This research study explores the intricate intersection of copyright law and Artificial Intelligence, emphasizing the pressing need for clarity in authorship and ownership when AI generates creative works. Under the current Copyright Act of 1957, only natural persons are recognized as copyright holders, leading to complexities regarding the accountability and rights associated with AI-generated content. The study addresses significant questions about who owns the rights to such works, the implications for creative industries, and the liability of AI in these contexts. Moreover, the study delves into the impact of AI on the music industry, noting that AI can revive an artist’s sound posthumously. However, this raises serious concerns about unauthorized reproductions and potential piracy, leading to ethical dilemmas and financial repercussions for artists and the industry at large. Artists indeed live forever through their art. The study argues for a reassessment of existing copyright laws to accommodate emerging AI technologies, suggesting that a global perspective could inform necessary legislative changes. Lastly, it posits that effective regulation is essential to harmonize the rapid advancements in AI with copyright protections, ensuring that creativity and authorship integrity are preserved in this new era. This proves the evolving nature of law in the face of technological advancements deserve continuous legal reforms.
Keywords: Copyright Law, Artificial Intelligence, creative industries, legal reforms
Introduction
The theme this year “IP and Music: Feel the Beat of IP” is both powerful and timely (IIPA, 2025). Music is a universal language, and the creators of this music must be respected and protected for their creativity. This day reminds us how important it is to protect music rights in the fast-changing digital world of today. While using AI, new compositions can be created by learning from existing music which is out there in the public domain. Original melodies or harmonies can also be created by these AI models.
How Does AI Create Music?
New music is created by feeding data into AI models. AI music software uses machine learning, including deep learning and neural networks (Soundful,.n.d.).
Deep learning allows the AI to analyse large datasets of existing music and create new compositions. Neural networks attempt to replicate how the human brain processes music, recognizing patterns and generating outputs. These compositions can be adjusted, saving time in production. Human-AI collaboration can be beneficial. For instance, starting with an AI-generated base and then layering live instrumentals by musicians can result in a more emotionally resonant final product. In such cases, the human creative input is significant enough to establish copyright ownership. The music industry, traditionally reliant on human emotion and talent, is being reshaped by AI tools such as music generators, voice cloning software, and recommendation algorithms.
For e.g.: Suno AI is one such AI music creation program which generates realistic songs combining both vocals and instrumentation.
The Concept of Author under Copyright Law
As per Section 17 of the Copyright Act, the author of any work is the first owner of the copyright therein, except when such a work is created during the course of employment, under a contract, or on commission (Co., N. N., 2025). The author is the person who actually writes, compiles, composes, or draws the work, even if the idea was suggested by someone else. The manifestation of the idea should be into a tangible form.
Further, According to Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the author includes the composer in the case of musical works. The original creations can only be protected if authorship is ascertained. The legal action is pursued only if there is any unauthorized reproduction, distribution or performance. In Eastern Book Company & Ors. v. D.B. Modak & Anr., the Supreme Court held that a requisite standard of creativity is necessary to claim copyright over any generated content. Copyright requires that a work be original, meaning it must originate from the author (not be copied) and possess a minimal level of creativity.
Currently, IPR laws only grant rights to legal persons, whether natural or corporate, thereby excluding AI systems from such protection. AI generates vast amounts of content, resulting inthe easy duplication of text, music, and other copyrighted works, often without the original owner’s permission and leads to infringement. Courts have time and again emphasized that originality requires human creative choices, not merely novelty in a general sense (Gupta, 2024). For instance, a short story written entirely by software or a painting generated solely by AI may be innovative, but without human input or guidance, it lacks the human creativity required for copyright protection. An “author” is an individual (or a legal entity through employment or assignment) who originates a work. The current Indian legal framework recognizes only humans as authors. Similarly, the more human involvement is, the stronger the argument for legal ownership. Others have argued that AI-generated work is often unoriginal, as it will create a middle-of-the-road output based on patterns extracted from previous data. For instance, even if an AI poem is technically correct, it may only imitate the style of many hundreds of already existing human-written poems. Moreover, when such AI-generated content is produced, it generally becomes public domain. This rule was established in the Thaler v. Perlmutter case,[1] where a federal judge said that visual art produced by an AI system without human intervention cannot be copyrighted. The decision underscored that human authorship is a cornerstone of copyright law (CPI, 2025). This creates challenges around authorship, ownership, and originality for AI-generated outputs. This also raises the issue of liability in cases of AI-driven copyright infringement (Masood, 2025).
