As artificial intelligence becomes more deeply embedded in music creation, copyright has emerged as one of the industry’s most pressing and contentious issues. A central question dominates the debate: who owns music created by AI? Under existing laws, copyright protection is reserved for works produced with human authorship, leaving purely machine-generated compositions in a legal gray zone.

Some experts have proposed hybrid copyright models—frameworks that could recognize both the AI system involved in the creative process and the human contributors who guide or curate its output. However, such approaches are still conceptual, with no major jurisdiction adopting them so far.

United States: Strict Human Authorship Required

In the United States, courts and the U.S. Copyright Office continue to apply traditional copyright principles. The Office has repeatedly stated that it will not register works lacking human creative input, emphasizing that works produced exclusively by automated processes do not meet the legal definition of authorship. In February 2022, the Copyright Review Board reinforced this stance when it rejected an application to copyright an AI-generated artwork, citing insufficient human involvement.

Another escalating concern is the use of copyrighted songs to train AI models. One notable conflict arose when SACEM—an organization representing songwriters and composers—ordered the AI startup PozaLabs to stop using its members’ music for training without permission. Similar disputes have surfaced across the tech world as artists demand greater transparency and compensation.

Europe: Emphasis on Human Creativity

The European Union maintains a similar position. EU law requires creative works to reflect “the author’s own intellectual creation,” meaning a distinct level of human input must be evident. The EU Intellectual Property Office and the Court of Justice of the European Union have both reinforced this human-centered standard.

However, Europe has also seen groundbreaking developments. The recognition of AIVA—an AI music composer capable of releasing tracks and earning royalties—signals a major shift in how authorship and music rights may evolve in the future. AIVA’s acceptance represents one of the first formal integrations of AI into the realm of rights-bearing music creators.

The EU-funded reCreating Europe project is actively exploring how to strike a balance between innovation and copyright protection, offering potential pathways for a future legal system that considers both human and AI contributions.

Global Tensions Rise as Lawsuits Mount

Recent advancements in AI technologies from companies such as Stability AI, OpenAI, and Google have triggered a massive wave of copyright lawsuits. Plaintiffs argue that using copyrighted content to train AI models constitutes infringement. If these lawsuits succeed, future AI systems may be limited to datasets consisting only of public-domain material—dramatically altering the capabilities of generative music models.

At the same time, efforts to develop ethical standards are expanding. A collaboration between Sound Ethics and the University of California, Irvine aims to establish responsible AI practices for the music industry, focusing on fairness, transparency, and respect for creative rights.

As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the music world stands at a crossroads—balancing innovation with creators’ rights, and shaping new definitions of authorship in an age where machines can compose, perform, and publish music.