US Copyright Office Issues Second Report on AI
The U.S. Copyright Office just released the second part of its Report on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, and it has some big takeaways for musicians and composers working with AI. The main takeaway? Copyright still belongs to humans, not machines. While AI can be a very helpful (and often scary) tool in the creative process, it can’t replace human originality when it comes to copyright protection. If a piece of music is entirely AI-generated with no real human input, it won’t qualify for copyright. But if a composer uses AI as part of their creative process—shaping, editing, or adding their own original touch—that human contribution can be protected. This is an important report that should help guide students in understanding where the legal lines are drawn. AI can be a great tool for inspiration or assistance, but students need to make sure they’re actively involved in shaping the final product. Encouraging them to think critically about their creative choices, rather than just relying on AI to generate ideas, will not only help them understand what is an original work and what isn’t, but also help them grow as musicians.
One particularly interesting point in the report is the role of AI prompts. Simply typing in a detailed prompt and letting AI generate a song doesn’t count as “authorship” under copyright law (sorry Udio and Suno users). The Copyright Office argues that current AI technology doesn’t give users enough control over the output for it to be considered their original work. So, if a composer wants to be able to copyright a piece, they need to go beyond just feeding prompts into an AI model—they need to make significant creative decisions themselves.
This report isn’t the final word on AI and copyright, though. A third part of the study is coming soon, which will focus on how AI models are trained using copyrighted material. This could have major implications for musicians, especially when it comes to licensing and fair use. With AI-generated music becoming more common, these legal discussions will likely evolve over time, and staying informed is crucial.
The biggest takeaway from all of this? AI is a powerful tool, but it’s not a replacement for human creativity. For composers, educators, and students, the challenge is to find ways to use AI that enhance their artistic vision rather than replace it.
The Five Many Takeaways:
Human Input is Essential – AI can assist in music creation, but for copyright protection, a composer must make significant creative contributions.
AI-Only Music Has No Copyright – If a piece is 100% AI-generated, it can’t be copyrighted, which could impact how musicians use AI-generated elements in their work.
Prompts Don’t Count as Authorship – Simply giving an AI model instructions to generate a song doesn’t mean the user owns the rights to the output.
Editing AI-Generated Music Matters – If a composer edits, arranges, or integrates AI-generated material into an original composition, the human-created aspects can still be protected.
Future Legal Changes Are Coming – With ongoing discussions about AI training on copyrighted works, new regulations could affect how musicians interact with AI in the long run.
For now, the best approach is to think of AI as a creative assistant rather than a composer. Using it as a tool to enhance human creativity—not replace it—will help musicians stay both legally protected and artistically fulfilled.