Further, Google researchers published a paper in 2023 revealing MusicLM, which is an AI model that can compose good music using text inputs. In such a scenario, as Indian copyright law only specifies the natural person as the author, the person who created the AI could be the author, and the company who hired them, Google in this instance, would own the rights. Hence, changes to the existing IPR legislations are required to handle the issue raised by AI, particularly as AI becomes a propeller of future innovation.
Impact of AI on the Music Industry
Recently, 1,000 musicians released a silent album in protest against the UK government’s proposed changes to copyright law. They argue these changes would make it easier for AI companies to train models using copyrighted work without obtaining a license. Critics argue that it’s unrealistic for individual artists to notify thousands of AI service providers that their content should not be used, or to monitor how their work is being used across the internet.
In today’s time, AI is used to mimic the voice and style of living or deceased artists. This is called Deepfake technology. Here, the machine learning algorithms first analyze an artist’s voice, style, and musical elements. Then, deepfakes use artificial neural networks trained on hundreds or thousands of audio samples to identify and replicate patterns. The AI uses a large dataset of an artist’s music to understand the nuances of their voice and then generates new lyrics and melodies in their style. Using artificial intelligence, Academy Award-winning composer A.R. Rahman revived the voices of late singers Bamba Bakya and Shahul Hameed in the song “Thimri Yezhuda” for the film Lal Salaam.[2]
Therefore, the training of AI models using artists’ music without consent constitutes unauthorized use and infringes rights by making illegal copies. It also fuels a new wave of music piracy, as fans can create deep fake versions of artists’ voices, leading to disastrous impact on the music industry.
Many consider this practice morally disrespectful as it is then considered a derivative work, which further requires prior approval from the original copyright holder and leads to copyright infringement. Artists have a right to object to such derogatory treatment of their work. Therefore, moral rights should be strengthened to include protections against digital cloning and stylistic replication of such kind. This highlights the intersection between AI and personality rights. The Arijit Singh voice cloning case is a recent first ever case to recognize the voice of the artist as a part of his personality rights which cannot be used without his permission (IP Press, 2024).
For e.g. AI has created a song “Heart On My Sleeve” using vocal styles of Drake and the Weeknd. This was done without their consent which raised concerns regarding copyright infringement. The same was thus removed from all streaming platforms.
It is crucial to note that, for a subject matter to be considered original and granted copyright protection, it must reflect the author’s personality, along with their free and creative choices. It should be the author’s own intellectual creation, as clearly held by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Cofemel v. G-Star. (Gaffar & Albarashdi, 2024)
Secondly, AI music needs to augment artistic vision, not displace human creativity. Although AI may process enormous numbers of pieces and develop intriguing patterns, it has no emotional resonance and the experiential background that human composers work from. AI cannot substitute for the distinctive tales and feelings that drive musicians. Artists need to integrate AI-created material with their own creativity for effective outcomes. As more producers and artists are utilizing AI, there is an emerging necessity for formal rules in matters of copyright ownership and right to use. In April 2023, Universal Music Group called for streaming services such as Spotify and Apple Music to inhibit AI services from accessing and using copyrighted lyrics and melodies. Independent artists are especially at risk, as their work will be exploited when they have no idea it’s happening. This serves to point out the use of AI should be primarily to enhance efficiency rather than replace creativity. True musical innovation stems from human imagination. AI can certainly assist in tasks such asscriptwriting, enhancing audio quality or handling other repetitive functions but when it comes to original artistic expression, human input remains irreplaceable.
What are the Ethical Dilemmas and Financial Consequences?
There is richness to human narrative and emotional connection between fans and creators that AI can never match. These AI models can never replace the emotional richness that human musicians bring.
Further, mediocre music is spreading rapidly, much like wildfire. The rise of superficial music production presents an additional challenge for the music industry. Truly good music has become rare, as many artists simply follow trends instead of creating something original. In contrast, high-quality music has lasting power and can endure for generations. Secondly, the rise of AI-generated music introduces the risk of homogenization, which may further contribute to the flood of mediocrity. Ultimately, the replacement of meaningful music with generic sounds is a growing concern.
