“I love life and I love love, I am a scoundrel, I am a gentleman…” Someone unidentified has used generative artificial intelligence to give new life to Julio Iglesias' classic. Although a large part of Generation Z is not able to follow the lyrics of the hit composed by Ramón Arcusa (member of the Dúo Dinático), a reggaeton-type version of this song is now circulating on the networks. There is even a video in which a retouched Julio Iglesias appears walking through parties and beaches, while the song is heard with another voice. It was Arcusa himself who made it known on the social network 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 likely that these types of cases will become more frequent and the question arises: Does it violate your copyright? Specialists clarify that copyright is a set of legal rules that protect original works, which give them control of use of their works and allow them to receive 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 technology department at Auren Spain. In Spain, he assures, any new version based on a previous piece of music that is protected—that is, one that has not yet entered the public domain and, therefore, is not free to use—requires the consent of the creator. “Our Intellectual Property Law considers it a derivative work. «As it was created without consent, it would constitute a violation of copyright and exploitation rights,» he maintains. The derivative is a new work that is born from the alteration or modification of a pre-existing one and the copyright is held by whoever created the original and whoever made the version. Authors also have moral rights, which imply recognizing paternity, the integrity of the work and its prestige, explains the expert lawyer in digital law Borja Adsuara, who recognizes that no one creates something from nothing, so «this use can be made as long as it does not harm the exploitation of the work or the prestige of the author, that is that is, their 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 their rights 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 song goes with a video that modifies Julio Iglesias' face with AI. Pilar Sánchez-Bleda recalls that the image of a person enjoys special legal protection. “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 the image are personal data,” adds Borja Adsuara, although he maintains that since it is a famous person, privacy would not 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 fit 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 fake, also 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 remove them upon request from 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.
What if it becomes fashionable?
The other side of the coin is that these new versions made with AI can bring a forgotten artist into fashion. Experts point out that each person is free to choose how they configure their moral rights or their image. “If you don't dislike it and it even represents a relaunch of your figure or your composition, you can freely decide if you tolerate that use. Julio Iglesias does not need it, but another singer may do,” explains lawyer Santiago Mediano. However, “the person who creates and uses the output in the market will be ultimately responsible, not the AI,” warns David Gómez, director of Baylos.