How far can the use of AI in art go? The Chilean artist Mauricio Bustos alias FlowGPT has his own opinion on this, which raises exciting but also controversial questions. A critical analysis.
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in music production is increasingly raising legal and ethical questions. Chilean artist Mauricio Bustos aka FlowGPT uses AI to imitate the voices of well-known artists, which has now made him a controversial and celebrated AI music pioneer.
Let’s take this “artistic act” as an opportunity to look at some interesting questions, namely, how far the use of AI in art can go, specifically whether Mauricio Bustos is even allowed to do what he does and what legal aspects Consequences may arise from this from the perspective of German law.
AI in art: Background to the controversy
What is it actually about? Well, Mauricio Bustos produces music using artificial intelligence (AI) by imitating the voices of well-known artists. In October 2023, he released the song “NostalgIA,” which quickly went viral, garnering millions of views on TikTok and Spotify.
The track features AI-generated voices from Justin Bieber, Bad Bunny and Daddy Yankee, without these artists actually being involved in the song’s production. This caused controversy, particularly when Bad Bunny reacted angrily to the song and its release and Spotify removed the song from its platform.
Bustos, on the other hand, sees AI as an opportunity for a “democratization of the music industry”. In his opinion, AI enables independent producers to realize their creative visions without technical or vocal limitations. He does this by working with human producers, creating beats and lyrics, and then using AI to manipulate his own voice to sound like famous singers.
However, Bustos plans to develop his own artistic identity for his alias FlowGPT and to break away from the previous imitation of well-known artists. Bustos hopes AI will revolutionize the music industry and create new opportunities for independent artists.
The consequences for Mauricio Bustos
At the outset, I would like to point out that it is not my aim to provide a final legal assessment of this case in this column. It is too complex for that, especially due to its international component – this is a Chilean artist who, among others, has antagonized US and Puerto Rican singers on US, Swedish and Chinese platforms.
Of course, I also look at the case through the “glasses” of a German business lawyer. But I think it is very suitable for addressing some important questions that will arise in the near future in connection with AI for art and to which answers must be found. Because the possibilities with and through AI are immense and we are only at the beginning of development.
In the case of Mauricio Bustos, it is crucial that he uses AI to imitate the voices of famous artists.
This initially raises the question of how far the use of AI in art can go. If you look at German copyright law, the protection of works that are considered personal intellectual creations is of central importance. AI-generated content poses a problem here because an AI itself is not a creator.
As long as the copyright law is not adjusted, the creator will always remain a human being. The ability to protect works such as Mauricio Bustos’ music therefore depends on the extent to which the human creator is creatively active and whether the AI’s output bears the creator’s personal stamp.
In Bustos’ case, one could argue that his role in creating the beats and lyrics, as well as the AI’s manipulation of his own voice, constitutes sufficient human imprinting. However, it remains unclear whether this is sufficient to fulfill the character of the work within the meaning of copyright, since the actual voice of the artist, which is being imitated, plays a central role.
AI and art: creative component vs. ancillary copyright
I would therefore tend to think that there is not a sufficient creative component here. But one could argue otherwise if the lyrics and the beats play the central role of the song.
The second question concerns the legal admissibility of Mauricio Bustos’ actions. Imitation of the voices of well-known artists could violate various legal provisions, in particular the ancillary copyrights of the performing artists.
These rights protect artists’ performances, including their voices, and unauthorized use could be considered a violation of these rights. In addition, personal rights could be affected, as artists’ voices are seen as distinctive features of their personality. General personal rights – such as the right to one’s own image – are protected in German law and the use of voices without the consent of those affected could be interpreted as a violation of this right.
Given this background, Bustos’ approach to using the votes without consent is, in my opinion, legally problematic. Finally, the question arises about the legal consequences for Mauricio Bustos, again from the perspective of German law. If his actions take place in Germany, he could be confronted with injunctive relief and claims for damages.
The affected artists or their rights holders could demand that Bustos stop using their voices and pay for the damage caused. In addition, platforms such as Spotify could be forced to remove relevant content in order to avoid legal consequences.
Conclusion: AI in art
The case of Mauricio Bustos shows that the use of AI raises important questions that need to be answered. I believe that clear rules need to be developed to both protect the rights of artists and exploit the creative possibilities of AI.
These regulations must carefully balance the interests of artists seeking to protect their unique voices and works, and the innovative approaches of artists like Mauricio Bustos who are pushing the boundaries of technology. Only through such balanced legislation, which is independent of individual cases, can the music industry develop in a fair and future-oriented manner.
However, developing such regulations will take time. Will we succeed in such legislation in Germany and Europe, or will we cement the status quo with hasty, half-baked regulations and thus hinder innovation? It remains exciting.
Also interesting:
- New AI chip increases energy efficiency sixfold
- AI as a judge: The advantages and disadvantages of artificial intelligence in the judiciary
- CT scans: Artificial intelligence could save thousands of lives
- Wyoming: Artificial intelligence should become mayor
The article Go with the FlowGPT, or: How far can AI go in art? by Carsten Lexa first appeared on BASIC thinking. Follow us too Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
As a Tech Industry expert, I am fascinated by the potential of AI in art and creativity. Go with the FlowGPT is a great example of how advanced AI algorithms can be used to generate unique and engaging artistic content. The ability of AI to understand and mimic human creativity is truly remarkable, and the possibilities for its use in the art world are endless.
However, while AI like Go with the FlowGPT can produce impressive and visually stunning artwork, there are limitations to how far AI can truly go in art. AI lacks the human experience, emotions, and intuition that are essential in creating truly meaningful and impactful art. While AI can be a powerful tool for artists to enhance their creative process, it cannot replace the depth and complexity of human expression.
That being said, I believe that AI has the potential to revolutionize the art world by providing artists with new tools and techniques to explore and push the boundaries of creativity. By working in collaboration with AI, artists can create innovative and groundbreaking artwork that blurs the lines between human and machine creativity. The key is to embrace AI as a tool to complement and enhance human creativity, rather than as a replacement for it.
Credits