectives with good business sense no longer need corporate libaries if we hook up with these AI companies to work for us as contractors and keep control of the music side. Collectives can now have a much larger output when supplemented with AI. I’ll leave it there because you can probably figure where I’m going. I’ll say more in a Sync Academy article this weekend…
I guess it’s just another opportunity but if they’re analysing our music and then copying that to create music that we don’t get credit for then that’s totally wrong.
I don't want to be too much negative on that topic. But in my eyes it's only a hope or a belief, that this all will end in a win-win-win situation. In a game with winners - there must be also one or more losers and actually it's totally unclear on which side we stay as composers.
You're referring to the scarcity mindset where somehow HAS to lose for someone else to win. I just don't buy it - most of my life is filled with win-win scenarios with people I do business with. There will CERTAINLY be job loss with this new tech (perhaps that's the "loser") but in the long run new opportunities will arise that will allow more people at the table.
I dumped Pond 5. They reduced our cut of the split. Subscription Plans didn't help. AI was the last straw. They clearly have no respect for their contributors. It's a business arrangement. If it's not mutually profitable, I don't need it.
Hopefully the creator of the music you studied, was paid for their creations. When YOU learn and create music, hopefully YOU will get paid for your work at some point. AI creates and no need to pay AI. AI needs no income, benefits, life expenses, no care about time and investment, just churn out music for profit to a a corp. That’s the same thing? Oh well, we can all go work for the post office. Oh wait…do they need people? Smh.
I find it hilarious that Eric was sold for $60. He's like 'it pays for dinner"... I mean ok, I may be too harsh here, but composers selling their potential livelihood for pocket change is literally race to the bottom.
Great to see you all on one video! Big fan of everyone. I just got my payout for Pond5 dataset, won't mind if its regular income but I am worried its just a one off and they have total access to all our songs data from now on.
Another great video guys. I think what creatives don't grasp, in relation to this video, is that although they paid you, you don't know what for - so they paid you to machine learn their tech in specific genres/styles, what then happens when the AI has enough input (Johnny 5) and doesn't require your music anymore, it's been taught how to do it - so how long does this gravy train last for, what's the duration of this opt in/out scheme, does there come a point where you'r music has assisted their tech and then they don't require your music anymore ? are music creators in this scenario digging their own graves ? I suspect, yes. Although Ive been a musician for over 30 yrs, I spent circa 16 years or so in IT Support (client/server) and I can assure, tech does not go backwards. Add this too, imagine this all develops like crazy over the next year or so and all the AI platforms are then bought up by say an investment corporation, say like Hypgnosis, who bought up all the song assets from top, high profile artists over the past few years, imagine all the music provision for online is this one, large, huge warehouse and they keep developing the AI tech by machine learning from it's own compositions - there's no way for human creators to pitch against that machine. I don't think for one minute that music platforms like Spotify and Tik Tok aren't developing their own tech and using the content on their platforms. So why would they pay out to human contributors/artists for their music when they can generate it themselves - their costs would more than half and they'd be raking it in. Think long term with this guys, short term is merely a snapshot of where this is all headed.
PS; Im a photographer and had some 50 odd images on Shutterstock - they do not pay out unless your sales are more than $30, so imagine there's millions of photographers who's images dont sell that well and make less than $30 - Shutterstock keep that money if anyone has downloaded images !! Lets say $20 sales generated for millions of photographers, that is a shitload of money in their account !! I deleted my shutterstock profile, told them to ram it up their arse, I will never use them again. No doubt they've used billions of images too, for their AI (yes they developed their own)
And yes, this is an income stream right now. This is not a monthly thing, it is most likely a one time payment. But the music is being used to learn how to replace your music, so you are literally training your own replacement. All for a few bucks...
That dataset earning will quickly reduce as it becomes streamlined just as songwriters and composers had to fight to get .0012 cents per stream.
I think this is the dilemma: If we enter, we feed the mechanisms that will replace our work. If we don't enter, we become obsolete. If we were a union it would be much easier to draw some legal lines, but we are closer to being scared little animals ready to chew on any bone thrown at us. (me encluded)
A sad feature of this situation is the fact that we are going to be fighting amongst colleagues, not maliciously, for survival.
