Is he a criminal or a lord? The use of AI might violate the rights of Julio Iglesias | Business | EUROtoday

“I love life and I love love, I am a scoundrel, I am a gentleman…” Someone unidentified has used generative synthetic intelligence to present new life to Julio Iglesias’ traditional. Although a big a part of technology Z just isn’t capable of observe the lyrics of the hit composed by Ramón Arcusa (member of the Dúo Dinático), a reggaeton-type model of this music is now circulating on the networks. There is even a video by which a retouched Julio Iglesias seems strolling via events and seashores, whereas the music is heard with one other voice. It was Arcusa himself who made it identified on the social community X: “They have done this with AI, based on the original song I wrote for Julio Iglesias. Honestly, I don’t know what to think. Help me.” It is probably going that most of these circumstances will change into increasingly more frequent and the query arises: Does it violate your copyright?

Specialists make clear that copyright is a set of authorized guidelines that shield unique works, which give them management over using their works and permit them to obtain recognition and compensation for them. “They are the cornerstone to encourage creativity and the production of new works,” explains Pilar Sánchez-Bleda, who heads the IP and expertise division at Auren Spain. In Spain, he assures, any new model primarily based on a earlier piece of music that’s protected—that’s, one which has not but entered the general public area and, subsequently, just isn’t free to make use of—requires the consent of the creator. “Our Intellectual Property Law considers it a derivative work. Since it was created without consent, it would constitute a violation of copyright and exploitation rights,” he maintains. The by-product is a brand new work that’s born from the alteration or modification of a pre-existing one and the copyright is held by whoever created the unique and whoever made the model.

Authors even have ethical rights, which contain recognizing paternity, the integrity of the work and its status, explains digital regulation knowledgeable lawyer Borja Adsuara, who acknowledges that nobody creates one thing from nothing, so “this can be done use as long as it does not harm the exploitation of the work or the prestige of the author, that is, his moral right.” And the reggaeton air given with AI can bother whoever composed it. “Permission is needed because the author could disagree with that style, find that version hurtful, or simply not like it. It could go against their moral rights, but those of exploitation and public communication could also be violated,” warns Santiago Mediano, a lawyer specializing in intellectual property and artificial intelligence.

The details of the case are very relevant. “Hypothetically speaking, AI can produce different violations: of copyright, if the generated work is similar to a pre-existing protected work; of image, if the result incorporates the image or any other recognizable element of a person, for example, the voice; The results can even be acts of unfair competition, that is, deception or unfair imitation,” details David Gómez, managing partner of Baylos.

A new image

The new music goes with a video that modifies Julio Iglesias’ face with AI. Pilar Sánchez-Bleda recollects that the picture of an individual enjoys particular authorized safety. “It cannot be modified without your authorization and consent, except in the case of parody that is protected by our Intellectual Property Law, but its use is very restrictive. “Here there could be an infringement of image rights and the right to honor.” These cases must be resolved by a judge, who will determine if a violation has occurred and will establish compensation through civil means. “There is also the administrative route, since the voice and image are personal data,” provides Borja Adsuara, though he maintains that since it’s a well-known individual, privateness wouldn’t be affected.

Indeed, if it is a parody, there would be no infringement. On the other hand, the author could appeal to the doctrine of fair use or innocuous use, typical of the American legal system, although David Gómez believes that it would not have a place in Spain, where the limits are assessed and cannot be expanded. “A result like that of the commented video seems to be a very clear infringement, and would not fall within the scope of any limit or exception,” says the lawyer, who believes that in this case it is debatable that it does not affect the normal exploitation of the works. originals.

“Although it is generated with AI, the image is very recognizable, it is almost a deep fakealso with an imitating voice. Julio Iglesias could be considered to have been faked because he is credited with singing and someone could believe it is really him. If I wanted, I could urge the removal of the video,” explains Santiago Mediano. The platforms have take down mechanisms to withdraw them following the request of the rights owner.

There are legal tools for authors to protect their works. “It is recommended that artists become aware that AI is here to stay and that it can be used by anyone,” says Mediano, who insists on the need for authors to adopt precautionary measures, such as excluding their works from the possibility of being used with these technologies or to set limits, for example, so that they are the only ones authorized to version their works with artificial intelligence. The key is to shield yourself so that the AI ​​is less of a crook and more of a master.