“If you get a tattoo before you move out, you might as well just pack your things” my mom told me every time I brought up getting a tattoo. I am currently 19 and have 3 tattoos. I’ve wanted a tattoo ever since I was about 14 years old. I would make jokes with my mom telling her I was getting a tattoo without her knowing or that I had gotten one. Those jokes usually ended in a lecture, but the look on her face was worth it. My whole year of being 17 I constantly begged my mom to sign off on letting me get a tattoo, and every time it was a hard no. Once I finally turned 18 it wasn’t long until I got my very first tattoo. As I bared through the pain it was all smiles once it was completed. My first tattoo is my favorite because my story and meaning behind it is something that is very important to me. All three of my tattoos have a very strong meaning behind them. I will never get a tattoo without a story or meaning behind it. Once my mom saw my tattoos and learned the meaning behind them she was way more accepting. But I think her favorite one is the one that reads “Be Happy” in her handwriting. I love my tattoos very much, I truly believe they complete me and are like scars that have a stories of pure strength behind them.
So with all that being said I believe a tattoo with a story or a powerful meaning behind it should not be look down upon. Tattoos are a way of expressing yourself. Tattoos should NOT be the deciding factor of whether or not you get a job. Tattoos should not make you look like a threatening person. Tattoos should not be looked down upon. At the end of the day it our own bodies, we should be able to do whatever we want with them and not be judge on whether or not we have ink on our skin. Tattoos make you different and stand out. So yes, you should think hard about what tattoo you are going to get because it will be on your body for the rest of your life but I do encourage tattoos. I am obsessed with all 3 of my tattoos and I do plan on getting more (shhh, don’t tell my mom.)
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