Trusting in the transparency of these companies or thinking that in their meetings they spend some of their time thinking about our interests, seems naive to me. Once AI is well trained (by us), how much of our work will still be relevant?
Perhaps, and I really wish, new possibilities that we are not aware of will open up, but this is not consoling given the certainty that our work is going to be heavily devalued. This "new possibility" (For now only an assumption) implies losing the structure that we built for years, basically, starting over, and I personally think that it is extremely hard to start over, after the enormous sacrifice that it cost us to get to where we are.
I would love someone to share an idea of how to get through this turbulence, without it being just hope, optimism and enthusiasm. And don't get me wrong, I would like to be on the side of optimism, please refute me.
One thing I love about chatgpt is it helps me to create descriptions, song titles and keywords. It's not like I write 1 prompt and all the work is done, I still have to "curate" what the AI does, I have to follow up and think a little bit what to ask for, but it gives me great ideas and it saves me a lot of time.
At the end of the day being unique is what will have value now.
Did Open AI ask ANYONE before scanning the entire web for Chat GPT's uses? No.
Now who believes that companies will do that for AI music creation?...
Anyways, it's just too cool to see you three lovely people in one video!
So great! And so human. :-)
Cheers, Andy
Music has copyrights in ways photography, illustration and text doesn't.
There was one thing in the wedding business that kept bands from being wiped out from dj’s. The human element. The live “thing” that some clients valued. Hopefully that type of ideology will keep human creation at the highest value.
I do both exclusive libraries and stock music libraries. Been doing it for almost 15 years. Been a composer for Pond5 for almost 5 years now. I've currently got around 3,200 tracks on Pond5, and the dataset for me was really good for me. A $600.00 payday last week.
A.I. is coming and we can't stop it. So might as well take it while it's here. It's scary, I don't like the A.I. concept of making music, but us composers just have to take it one day at a time.
What if that's all you get though? Meaning just a one time fee.
@@missreynolds3637 Not likely. The machine will require more food. Much more.
@@LesPaul2006 one can hope, as this has been the best pay out for my husband on pond five. With that being said, we have learned all this together from the ground up on our own, with what we could glean for free from little tidbits being dropped on videos, without purchasing how to's, to learn. As well as researching stuff ourselves. There's been plenty we have done wrong for sure such as, he only had his on streams and pond 5. When he added to pond 5, he dumped a majority of his stuff in there all to once, which we now know was a mistake. Because when you upload there, it kinda keeps you up front, instead of being pushed to the back like he first did it. So now he's adding stuff to other libraries slowly. He got one of two approved for Audio jungle, just going to slowly add more here n there now to see what if anything more comes of it. He knew nothing of a DAW until 2016. Prior to that he played out live for a total of 14 years. He plays two instruments mostly, but can pick up almost any instrument and play it, or at least make it sound good for not ever playing the instrument before. The DAW opened up a whole new world for him, and he only did it to create. It was my idea to try to sell some for use in others artistic works. I guess we'll just have to see what happens and adjust as humanity has always had to throughout time.
To quote the movie CREED III , “I’m coming for it all’!
just noticed that i had a sale of $4,75 at pond5, which was "dataset earning". The documentation doesn't specify anything about what song(s) or what else is going on with that sale. That's not really fair deal imo so i'm opting out from that for now.
That’s messed up 😢 transparency needs to be a pillar of a company. Shame the whole industry has been smoke and mirrors since Jesus left chicago
I also decided to check after seeing your comment and noticed a same sale :)
@@Bittamin The part where they messed up is definitely the automatic opt-in for that. It would've been way better if they put some kind of pop-up window to notify about it when you log in to the site, i only noticed that sale bc of this video got me to check my store
@@morokolli313 yeah that was a pretty sneaky thing to do to your community, it’s always shoot first ask questions later anymore ☹️ even a community poll about the topic being sent out to everyone to just get an idea on the reception of doing this change ahead of time would’ve been great for communication and showing that respect/common courtesy even would have been great
From what I understand having looked a bit into it - photos and art were easier to train AI on due to the fact that images are well tagged online. Music isn't well tagged, hence it is behind images in AI training.....step in stock music, which is well tagged.
So the AI will be matching your tags to your music, and learning what those tags mean in the context of sound. Therefore it will eventually be able to create audio from text instructions such as 'happy rock' etc.
