Artificial intelligence tools can now compose, produce, and master complete musical tracks in a matter of seconds. As these AI-generated music files flood streaming platforms, a complex legal question emerges: who holds the rights to these compositions? Research from Bangor University in the UK provides a critical examination of this modern dilemma, drawing on historical precedents to explain how copyright law adapts to disruptive technology.
The Legal Definition of Originality in Intellectual Property
Current intellectual property frameworks are fundamentally built around the concept of human creativity. In legal terms, this is recognized as “originality.” The underlying principle dictates that because humans invest time, skill, and effort into creating cultural works, the law must protect those investments from unauthorized use or reproduction.
Artificial intelligence directly challenges this basic assumption. When a machine generates a song based on algorithms and training data rather than direct human composition, it blurs the line of what constitutes a protectable work. Most global legal systems continue to insist that a human creator is mandatory for copyright to exist.
In the United States, the 2023 federal case Thaler v Perlmutter firmly established that copyright requires a human author. Similarly, the Court of Justice of the European Union defines originality as reflecting the author’s “own intellectual creation,” an inherently human standard. While these rulings appear to settle the issue for now, history demonstrates that copyright law rarely remains static in the face of new technology.
Schedule a free consultation to learn more about how intellectual property laws may impact your creative projects.
Historical Parallels: The Phonograph and Copyright Evolution
To understand where AI-generated music may be heading, legal scholars at Bangor University point to the late 19th century and the invention of the phonograph by Thomas Edison in 1877. Before this technology, music was consumed exclusively through live performance or sheet music. The phonograph allowed performances to be captured, duplicated, and distributed mechanically.
Early Sound Recordings as Mechanical Reproductions
Despite their eventual dominance in the music industry, early sound recordings were not viewed as creative works. Courts and legislators classified them as mere mechanical reproductions—devices that copied live music rather than creating anything new. Under the strict, traditional theories of copyright originality, these recordings failed to qualify for protection.
Because they lacked perceived human originality, sound recordings were explicitly denied copyright protection for decades. It took 34 years after the invention of the phonograph for English and Welsh law to formally recognize them under the Copyright Act 1911. The United States did not grant federal protection to sound recordings until the Sound Recording Amendment of 1971. France waited even longer, enacting protection only in 1985.
Economic Pressure Drives Legal Change
The eventual shift in the law was not driven by a sudden philosophical change regarding what constitutes art. Instead, it was driven by economics. As the recording industry grew into a massive commercial enterprise, lawmakers realized that failing to protect these assets hindered market growth. Copyright law gradually abandoned the view that recordings were purely technical reproductions and integrated them into the intellectual property system through neighbouring rights.
This historical pattern is highly relevant to current debates surrounding AI-generated music. Just as early recordings were initially dismissed for lacking traditional originality, AI outputs are currently being rejected on similar grounds. However, if AI-generated works become sufficiently valuable to the broader economy, the law may once again adapt to accommodate commercial realities.
How the UK Addresses AI-Generated Works
While the US and EU require a direct human author, the UK operates under a unique legal framework that already anticipates the existence of non-human creation. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA) 1988 includes a specific provision for computer-generated works.
Under Section 9(3) of the CDPA, for literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works generated by a computer, “the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.” Although this legislation was drafted long before the advent of modern generative AI, it provides a legal mechanism for assigning ownership of AI-generated music.
In practice, this means the individual who designs the algorithms, selects the training data, or writes the specific prompts that result in a musical track could be deemed the author under UK law. The UK government’s recent consultations on copyright and artificial intelligence further highlight this balancing act. Policymakers are actively exploring how to protect traditional creators from having their work used to train AI models, while simultaneously ensuring that UK intellectual property law fosters innovation, investment, and economic competitiveness in the AI sector.
Explore our related articles for further reading on the intersection of technology and legal frameworks.
The Future of Intellectual Property in an AI Era
Copyright law has historically evolved in phases: first protecting written sheet music, later accommodating sound recordings, and now confronting AI-generated music. Each phase has tested the boundaries of what intellectual property encompasses.
If the historical pattern holds, the central debate will eventually shift. The question may move from “should AI-generated music receive protection?” to “can copyright still accurately be described as intellectual property if human intellect is no longer a requirement?” In a scenario where protection is granted based entirely on economic utility and computational arrangement, intellectual property risks becoming simply property—detached from the human creativity that originally justified its existence.
Experts caution that this outcome is not guaranteed. Copyright’s connection to human creativity can be maintained, but only through active legal and legislative defense rather than relying on historical precedent.
Actionable Advice for Musicians and Creators Navigating AI
As copyright law continues to evolve, musicians, producers, and content creators must take proactive steps to protect their work and understand their rights regarding AI tools.
Document Your Creative Process
Establish clear evidence of human authorship for your original works. Keep detailed records of your songwriting sessions, including early drafts, voice memos, and project files. If you use AI as a collaborative tool, document exactly what the AI generated versus what you manually composed, arranged, or edited. This paper trail is vital if you ever need to prove the human intellectual creation underlying a track.
Understand the Terms of Service for AI Platforms
Read the terms of service for any generative AI music tool you use. Many platforms claim extensive licensing rights—or even full ownership—over the outputs generated by their systems. If you intend to commercially release AI-generated music, you must know whether the platform permits commercial use and whether you are legally allowed to claim authorship or royalties.
Monitor Policy Developments in the UK and Internationally
Intellectual property law regarding AI is in a state of flux. The UK government is actively consulting on how to structure the relationship between AI developers and rights holders. Follow updates from intellectual property offices and legal institutions, such as Bangor University, to stay informed about regulatory changes that could affect how you license, distribute, or monetize your music.
Have questions about how these legal changes affect your specific situation? Write to us!
Conclusion
The question of who owns an AI-generated song does not have a single, universal answer. Current legal frameworks in the US and EU firmly require human authorship, while UK law provides a distinct exception that assigns authorship to the person making the necessary arrangements. However, as Bangor University research highlights by examining the history of the phonograph, copyright law is highly susceptible to shifting economic and technological pressures. Creators and legal professionals must remain vigilant, actively participating in the ongoing dialogue to ensure that intellectual property law continues to serve its foundational purpose: protecting human creativity.
Share your experiences in the comments below.
