Skip to main content
Category

Internet

Willonius Hatcher on Creativity, AI, and the Viral Journey of “BBL Drizzy”

By AI, Creators, Hip Hop, Internet, Music, Social Media

In a world where technology is reshaping the creative landscape, Willonius Hatcher is a pioneer standing at the crossroads of artistry and AI innovation. As an award-winning filmmaker, comedian, and storyteller, Hatcher has used AI to craft groundbreaking projects, including the viralhit and sample “BBL Drizzy,” which sparked conversations globally about creativity, originality, and the role of artificial intelligence in the creator economy.

In our recent Creative Iterations podcast, hosted by Take Creative Control’s Kim Tignor and Hollis Wong-Wear, Hatcher delved into his creative process, the impact of AI tools on his artistry, and the significance of ownership in the digital age. Here’s a closer look at the insights he shared, enriched by broader industry discussions about generative AI.

The Birth of “BBL Drizzy”

“BBL Drizzy” emerged during what Hatcher describes as a moment of creative experimentation. He was participating in a 48-hour AI film festival, working intensely on a video project, when he decided to take a break and experiment with AI music tools. Within hours, Hatcher created a track that would go on to spark global intrigue.

Initially uploaded without much fanfare, the song quickly gained traction on social media, proving the unpredictable nature of virality. Reflecting on the moment, Hatcher said, “I was in such a flow state this year, releasing something almost every week. I didn’t think much of it until my phone started blowing up with messages and notifications.”

The virality of BBL Drizzy was amplified further when renowned producer Metro Boomin remixed it. Not long after, Drake and rapper Sexxy Red sampled the track, making it one of the first mainstream music hits to integrate an AI-generated component.

What Does It Mean to Be Original in the Age of AI?

Generative AI systems like the tools Hatcher uses operate by analyzing vast datasets to identify patterns and generate new content. However, as industry experts point out, this process is fundamentally rooted in recombining pre-existing material, raising questions about the authenticity of “originality.” Axel Schwanke, writing on the limitations of generative AI, notes that while these tools can enhance human creativity, they lack the ability to innovate or infuse work with genuine emotional depth.

For Hatcher, originality in the era of AI is about leveraging these tools to bring creative visions to life while maintaining authorship over the work. He emphasized, “I write everything I make. AI helps with execution, but the ideas, lyrics, and creative direction are uniquely mine.”

Hatcher’s journey aligns with views expressed in the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, which highlights the ethical dilemmas posed by generative AI. Artists like Hatcher are navigating uncharted territory where traditional notions of originality must evolve to accommodate tools that blur the lines between human creation and machine assistance.

The Challenges and Rewards of the AI-Driven Creator Economy

Hatcher is candid about the hurdles he has faced as a creator in the AI space. While the success of BBL Drizzy opened doors, it also brought challenges in navigating intellectual property, revenue generation, and ethical complexities.

Generative AI, as explored in the Harvard Business Review, has the potential to disrupt creative industries by flooding the market with AI-generated content. This, coupled with the use of copyrighted material in training AI models, has raised legal and ethical concerns. Hatcher, however, remains optimistic, championing a creator-first approach: “If we’re making things that are impactful, we should be able to monetize them and protect our work. Creators deserve the chance to build wealth and pass it on to their families.”

The Democratization of Creativity

One of Hatcher’s key messages is the democratizing power of AI tools. For him, the rise of AI represents an opportunity for creators from diverse backgrounds to bypass traditional gatekeeping and realize their visions independently.

“You don’t need a Hollywood budget to make something impactful,” he shared. “With AI, you can create an entire feature film on your laptop, doing voices, animations, and more on your own. It’s not about waiting for someone to tell you your idea is good. You can just go out and make it.”

This ethos resonates with discussions in the Georgetown Journal, which emphasizes the role of AI in empowering historically marginalized creators. The ability to bypass traditional barriers democratizes access to creative platforms, allowing creators to innovate on their own terms.

The Future of Creativity and Regulation

Hatcher’s story highlights the urgent need for regulatory clarity around generative AI. As AI continues to disrupt creative industries, it is critical to establish frameworks that protect creators while encouraging innovation. Without such protections, the growing influx of AI-generated content could dilute the value of human artistry and exacerbate disparities in the creator economy.

As the Harvard Business Review argues, the challenge lies in finding a balance where technology acts as a complement to human creativity rather than a replacement. For Hatcher, this balance involves continuous learning and adaptation: “Surround yourself with good people, stay consistent, and keep refining your craft. AI is a tool—but it’s up to us to use it thoughtfully.”

