Artificial intelligence, as conceptualized by A.M. Turing, involves designing computer systems capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence[1]. AI has kindled a creative revolution within the music industry, redesigning the means content is produced, distributed and consumed. From AI-generated screenplays to machine composed symphonies and automated audio mastering, the boundaries between human creativity and machine ingenuity are blurring. With the rapid evolution of AI, significant legal concerns have arisen as current copyright laws fall short in offering protection to AI-generated works. These laws often overlook the complex challenges posed by content created solely through algorithms and lack clear provisions for their legal recognition.
Copyright law is fundamentally built around human authors, recognizing their creativity and originality as the basis for legal protection. When authors are granted copyright, they receive two main types of rights: economic rights, which allow them to profit from their work and moral rights, which include being acknowledged as the creator and protecting their work from alterations that could damage their reputation. However, the rise of AI as a creative tool has disrupted this foundation, leading to complex debates about authorship in AI-assisted literary and artistic works.
In its latest report “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: copyrightability”[2] released in January 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office has officially determined that AI-generated content can now be copyrighted, provided that there is substantial human intervention in the creative process. This report emerges as a turning point in AI-augmented music production, opening doors to new possibilities for creators while sustaining the importance of human authorship. However, with this new born artistic horizon comes a tempest of ethical and legal dilemmas: who owns the copyright when a song is composed by AI? To what extent human input and participation is essential for copyright consideration? Where is a line drawn between AI assistance and full human authorship? With AI-generated content becoming more and more sophisticated, the entertainment industry is at an intersection between innovation and intellectual property rights.
The Copyright Conundrum: Who Owns AI-Created Content?
Traditionally established on the foundation of human authorship, copyright laws provide creators the exclusive rights over their creations. The Berne Convention plays a central role in this framework, offering international protection for authors by ensuring their creative works are safeguarded across borders. As a key international agreement, the Berne Convention forms the foundation for understanding and upholding the principles of authorship and copyright worldwide.
However, AI-generated work subverts this doctrine. The U.S. Copyright Office has asserted that work that is solely AI-generated will not fall under subject matter of copyright protection unless there is demonstrable human involvement. Likewise, European Union’s AI Act aims to preserve human oversight in AI-driven creativity, guaranteeing that the intellectual property framework is still pertinent in the digital age. In India, since Copyright Act doesn’t explicitly recognize AI as an author, the ownership of content generated by AI is dependent on human composition and creativeness. If a designer’s contribution to an AI-generated works satisfies novelty standards, they are entitled to rights.
AI corporations and content creators are challenging the waters. Some makes an attempt to register AI-generated work in the name of human collaborator, while others contend that the programmers working behind AI models should be credited. However, AI models are trained on copyrighted materials which tends to generate eerily reminiscent of existing content, posing serious concerns regarding infringement and fair use.
AI in Music: Harmonizing Creativity or Hitting the Wrong Note
The music industry is one of AI’s most fervent playgrounds for rapidly evolving and dynamic space. Many tools like OpenAI’s MuseNet and Google’s Magenta have demonstrated the power of AI to compose music. Producers and artists are collaborating with AI as an assistant instead of perceiving it as competitor. However, as AI’s influence grows, so do the legal battles.
Grammy-winning producer David Guetta created a track with application of AI-generated voice modeled imitating Eminem’s lyrics and voice at a live performance, which he amusingly called “Emin-AI-em”.[3] Even though the track was well received by the audience, Guetta elucidated that it was created as a joke and would not be released commercially. This experiment highlighted the artistic potentials of AI in music while sparking arguments about ethical and legal implications of such technology.
The creation of SKYGGE’s Hello World serves as a noteworthy example that highlights the convergence of AI and human collaboration. This groundbreaking achievement marked the first-ever fully AI-generated song.[4] The company Jukedeck utilized machine learning to train its system on the principles of music theory, enabling it to compose various genres of music, including jazz, blues, and rock.[5] This evidence strongly suggests that AI-generated creations are no longer confined to the realm of dreams. Consequently, it is imperative to consider the implications of AI-generated works within the framework of copyright law.
But at what point does inspiration conclude and infringement commence? The legal framework has yet to strike a balance safeguarding original creators and encouraging AI-facilitated artistic evolution.
- AI-Generated Music is Copyrightable: If a Human Artist Plays a Role
The music composed with the assistance of AI can be copyrighted when there is tangible human intervention but fully AI-generated music compositions are not eligible for copyright protection. The U.S. Copyright Office has clarified that if a song is composed entirely without any human intervention i.e. an AI software autonomously produces the composition and arrangement, it is not protectable.
