AI, Music & Copyright: What’s the Story?
When it comes to the endless images, text and music that is being created by the many generative AI tools that are out there, what does it all mean for copyright? There are SO many facets to this question, including what about copyright protection for the works that the AI algorithms were trained on, is AI-generated content copyrightable? If not, how much human input should be required to make it eligible for copyright protection? If you create a new piece of music with the assistance of AI, who gets the copyright - you? The software company that created the AI tool? The artist(s) that the AI tool used to train itself? Recently, the US Copyright Office has issued some guidance on this topic - as they are feverishly trying to draw up new copyright legislation that will address these questions as well as many more that will come up as generative AI improves and evolves.
For the sake of clarity, AI-generated music refers to compositions created using AI algorithms that can analyze existing music and generate new compositions that mimic certain styles or genres. These AI music tools are capable of producing music that ranges from jazz to classical to pop without direct human input beyond the initial programming. With tools such as Udio, Suno and the soon to be released music tool from Eleven Labs, the music bring created is often not only technically impressive, but it can even be complex and emotive, challenging our traditional notions of creativity.
However, the rise of AI in music creation brings forward significant copyright issues that need to be addressed. Copyright law in most jurisdictions is designed to protect human creators, but AI complicates this framework. Typically, for a work to be copyrightable, it must originate from a human author — this requirement is known as the "authorship requirement." AI-generated works challenge this notion, as they are created by algorithms and not individuals, leading to a complex legal grey area.
First there is the question of who — if anyone — owns the copyright to music created by AI? Some argue that the programmers or the owners of the AI should hold the copyright, as they created and maintained the tools that produced the music. Others suggest that because AI draws on other copyrighted works these works might not qualify for copyright protection at all - and might possibly even infringe on other copyright, leading to potential for lawsuits as well as widespread use without the typical restrictions copyright imposes.
Because AI can create music that mirrors the style of existing copyrighted works too closely there will likely be legal disputes over whether AI compositions are truly original or if they are derivative works, thereby infringing on existing copyrights. For instance, if an AI were programmed to produce music in the style of a famous artist, could this be considered a violation of the original artist's rights, especially if the AI's output is indistinguishable from that of the human artist?
The answers to these questions are still forming, as legal systems worldwide begin to grapple with these issues. Some countries like the UK have started to discuss amendments to copyright laws to include the concept of "computer-generated works," which assigns rights to the person who made the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work. However, there's still much debate and no international consensus, making this a challenging issue for artists, producers, and legal experts.
As of June 11, 2024, the U.S. Copyright Office does not extend copyright protection to music or any other works solely generated by artificial intelligence. According to USCO guidelines from March 2023, works must be created by human beings to qualify for copyright because humans retain the necessary creative control over the generation of content by AI systems. However, if a piece of music involves significant human creativity in addition to AI’s contributions, it may qualify for copyright protection. For instance, when registering such a work, it's important to mention any AI-generated elements clearly in your submission. Moreover, neither AI technologies nor the companies that develop these tools should be credited as authors or co-authors in your registration. This distinction underscores the importance of human artistic input in the creation of copyrighted works. The U.S. Copyright Office has issued guidance that lays out some of the requirements for human authorship to be granted copyright protection and provides information to creators working with AI tools on how to effectively and correctly register their works.
For music educators and students, these developments are particularly significant and offer a rich ground for discussions about the future of music, creativity, and law with students. In my experience, they have LOTS of thoughts on this topic. As we continue to explore the possibilities of AI in music, the need for a robust and clear guidance on copyright is becoming more and more necessary. Whatever new legislation the US Copyright Office comes up with, it should not only protect the rights of human artists but also address the complexities introduced by AI, ensuring that the musicians, educators, creators and artists understand the implications and rules on what is and isn’t protected by copyright.
Here are some great articles on AI, music and copyright if you’re interested in further reading:
AI-Created Art Isn’t Copyrightable, Judge Says in Ruling That Could Give Hollywood Studios Pause - The Hollywood Reporter, August 2023
AI created a song mimicking the work of Drake and The Weeknd. What does that mean for copyright law? - Harvard Law Today, May 2023
European Union Passes ‘World First’ AI Legislation That Would Safeguard Copyrighted Music, Billboard Magazine, March 2024
AI Can Write the Lyrics, But Who Owns the Music Is Up for Debate, Bloomberg Law, April 2024