It's a lot easier to understand the IP issues in 'give me this song but in Taylor Swift's voice' than 'make me a song in the style of the top ten hits of the last decade.' If a human did that, they wouldn't necessarily have to pay anyone, so why would an LLM?

There's an interesting twist with the "Taylor Swift's voice" example; Scooter Braun owns all of Taylor Swift's recordings (at least, I think all the ones released before any ChatGPT-era training dataset were compiled) - he bought the record company, so he owns the master recordings (and all the copies of the master recordings, and the rights relating to them) - but not the songs themselves. Taylor Swift still owns them - which is why she can make her "Taylor's Version" re-recordings (which Scooter Braun doesn't get a penny out of.)

So there's a key difference here; a human would copy the songs (that is, they would be working off the version of the songs that are in their heads - the idea of the songs), so Swift would get paid as the owner of the songs.

But the kind of generative AI we're talking about would be copying 100% from the recordings (ie. the training data would be the sounds, digitised and converted into a stream of numbers) - which Swift doesn't own. The AI doesn't "see" the idea of the songs - it wouldn’t “know” what the lyrics were, what key the songs were in, what chords were being played on what instrument - any more than a Large Language Model “knows” what the words in its (tokenised) training dataset or output mean.

She still owns her songs, but she’s sold her voice.

Some Random Nerd