Copyright & AI: US Copyright Office Releases Initial Findings
The U.S. Copyright Office recently released a report yesterday that directly addresses the intersection of AI and copyright law - something that up until now has been very confusing. As music educators, I believe that it is REALLY important to understand the what, why and how of copyright law when it comes to the end products that AI tools like Udio, Suno, ChatGPT, Claude, Moises and more. Who owns what? Do your students own the copyright on anything they create with these tools? What if the tool is free? What if you paid for it? If they don’t own the copyright - who does? Are the creators that made the content that these tools have been trained on entitled to any compensation? If not, why? I really think that as AI continues to weave its way into the fabric of music creation and learning, understanding the legal landscape is becoming more and more important.
First, let’s acknowledge that AI is no longer a futuristic concept—it's here, and it’s making waves in the music industry, and perhaps more importantly, education. From AI-generated compositions to tools that help with everything from mixing to mastering, technology is transforming how we create and teach music. But as these tools become more advanced, they raise complex questions about ownership and copyright. Who owns a piece of music created by an AI? Can AI-generated works even be copyrighted?
The Copyright Office’s report doesn’t have all the answers, but it’s a significant step toward grappling with these questions. The report, which is the first in a series, explores the challenges that AI presents to existing copyright laws. It notes that the current legal framework was designed with human creators in mind, and as such, it doesn’t easily accommodate works created or heavily influenced by AI.
One of the main concerns is the concept of authorship. Copyright law has traditionally required a human author, but with AI’s involvement in the creative process, the lines become blurred. For example, if a composer uses an AI tool to generate part of a song, who is the rightful owner? Is it the person who operated the AI, the developer who created the AI software, or is there no owner at all? So, what does this mean for educators? If you’re integrating AI into your curriculum, it’s essential to be aware of these legal questions.
Part I of the U.S. Copyright Office's recent report looks at how existing legal frameworks currently address the use of “digital replicas” (I love this term), such as AI-generated music or performances. These replicas often don't fit neatly into traditional categories like intellectual property, privacy, consumer protection, unfair competition, and fraud.
At the moment, individual states are starting to implement their own legislation when it comes to AI. The report highlights the right to privacy and right to publicity, but many of these state laws are too narrowly defined to cover all possible uses of digital replicas. Some states, including Tennessee, Louisiana, and New York, have enacted or updated laws specifically targeting the use of digital replicas, but each has its own set of exemptions and limitations. The U.S. Copyright Office finds that existing federal laws, including the Copyright Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, among others, are insufficient to fully protect individuals from the potential harms associated with digital replicas. The report emphasizes the urgent need for new federal legislation to address these gaps.
Two congressional proposals currently aim to address the unauthorized use of digital replicas: the "No Artificial Intelligence Fake Replicas and Unauthorized Duplications (NO AI FRAUD) Act" and the "Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act." The Copyright Office also sees the need for a new federal right specifically designed to protect against the misuse of digital replicas, outlining nine key aspects that this right should cover:
Definition of a digital replica
Who is protected
Duration of protection
Prohibited acts
Secondary liability
Licenses and assignments
First Amendment considerations
Available remedies
Interaction with state laws
The Copyright Office suggests that this new right should protect individuals for their lifetime from the unauthorized distribution of digital replicas. This right would be licensable but not assignable, meaning it could be controlled by the individual but not transferred to another entity. The proposed right would also include safeguards for online service providers and explicit accommodations for First Amendment concerns, while fully preempting conflicting state laws.
Lastly, the report touches on the broader impact of AI on the market for human-created works. While some worry that AI could undermine the value of original creations, the Copyright Office does not recommend extending special protections to "style" as a protected subject matter, suggesting that existing protections are adequate.
For music educators, understanding these developments is crucial as AI becomes a more prevalent tool in the creation and teaching of music. Staying informed about these legal changes will help you guide your students through the complexities of authorship and ownership in the digital age. Make no mistake, this is an exciting time in the world of music technology. AI offers new possibilities for teaching and creating music, but it also challenges us to think differently about authorship and ownership. As the legal landscape continues to develop, staying engaged with these issues will be crucial for anyone involved in music education.
If you’re curious to dive deeper into the details, you can check out the full report from the U.S. Copyright Office here.