Additionally, excessive dependence on AI may lead to the loss of jobs in the sector. For instance, tools such as LANDR and eMastered robotize the music mastering function, which has been traditionally handled by experienced audio engineers. Though these technologies make learning more economical and accessible, they also threaten the very livelihood of professionals. Further, psychological effects like loss of artistic identity also exist for composers. The central question however remains: Who owns music created by AI?
Why is Reassessment of Existing Copyright Laws Needed?
Originality and creativity on the part of humans are the foundation of copyright protection. No consideration of non-human authorship is potentially troublesome because then it could result in confusion in AI work protection. Moreover, absence of regulations on using copyrighted information to train AI can have devastating effects as well.
The U.S. Copyright Office has stated that music produced entirely by AI, with no human intervention, might not be eligible for copyright protection. (U.S. Copyright Office, 2025)
This highlights the importance of human contribution; with the ability to work alongside AI music, artists can improve their artistic expression and secure their legal rights to the work. Human participation is important in determining ownership. Composers or producers of music have traditionally been awarded copyright, which allows them the right to reproduce and distribute their music. The development of AI-generated music makes it complicated to fit into this traditional model. With AI music generators, issues regarding ownership get even more complicated. When an individual makes active contributions through changing melodies, honing harmonies, or putting their own unique touches, they could continue to claim copyright over the finished work.
The more human involvement is, the stronger the argument for legal ownership. Others have argued that AI-generated work is often unoriginal, as it will create a middle-of-the-road output based on patterns extracted from previous data. For instance, even if an AI poem is technically correct, it may only imitate the style of many hundreds of already existing human-written poems.
Moreover, when such AI-generated content is produced, it generally becomes public domain. This rule was established in the Thaler v. Perlmutter case,[3] where a federal judge said that visual art produced by an AI system without human intervention cannot be copyrighted. The decision underscored that human authorship is a cornerstone of copyright law (CPI, 2025).
Likewise, under the United Kingdom’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988, it is provided that if a computer-generated literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work does not have a human author, then the individual who arranged things so that the work came into existence is deemed to be the author. This rationale behind the law effectively indicates that the AI systems themselves cannot be treated as authors (Phelan, 2024). Only where the human input constitutes a lengthy and sophisticated prompting or choice process by humans, it might be deemed creative enough to warrant authorship. A single-word prompt generating a sophisticated output is likely not high enough for protection. These two examples provide complete copyright protection for human-AI co-creations.
Finally, the Berne Convention of 1886 refers repeatedly to the term “author,” but does not use language requiring the author to be human. This is open to interpreting that works can be protected which are authored by an artificial author. By way of contrast, other European and international legislation concerns the object of copyright protection rather than the creator of the work. The Italian Copyright Law, for instance, as stated in Article 1 of Law No. 633/1941, provides that “intellectual works of a creative character in literature, music, visual arts, architecture, theatre, and cinematography, no matter what the mode or mode of expression, are given protection under this legislation.” Once again, this provision doesn’t include any mention of the need for human involvement in order to provide protection.
Thus, India’s copyright legislations are evolving, and it is a critical moment to act. The absence of specific provisions on AI is leading to legal uncertainty, which is discouraging innovation. As India’s copyright law continues to change, this is an opportune time to tackle these challenges. A global outlook can inform the legislative reforms that are needed. Hence, we require Human and AI collaboration.
Way Forward
The application of AI has increased immensely with time, and creators currently depend on it to create content. They no longer require professionals for activities such as creating a simple 30-second video. AI tools may create music that is just adequate. For instance, this could include background music for a minor scene in a movie or generic tunes in a restaurant that set the mood. Secondly, it has now become easier to work as musicians when one is unable to afford studios with high rentals. For e.g. the integration of AI into digital audio workstations (DAWs) is essential, as it significantly saves time for music producers and also incorporating AI serves as a practical solution to streamline music production. For example: Apple’s LogicPro, has recently integrated AI in mastering the musical work to get a decent audio output for uploading regular content on social media and other platforms. Additionally, Waves Autonomous EQ is an AI-powered plugin commonly used in music production. Therefore, it’s one of the most significant steps toward integrating AI further into the music business.
