Gross invasions of privacy seem to be the quintessential example of newsworthy topics in America. Nearly everyone has heard about the giant celebrity iCloud hack -- otherwise noted as the Fappening -- that penetrated the Internet and flooded a multitude of forums. From Jennifer Lawrence to Selena Gomez, these celebrities have been targeted victims of sex crimes, and while I am not trying to lessen the magnitude of what they went through, recently, something even worse has surfaced on the web.
Another leak, this time containing nearly 200,000 photos and videos from thousands of Snapchat users, have appeared online. The 13.6 gigabytes of content were originally posted online via viralpop.com, but before the site could be deleted, thousands of people had already downloaded the large file of stolen photos and videos, and shared them on other websites, like 4chan and Reddit. Some people are calling this atrocity "The Snappening," but I like to refer to it as America Happily Spreading Child Pornography.
Snapchat claims that 50 percent of its users are between 13 and 17 years of age, and the Snappening is said to include masses of underaged nude photos, including those of children as young as 10 years old.
A Snapchat spokesperson told the Huffington Post in an interview that the network itself was not compromised in the leak. Snapchat has claimed that hackers gained access to the photos through third-party apps -- like Snapsave or SnapSaved -- that are designed to save Snapchat photos unbeknownst to the sender. "Snapchatters were victimized by their use of third-party apps to send and receive Snaps, a practice that we expressly prohibit in our terms of use precisely because they compromise our users’ security," the spokesperson said in an email.
4Chan users have begun building a database of the leaked photos that is searchable by name. I believe that it is in your best interest to avoid this file at all costs, because of the possible pornographic images of children that it may contain.
It is truly a shame this it had to come to this, but I can only hope that this awful development will be the driving force that will help change laws about photo sharing and privacy.
Welcome back
Sign in to comment to your favorite stories, participate in your community and interact with your friends
or
LOG IN WITH FACEBOOKNo account? Create one
This article has not been reviewed by Odyssey HQ and solely reflects the ideas and opinions of the creator.
StableDiffusion
The Illusion of Creativity
AI-generated music is often marketed as “artistic” or “educational.” But what does it really teach?
- That style can be replicated without understanding.
- That emotion can be simulated without feeling.
- That effort can be bypassed with a prompt.
For young creators, this sets a dangerous precedent. Why learn to play guitar when an algorithm can do it faster? Why study harmony when AI can generate chord progressions in seconds? The risk isn’t just laziness — it’s the loss of depth, discipline, and the tactile joy of creation.
I have listened to several AI-generated music covers. My initial reaction was one of considerable impressiveness, particularly regarding the reimagining of classic pop hits in diverse genres with novel arrangements. Here is one good example a-ha — Take On Me
However, after engaging with several such Ai generated song covers, a sense of emotional detachment emerged, attributable to the perceived absence of human artistry and genuine sentiment, resulting in a technically flawless yet ultimately soulless auditory experience.
Copyright in Crisis
What does the copyright law say about AI generated music, especially in field of music covers. Who is liable for copyright in this case, AI developers, people who used AI to generate music or people who published it on music platforms?
Recent lawsuits show that the music industry is pushing back hard:
- Universal, Sony, and Warner sued AI music platforms Suno and Udio in 2024 for allegedly training their models on copyrighted songs without permission Ars Technica The Lyon Firm.
- They’re seeking up to $150,000 per infringed song, arguing that the AI outputs resemble famous tracks and voices (e.g., Mariah Carey, Michael Jackson).
- These lawsuits target the developers of the AI tools — but they raise broader questions:The legal gray area is training data. Courts haven’t yet ruled definitively on whether using copyrighted songs to train AI counts as infringement or fair use Sites at USC.
But who’s liable?
Role | Legal Risk | Why |
AI Developers | ✅ High | For training on copyrighted material without licenses. |
Users | ⚠️ Moderate | If they intentionally recreate protected works. |
Publishers/Platforms | ✅ High | For distributing infringing content. |
The grey area lies in training data. Courts haven’t yet ruled definitively on whether using copyrighted songs to train AI counts as infringement or fair use. Meanwhile, AI-generated works themselves aren’t eligible for copyright unless a human provides substantial creative input — leaving them in legal limbo.
The Educational Mirage
Some argue that AI music helps people learn genres, production styles, or vocal techniques. But this “education” often lacks context. It’s like learning to paint by watching a printer — technically impressive, but creatively hollow.
True musical education involves:
- Struggle and iteration: Learning through mistakes.
- Emotional connection: Expressing what words can’t.
- Cultural lineage: Understanding the roots of sound.
AI shortcuts bypass all of this. And in doing so, they risk flattening the rich terrain of human creativity into a sterile landscape of algorithmic mimicry.
Why This Fight Matters
This isn’t just about music. It’s about the future of art, storytelling, and human expression. If we allow machines to dominate creative spaces, we risk turning culture into content — optimized, monetized, and devoid of soul.
We must ask: Do we want a world where art is made by machines, or one where machines help humans make better art?
5 Key Takeaways
- AI-generated music blurs the line between innovation and erosion in the creative arts
- AI-generated music raises questions about copyright, culture, education, and artistic expression
- AI-generated music can replicate style without understanding, simulate emotion without feeling, and bypass effort with a prompt
- AI-generated music sets a dangerous precedent for young creators by potentially leading to a loss of depth, discipline, and joy of creation
Trending Topics
Trending Stories
Best of Politics and Activism![Jenna Pizzi and her mom smiling by a waterfront with a historic ship in the background.]()
![Cristina Yang and Meredith Grey in scrubs sit against a wall, smiling and enjoying a break.]()
![Woman in field with a red heart-shaped balloon under a colorful sky.]()