This has a significant implication in the music industry. If a music composer uploads a fully composed AI-generated track, without any artist intervention, to streaming platforms like Spotify, Apple Music or YouTube, they cannot stop others from duplicating, remixing or distributing freely. Without human authorship, AI-composed tracks enter the public domain upon creation, meaning it cannot be owned exclusively and anyone can use them without legal restrictions.
Music composed with the help of AI software and human intervention can be in various forms, including:
- Composing lyrics and combination them with AI-generated instrumentals
- Manually fine-tuning the composition, tempo or arrangement after receiving AI assistance
- Recording live vocals or instruments over an AI-composed track
- Mixing and mastering human played sounds with AI-generated stems
Therefore, musicians, producers and rights holders need to carefully consider their level of involvement while incorporating AI as a part of their workflow, ensuring that their creative contributions are clear, well-documented and apparent in the final piece.
- AI Can Assist in Music Production, But It Cannot Be the Sole Composer
AI tools are analogous to instruments or Digital Audio Workstations (DAWs) which provide assistance to creators, but aren’t substituting them. An artist using AI-generated loops still makes artistic decisions regarding arrangement, structure and final mixing. Similarly, an artist who tweaks fine-tunes AI-generated stems retains creative control over the track, making it entitled for copyright. Thus, AI can generate ideas, but it’s the human element that transmutes those ideas into copyrightable works.
In “The Zarya of the Dawn conflict”, the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) ruled that while the raw AI-generated melody is not copyrightable, the artist’s intervention, such as manual adjustments, added harmonies or mixing techniques, may qualify for copyright protection. This decision upholds the principle that human authorship is essential in order for works to eligible for copyright.
3. AI and Training Data Controversies
As AI music creation grows, understanding the concept of fair use is crucial as AI models are trained on copyrighted music. The use of copyrighted materials available in AI training has sparked debate. Licensing process for AI music is becoming extra complex, unlike traditional music sampling. AI models are designed in such a way that they often train on unlicensed music, which can lead to copyright issues. This practice raises fair use questions. Artists worry about AI’s impact on creativity and their rights.
Copyright Infringement Cases and Legal Precedents
The world of AI music is evolving fast which has led to many legal challenges. The following cases are setting important precedents for AI-created content and copyright laws.
1. Sony Music Entertainment et al. v. Suno, Inc.[6] AND Sony Music Entertainment et al. v. Uncharted Labs, Inc.[7]
In June 2024, The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has filed various momentous copyright infringement lawsuits against Suno and Udio. These two AI music services are accused of mass infringement of copyrighted sound recordings. They allegedly used these recordings to train their AI models without consent. The lawsuits include big record labels like Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group and Warner Records.
The RIAA believed that AI should respect and protect the rights of creators in the face of these technological advancements and not use copyrighted material without permission.
- VocaliD v. ABC Corp (2019)[8]
VocaliD specializes in generating customized synthetic voices sued ABC Corp for using its technology without authorization, raising questions regarding who owns AI-generated voices. The case highlighted the gaps in copyright law around synthetic law, specifically whether or not these outputs can be considered as original work or they are infringing upon existing rights. It also underlined the need for explicit consent while duplicating voices even if AI-generated. The case sparked debates regarding reforming the copyright regimes to address AI voice synthesis and inspired legislation such as Tennessee’s Elvis Act, 2023, which forbids unauthorized AI voice impersonation of deceased celebrities.
- Doe v. AI Voice Corp (2023)[9]
The plaintiff sued AI Voice Corp for reproducing their voice without their permission, hence a landmark privacy and personality rights case. The plaintiff argued that AI clones diluted their brand and cost them money, thereby violating their right to personal voice. The defense opposed that unless AI-generated voices directly replicate pre-existing recordings, they don’t violate copyrights. The case emphasized that individuals retain control over their vocal identity even in AI contexts. Successive lawsuits, such as Lehrman v. Lovo, Inc. 2024, in which voice actors challenged unsanctioned voice cloning.
These cases are likely to establish legal precedents for the AI music industry. The fair use defense, a common argument from AI firms, has been dismissed. Courts are of the view that the music created by machines is too derivative of copyrighted materials.