I'm no expert, but this is from a podcast I listened to on music and AI.
Thanks, exited for new prospects!
The dataset will be closed at a certain points.. they will not pay "forever" for that and there it will start the real competition, especially for the ones that have sell it! Good luck 🤞
Great video Jesse! Something to think about... What about sample library developers? Since everyone is trying to get in now, what's to stop them from licensing their high-quality sample sets to Machine Learning algorithms? How do we know that's not happening now? It is...
Also, we know that Pond5 is a dataset contributor... what about the larger libraries when they start adding theirs in? They are...
TV production companies have their own internal libraries + composers... what about when they add theirs in? They are...
Not a doomsayer, but we should consider what happens after all of this is done. When everyone can have AI Generated music, lyrics, synth rappers and vocalists that will sound amazing at their fingertips and a glut of new music is out there, more than anyone could ever listen to - what then? No one has this answer yet, but we should start thinking more about what our contribution means - which is why I appreciate your focus on this subject matter.
We don't even know where we are on the Sigmoid curve yet, but it's most likely somewhere in the beginning. That means we've yet to experience explosive exponential growth!
Finally, perhaps what we can do is add in our own personal, musical DNA to the world dataset just to have the potential of having our musical voice heard? That may be enough for some people...
I've had a few more thoughts about this. The way I see it, the need AI has of our music will inevitably force websites that offer AI made music in exchange for money to have legal access to (our) copyrighted music, for a fee of course, and every website that doesn't comply will get taken down in a milisecond, just like Napster was taken down without mercy. Which means that these AI websites won't be able to compete with us PRICE WISE. Yes, they might be able to make music the way the customer wants it, with a soft violin on top of heavy guitars and stupid crap like that, but if they can't work CHEAPER than us (which they legally can't), WE'RE STILL GAME.
Now, will we collect royalties from anything AI comes up with based on OUR music? That's for the judges to decide. But we DO have copyrights. Machines don't.
So, what will happen? We'll end up coexisting with AI, just like Ubers and taxicabs coexist. But we'll have a fighting chance as we're not as over regulated as cabs.
Interesting. I hope you're right.
@@duncangrimley4397 That's also dubious. If music changes, if trends change, the machine will need new data.
I'm interested to see if these algorithms would down the line replace supervisors/editors.... this shit is wild.
In a few years steven spielberg would be able to create another interstellar with chat GPT.... (actually not sure it's spielberg, but whoever directed interstellar)
Help us train your replacement! We’ll pay you. Really? People are cool with this?!!! Smdh!!
Great Video, Great Thoughts!
Hello everybody. My music distributor added my music to some social media platforms, and people are using my music in their videos now. When I did research I saw that on the bottom of their videos my name shows up as the composer of that track. What I feel is that I'm very happy that I'm being recognized as the composer. They also have the option for anyone to use my music compositions as well. If this happens where they don't change the name of the composer then I'm very happy about this. I want to be known as the composer of my music. I'm also on pond5, and streaming services too. Enjoy your day.😊
I might have 1 song on Pond 5. LOL. Didn't really get along with them years ago.
Woke up to $25 from Pond5 and had no idea why!
This is a good one; now, the dataset earnings from last week, are called just 'Additional Revenue from' and the explanation you get is the following: 'Sometimes buyers upgrade their licenses after completing a purchase - this is the additional license revenue from one or more upgraded licenses'. No mention to AI whatsoever. Please guys check your Pond5 account, to see if it's the same for you. Does this mean that so many people opted out to have their track used to train AI's, that Pond5 just took a step back on their 'transparency policy'??
I've sold one song on pond 5. Was never accepted anywhere else but I was just beginning at the time. Imposter syndrome had me really depressed. All that money on sample libraries, thousands of hours and years honing my skill. Suddenly, 211 dollars from dataset earnings. Not sure if I should be happy that anyone paid for the music I worked on or creeper out at where this going.
Hello Jessie, what’s the main difference between sync edge and the yearly Music Directory? are the companies recommended in sync edge also listed in the 2023 music directory?
Sync Edge gives you my top 60 boutique recommended Libraries to work with - along with detailed instructional videos doing a deep dive on each company. The Directory is simply the contact into for those companies plus about 200 more - you have to do your own research with that PDF download.
