Who owns AI-created music?

Who owns AI-created music? Here’s what musicians need to know about current copyright law and controversies

Artificial intelligence is no longer a futuristic concept for the music industry – we already see it composing original tracks, mimicking famous artists, and even mastering recordings. While AI can open up creative possibilities, it also raises complex legal and ethical questions. For musicians, understanding how copyright law applies to AI-generated music is essential to protecting their work. Here’s a quick guide on navigating copyright and authorship in the age of AI music.

UK legal framework for AI-generated music and copyright

The UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 treats AI-generated works differently from those created by humans. If a track is produced entirely by AI without human authorship, the copyright belongs to the ‘person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken’. This could end up being the software developer, the person commissioning the work, or even the studio operating the AI. Also, copyright law relies on originality – but what is ‘originality’ when there is no human directly composing the work? Questions over whether AI outputs meet the originality threshold have sparked debates among legal experts, with musicians concerned about how their contributions might be diminished or overlooked.

Controversies around AI training on copyrighted music

In an attempt to balance innovation with artists rights, the UK Government has looked into proposals to allow AI developers to train algorithms on copyrighted works without prior permission, as long as creators are given the option to opt out. But the process of opting out can be complex and burdensome – especially when the copyrighted work is already widely available online. No wonder many musicians fear losing control over their music – their work could be used to train AI systems that eventually compete with them and they won’t get fair compensation.

Ethical implications: Authorship and creative control

Beyond legal frameworks, AI in music forces musicians to confront ethical questions. If an AI can replicate the style of a particular artist, should the output be credited to the AI, the developer, or the artist whose style was imitated? Some musicians see this as ‘legalised music theft’ and argue that without proper safeguards, AI will undermine the value of human creativity. Then there’s the issue of fair reward – if AI-generated music dominates streaming platforms (like the AI-generated band that recently got a million plays on Spotify), how can human musicians compete for royalties? Protecting creative labour while encouraging innovation will prove to be a delicate balancing act.

Trends and debates in UK AI and copyright policy

In recent years, government consultations have sought input from the music industry on potential reforms to copyright law. Proposals to make UK law more ‘AI-friendly’ have been met with mixed reactions: tech firms welcome the flexibility, while musicians fear the erosion of their rights. The industry is calling for clearer regulations that both enable AI research and protect creators – the outcome will shape how UK musicians create, protect, and profit from their work in the decades ahead.

Rehearse, promote, and stay on top of copyright

The reality is that AI in music is here to stay and will continue to expand rapidly. If you’re a musician, this brings both risk and opportunity. To protect yourself and to maximise the benefits, staying informed about changes in copyright and authorship laws while working on your passion will stand you in good stead. 

END