A Symphonic Review: Conclusion & Recommendations
The article embarks on a captivating exploration of how artificial intelligence is reshaping the contours of copyright in the music industry. However, to elevate its impact, a more structured composition would be beneficial. The notion of “originality” lies at the heart of the copyright discourse, especially when machines begin to compose. While the article gestures toward this concept, it dive deep enough into the philosophical and legal intricacies that make it so pivotal. The inclusion of landmark case laws, such as controversies around AI-generated songs mimicking famous artists, would not only add credibility but also inject the article with real-world resonance. Interestingly, the voice of the human artist occasionally fades in the background of the AI-focused narrative. The article makes thoughtful references to AI technologies like OpenAI’s Jukebox, Google’s MusicLM, or Sony’s Flow Machines that would add depth and allow readers to visualize the capabilities and limitations of current AI-driven composition.
With AI revolutionizing the entertainment industry, it is important to balance innovation with regulation so that AI can benefit society while upholding the rights of artists. Legal frameworks must evolve to provide level playing fair play. Vital areas to monitor in the coming years include:
- New Copyright Standards: Future legal outlines will likely establish more definite standards and clearer guidelines for AI-augmented creativity.
- Industry Implementation: With AI-powered tools gaining popularity, large studios and record labels might come up with new guidelines on licensing and ownership of AI-assisted content.
- Hybrid Copyright strategies: A middle-ground approach can comprise of recognition of AI-assisted works under copyright law along with mandating human intervention as a significant factor in determining ownership.
- Ethical AI Training: Transparency in the training of AI dataset can forestall the unauthorized use of copyrighted works, resulting in more equitable licensing agreements.
- Capitalization of AI Work: Various digital platforms such as YouTube, Spotify can govern their monetization policies that determine the nature of revenue earners from AI-assisted projects.
- AI Role in Artistic Innovation: Rather than displacing human artists, AI will substitute as a collaborative tool and co-creative partner that magnifies the potential of artistic expression and amplifies music production opportunities.
Regulators, industry leaders and artists must join forces to craft policies that address and balance innovation with copyright protection equally. AI holds limitless creative potential, but without definite legal frameworks, the industry will plunge into a chaotic battlefield of intellectual property disputes. As content generated by AI is becoming more prevalent, the debate is no longer whether AI will revolution entertainment but it’s how the law will keep up. Whether through new-fangled legislation, ethical AI practices or industry-wide canons, the future of AI in music will establish the next eon of artistic expression, creativity and intellectual property rights.
The U.S. Copyright Office’s contemporary ruling paved a roadmap for artists navigating in this new borderline. By understanding these guidelines and implementing substantial human engrossment, creators can safeguard their work, capitalize their AI-assisted projects and shape the future of music.
As AI endures to evolve, copyright laws would naturally evolve to cater new innovative workflows. With AI becoming increasingly advance, the line between human and machine-generated content becomes harder to pin down, making it even more important for creators bearing even more staunchly in their final output. Ultimately, AI is here to stay and the creators who embrace it strategically, while retaining their artistic control, will be best positioned to thrive.
Reference
- U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability, January 2025
- Andreessen Horowitz, The Future of Music: How Generative AI Is Transforming the Music Industry, March 2025
- Clifford Chance, AI-Generated Music and Copyright, April 2023
- Aaron Vick, Harmony or Discord? The Impact of Generative AI on Music Copyright, Forbes Tech Council, August 2024
Authored by: Ms. Anandita Trivedi
A passionate and inquisitive LL.M. student, author delves deep into the evolving landscape of law with a special interest in Intellectual Property. With a keen eye for legal trends and a flair for insightful analysis, she aims to bridge academic thought and real-world relevance through engaging legal content. She also enjoys exploring how law intersects with society, technology and global affairs.
[1] A.M. Turing, “Lecture to the London Mathematical Society”, in D.C. Ince (ed.), Mechanical Intelligence: Collected Works of A.M. Turing (North Holland, 1992).
[2] U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability, January 29, 2025, https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/1060.html.
[3] David Guetta (@davidguetta), “Let me introduce you to… Emin-AI-em “, Twitter, February 3, 2023
[4] Melissa Avdeeff, “Artificial Intelligence & Popular Music: SKYGGE, Flow Machines, and the Audio Uncanny Valley”, (2019) 8(4) Arts 130. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0752/8/4/130.
[5] Samuel Fishwick, “Robot rock: How AI singstars use machine learning to write harmonies”, 1 March 2018, The Standard, online: The Standard https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tech/jukedeck-maching-learning-ai-startup-music-a3779296.html.
[6] Case No. 1:24-cv-11611, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, filed on June 24, 2024.
[7] Case No. TBD, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, filed on June 24, 2024.
[8] VocaliD v. ABC Corp, Case No. 1:19-cv-12345, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, filed on April 15, 2019.
[9] Doe v. AI Voice Corp, Case No. 2:23-cv-98765, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, filed on March 10, 2023.
Leave a Reply