I am wondering how big these datasets are? I figure pretty much everyone on pond5 made a dataset sale even myself that is a lot of money by my estimation. I can see a situation where artists are making AI or generative music and selling it as original music The iterative effect might be like watering down the vodka every time someone steals a bit
I don't want to sound too pessimistic, but I'm not getting too excited about the money I saw in my Pond5 account from this "dataset". I feel like it will be a one-time thing. Once they've done their big download of everyone's music, they will have gotten what they needed / paid for, enough to train their AI models. The "additional revenue" will be diminishing returns, at best and most likely nothing much for us, down the road. I hope I'm wrong...
Computer Vision is not listening to music. It is a visual technology where you can give AI a picture or video and it can identify what is in the video. Computer Vision does not ingest audio, but that technology is near. However, I've seen a video showing a 3D rendering of an audio file (versus the usual bar chart we see on Soundcloud, etc). Computer Vision can be used to identify patterns in 3D .wav files.
But, at the end of the day, being opted in to AI learning models is literally allowing your music to be used to teach AI models how music works so that AI can create new music. Your music is being used to teach AI concept in melody, harmony, tempo, tone, orchestration, etc. It looks for the many obvious patterns in each genre and learns to tell the difference between an orchestral trailer versus a trap beat. Over time, Ai will be able to generate this music, instantly. Why deal with whiny composers that question royalty splits and complain about not getting paid for nine months, when you as a music producer/editor can fire up an AI tool and say, "give me 37 seconds of an orchestral trailer that starts with just strings, adds percussion after 11 seconds, has an edit point at 30 seconds, and builds to an epic style finish with a stinger ending on the beat, with a 1.5 second reverb tail." OK, regenerate this music but three semitones lower, and make the beginning less busy."
This, right here, is the truth!
This! Right here! Keep saying it, Paul. This needs to be said. This is exactly what I am concerned about, and what I fear, as well.
I just don’t see how , you get a return revenue once ai has done it’s thing. It’ll compute millions of tracks in the time you get to say royalty? The percentage pay off? Hans Zimmer, John Williams, Jesse?
I’m neither excited or hopeful about all of this. The simple end game is to sell high volume, cheap, and cutting out the need for composers and musicians. The pie continues to shrink.
Jesse is the O G!
Husband noticed yesterday on pond five they changed data sets to....this was what he copied from pond 5 and e mailed to me copy and pasted below. Anybody else notice that? Not sure what to think about data sets except transparency would've been nice with a proper explanation, and a choice right off the bat. See below for that message he saw there yesterday replacing data sets.
Message from Pond 5 changed from Data Sets to: This is the current description:
Sometimes buyers upgrade their licenses after completing a purchase - this is the additional license revenue from one or more upgraded licenses.
Also from the research I did about data sets is.. music is used as a way to help the computer see??? Whatever that's supposed to mean??
I don't think that sweet vision of making tracks and getting payouts for whenever they're at least partially used to generate AI output will happen. They've got all our content already and paid us off. PROs would've had to move on this 5 years ago for this to have been a reality. It's too late.
I think the move for composers will be to make less generic tracks (ditch the "corporate" style and all the uke-and-stomp-type beats) from now on, and guard your copyright against AI use
The fact they basically made it opt-in by default, trained their AI, then announced it, is suspicious. They should have been more transparent, and this move concerns me. I worry that that they're trying to pay as many contributors as possible and at once in hopes that most people will believe it is an ongoing and new form of payment, when it isn't, so they don't rush to opt-out. I doubt it will be ongoing, and certainty not at such high amounts. If they pay at all, it will probably be pennies.
Nah this is the worst thing and it's gonna change lifes.. for few bucks your dataset... Think about it. They was be able to pay thousand of composer few dollars and it cost them millions on world wide scale... So do you think they didn't made the double or even the triple of that cash "payed"?? Where is the transparency? How much of a cut you pay? How much money do you make ? That's it.. and remember that AI don't need all the data perpetually once the got your piano or whatever they will combine it and creates new ones like layerings.
It’s different in the use of your music from training a plagiarist to make your musical ideas. It’s short money. Once they dont need you they WONT NEED you. HOW DO YOU NOT see that???
DJ’a replacing bands, playback tracks replacing bands, software replacing orchestras, now…no humans necessary?? Like…at all??