Third, greater transparency by AI developers is needed, especially concerning the content used to train models, how it is obtained, and what is outputted by these models. Transparency is critical for establishing trust. Creators should expect transparency regarding the works used to train AI models and should be treated fairly when their content is utilized. There must be strict licensing regulations. Additionally, creators and owners of copyrights must be able to claim reasonable compensation and negotiate licenses as needed.
Finally, the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence recommendation by UNESCO also underlines the importance of human rights, dignity, and equality in handling AI. By providing diverse and representative data for training, biases can be reduced. For instance, if an AI system is trained predominantly on music performed by male musicians, it would end up discriminating against female artists and reinforcing gender stereotypes.
Recently, some of the biggest music firms like Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group, and Sony Music Entertainment have come into talks regarding licensing their material to AI startups like Udio and Suno (Forbes, 2025). But one concern is still undecided on how these AI firms will fairly compensate the recording artists whose work they are utilizing.[4]
As Javed Akhtar rightly points out, the welfare of the artists is essential for the music industry to thrive. Artists should be reasonably paid for their work and given their due share of the benefits. It is therefore crucial that AI boosts, not diminishes, human creativity and the creative industries.
References
- 2025 World IP Day: Feel the beat of IP – IIPA. (2025, April 24). IIPA. https://www.iipa.org/blog/2025-world-ip-day-feel-the-beat-of-ip,
- Soundful. (n.d.). How-To: Creating Music with AI Music Generators. https://soundful.com/en-us/how-to-guide-creating-music-with-ai-music-generators
- Co, N. N. &. (n.d.). Authorship Vs Ownership Of Work Under The Copyright Act; What Is The Difference? https://naiknaik.com/2025/02/19/authorship-vs-ownership-of-work-under-the-copyright-act-what-is-the-difference/
- Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1
- Gupta, K. (2024, November 1). Intellectual Property Rights and the Future of U.S.
- Technological Leadership. https://www.csis.org/analysis/intellectual-property-rights-and-future-us-technological-leadership
- CPI. (2025, March 19). US Appeals Court upholds ruling denying copyright for AI-Generated Art. https://www.pymnts.com/cpi-posts/us-appeals-court-upholds-ruling-denying-copyright-for-ai-generated-art
- Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. 2025)
- Masood, A., PhD. (2025, April 4). Intellectual Property Rights and AI-Generated Content — issues in human authorship, fair use doctrine, and output liability. https://medium.com/%40adnanmasood/intellectual-property-rights-and-ai-generated-content-issues-in-human-authorship-fair-use-8c7ec9d6fdc3
- Online, E. (2024, January 30). AR Rahman recreates voices of late singers Shahul Hameed, Bamba Bakya in “Lal Salaam.” The Economic Times. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/ar-rahman-recreates-voices-of-late- singers-shahul-hameed-bamba-bakya-in-lal salaam/articleshow/107252470.cms?from=mdr
- The IP Press. (2024, September 5).Voice theft in the digital Age: Bombay High Court’s landmark ruling on AI and personality rights. https://www.theippress.com/2024/09/05/voice-theft-in-the-digital-age-bombay-high-courts-landmark-ruling-on-ai-and-personality-rights/
- SCC Times. (2024, August 7). Bombay HC grants ad-interim injunction in favour of Arijit Singh to protect his personality rights. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/08/02/bomhc-grants-ad-interim-injunction-to-arijit-singh-to-protect-his-personality-rights/
- Gaffar, H., & Albarashdi, S. (2024). Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Works: Exploring Originality and Ownership in a Digital landscape. Asian Journal of International Law, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2044251323000735
- U.S. Copyright Office. (2025). Copyright and Artificial intelligence: Part 2 – Copyrightability.https://copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf
- Phelan, R. N. (2024, August 28). U.S. Copyright Law on Artificial intelligence | PatentNext. PatentNext. https://www.patentnext.com/2023/09/how-u-s-copyright-law-on-artificial-intelligence-ai-authorship-has-gone-the-way-of-the-monk
- Forbes. (2025, June 6). What Suno and Udio’s AI licensing deals with music majors could mean for creators rights. https://www.forbes.com/sites/virginieberger/2025/06/06/what-suno-and-udios-ai-licensing-deals-with-music-majors-could-mean-for-creators-rights/
Authored by: Ms. Sanskruti Tiwari, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
Leave a Reply