Looking Ahead

For Hatcher, the future of creativity is as much about ethics and inclusion as it is about innovation. He hopes to see more creators of color at the forefront of technological advancements and envisions a world where creators are valued and compensated fairly. His story is a powerful reminder of the potential of AI to amplify human creativity while emphasizing the importance of protecting and celebrating original work.

At Take Creative Control, we’re proud to spotlight innovators like Willonius Hatcher, who challenge norms and redefine what’s possible in the creator economy. His journey reminds us that with the right tools, mindset, and support, creators can not only thrive but shape culture in profound ways.

Listen to the full podcast here.

How a Battle Between Tech Giants Threatens Creators Most of All

By Copywrite, Creators, Internet, Legal, Start Ups

On October 7, 2020, the Supreme Court will hear a pivotal copyright battle between Google and Oracle. The outcome is all the more uncertain following the sad and unsettling news of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing.

At the heart of the debate, the court must answer two key questions (1) do copyright protections include software interfaces, specifically application programming interfaces or APIs? and (2) is Google’s use of APIs to create a new program considered fair use?

How does this impact artists and other creators? Their decision will ultimately be about when, how, and how much creators can build on the work of others. This case, yet again, hinges on what is considered copyrightable and what is open source.

The basics
This case centers around APIs – application programming interfaces. APIs are essentially lines of code that allow one computer program to communicate with another. For example, if you want to check the weather on your iPhone, you open your weather application. Apple is not a weather company, so they need to communicate with a weather reporting system and pull the data using an API, which enables them to display the weather on your iPhone in a more user-friendly manner. Same goes for travel aggregators like Kayak, Google Flights, and Orbitz. For years, APIs have been considered open source, thereby allowing anyone to use them in creation of new applications, computer programs, and electronic devices.

However, in 2010, Oracle filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Google, claiming Google copied Oracle’s Java API for the purpose of Google’s Android operating system, essentially arguing that APIs are not open source. A district court agreed with Google’s fair use argument, stating “So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function or specification of any methods used in the Java API.” Oracle appealed to a federal court, which reversed the district court decision, concluding that the APIs in question were copyrightable. This decision created shockwaves in the creative community. Google appealed to the Supreme Court, and here we are today.

So what’s at stake?
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Google, then business will continue as usual. However, if they rule in favor of Oracle, there are important factors to consider. Here’s how this ruling could impact both creators and consumers.

The impact on the creative community

Legal scholars, program developers, and computer scientists have all warned that a ruling in favor of Oracle may create a chilling effect, reducing innovation and handcuffing the creative community. If APIs are deemed copyrightable, new innovators, start-ups, and third-parties will be at a great disadvantage, having to acquire the appropriate licenses, which can be an insurmountable barrier for anyone new on scene. Interoperability plays a central role for new start-ups, as it enables the little guy to reach large markets, otherwise not accessible to them, levelling the playing field. This interoperability also offers consumers more choices when deciding to try a new innovation or app. As one computer scientist put it, “[t]reating software interfaces as copyrightable would be like requiring car manufacturers to invent a substitute for the steering wheel.” Furthermore, companies and copyright owners may now have an incentive to seek out litigation to prevent the use of their APIs without the proper licenses, thereby perpetuating a chilling effect.

The impact on consumers

The ease of interoperability has greatly benefited consumers. While consumers are not necessarily learning new code, they are learning how different softwares and applications work. They invest time and money in applications, devices, and other computer software to carry out day-to-day activities. Making APIs copyrightable limits communication between the many devices they use at work and home. This limitation will inevitably limit some consumer choices, locking them into one set of devices or programs, which hinders competition and competitive pricing.

The long and short of it is that consumers, start-ups and second-comers all benefit from the use of APIs. Creators use APIs in both the distribution and production of their creative content. A decision to limit that ability paves the way for a harder, and possibly more expensive, path for artists, innovatives and creatives.

Black Expression, Black Protests, and Black Lives

By BlackLivesMatter, Free Speech, Internet, Policy, Protest

A Look at What Black People Have to Lose At the Hands of the EARN IT Act

We are living history: a pandemic that has disproportionately killed Black people, the murders of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd, and the racial reckoning across this country that soon followed. All this in the final months of a presidential election. There has never been a more important time to fight for free speech online than now. Read More