Wow
Here's is a more simple analogy. If you are a cashier at McDonald's... would you cheer when they installed self service order kiosks in your location?
Honestly, as much as I would like to share this 'WinWinWin' Situation view here.... , sorry, I dont see it. The view of everytime an AI will create something in the future with our datasets we will earn something from it ???? As much as I always like to be optimistic about something, this sounds rather naive to me. This could only work, as somebody pointed out here in the comments, in a pretty closed and transparent (!!!!!) environment.
And this is my next point, the level of sneakyness and instransparency with which Pond5/Shutterstock are operating here makes me highly suspicious. If living long enough in a western neoliberal capitalistic society with a so called "free market" tought me anything ....... need I go on ?! 🤑😂
So at the moment, I am thinking of getting my stuff out there as fast as I can, at the same time thinking, the damage is probably already done, since I received my firtst "Dataset earnings" a few days ago. What ARE they anyway?! As far as I understand them now, their simply one time fees to get our music into the 'datasets' of some AI companies, right?!
That brings me to my main concern:
►► IF this would be a huge opportunity for us authors, would not Pond5 have presented it as such to us in numerous emails instead of secretly sneaking our data to these companies?!?? What do you guys think?
Very entertaining video with lots of good points about the whole AI Hype:
th-cam.com/video/ro130m-f_yk/w-d-xo.html
Did they asked us before AI´ing our music?
Technically yes because the Pond5 agreements allow them to monetize their producer's music in multiple new ways.
No, they did not
@@SyncMyMusic but then this payment i got is based on the price I set? I hope so
@@emanuel_soundtrack Not sure about that.
@@SyncMyMusic what is also not clear for me: do we get this monthly now? Can i expect to monthly become this amount of money? Or was is an one time scan of my tracks?
I am with you on AI--- good idea to change your channel--there is a big opportunity
As someone who has worked with a music library on their marketing and on their technology advisory board, I would NOT be optimistic about this. I think you’re being “sold out”. The only way it’s going to be a “win” for us is to tell the AI companies that they have to deal with the musicans directly with upfront payments. That way, the music we write for them will be specifically for the purpose intended and separate from your library music. Plus, you’re keeping all of what is being paid and you have control Allow this and trust me, we will all be sorry.
Do they really need millions of tracks for training AI? Of course not and Soundraw is proving that. Composer collectives with good business sense no longer need corporate libaries if we hook up with these AI companies to work for us as contractors and keep control of the music side. Collectives can now have a much larger output when supplemented with AI. I’ll leave it there because you can probably figure where I’m going.
I’ll say more in a Sync Academy article this weekend…
I guess it’s just another opportunity but if they’re analysing our music and then copying that to create music that we don’t get credit for then that’s totally wrong.
I don't want to be too much negative on that topic. But in my eyes it's only a hope or a belief, that this all will end in a win-win-win situation.
In a game with winners - there must be also one or more losers and actually it's totally unclear on which side we stay as composers.
You're referring to the scarcity mindset where somehow HAS to lose for someone else to win. I just don't buy it - most of my life is filled with win-win scenarios with people I do business with. There will CERTAINLY be job loss with this new tech (perhaps that's the "loser") but in the long run new opportunities will arise that will allow more people at the table.
I dumped Pond 5. They reduced our cut of the split. Subscription Plans didn't help. AI was the last straw. They clearly have no respect for their contributors. It's a business arrangement. If it's not mutually profitable, I don't need it.
don't we do the same thing, listen to music and reproduce randomly what we like?
Hopefully the creator of the music you studied, was paid for their creations. When YOU learn and create music, hopefully YOU will get paid for your work at some point. AI creates and no need to pay AI. AI needs no income, benefits, life expenses, no care about time and investment, just churn out music for profit to a a corp. That’s the same thing? Oh well, we can all go work for the post office. Oh wait…do they need people? Smh.
@@PluckDaBass it's just, if you make music for money.
@@tanglung4379 if you want the music of someone, i guess it is logical to expect to pay them for this
They are trying to use peoples music and then take composers out of businesss
I find it hilarious that Eric was sold for $60. He's like 'it pays for dinner"... I mean ok, I may be too harsh here, but composers selling their potential livelihood for pocket change is literally race to the bottom.
We all have different needs and preferences when it comes to how we monetize our music.