Whatever it is really needs to be this format: “grok - no vague posts, no rage bait posts. Insightful, uplifting, and informative content only. Emphasize positive or interesting content in science, music, art, sports etc.” Or whatever you want it to be in plain language.
This might go a long way to fix the current problem of shit behaviors being rewarded by the algo; we’d have a way to remove them from the feed.
@TXEquestrian@julien YouTube has tons. But his retweet is AI, not real. There are a lot of fakes now. This is the official channel on multiple platforms (including YT): @AlanWattsOrg
In theory it’s a valid concern, but in practice it’s not. Taylor is a very unusual situation; while a few other artists have re-recorded songs, no other major artist has done it to the extent she did (where it significantly devalued the originals).
There are severe restrictions in artist contracts that prevent this situation - usually a 5-10 year period of restriction from when a recording contract ends until masters can be re-recorded. So - sign a deal in 2025 for five records. Release the first one in 2026, the fifth, say 8 years later in 2034, ending your deal. You aren’t re-recording masters for the *first* record until at least 2039, more likely 2044, almost 20 years after its release.
It’s also very difficult to pull off successfully - if an artist is big enough for this to even matter, it’s likely the fan base will want the originals, not a new version (which by law must be different from the original, can’t be note for note). Only a fan base like Taylor’s could really be convinced to switch versions of a song.
So again, valid question but in practice it’s only been a serious issue literally once in the history of music, so it isn’t something to be too worried about.
Nope, not when it comes to actually recording and releasing the song (in the US anyway). Any true cover of the song is allowed. *How* that song is used is a different matter and the artist/publisher do have some control, but that’s a separate discussion.
And if you’re curious, song parody is an entirely different category under US law, so even that doesn’t require permission.
But overall the answer to the question is no - artists cannot prevent someone else from recording and releasing an audio version of their song (music videos can be prevented though, different license).
A license is obviously needed (what grok means by “permission”) but it cannot be refused. The only refusals are in specific instances, such as lyric/melody changes.
In theory the sync license for the video could’ve been denied, but that isn’t what we’re talking about.
This is a very well know and clear law in the music industry (compulsory license).
@sama I’d love to get rid of this alert (can delete memories, then they fill up again). Any chance of an increase in memory or make this a temporary notification